Hey it's another post in this series! Instead of focusing on paranoid/reparative readings that seek to assume common goals between YIMBYs and the left, let's look at a more concrete and knowable difference. This was inspired by this article, which is short and sweet to the point that I think these two lines effectively summarize the whole thing:
"The root of the problem is that housing is treated as an instrument of profit, one in which the exchange value is prioritized over its use value. The sole solution is to decouple housing from profit and make it a human right."
This is a simple statements of normative values that you would think everyone could get behind. But of course, that is wrong. One specific strain of rebuttal, while annoying, at least served to be illustrative:
I'm not going to claim, like last time, that this perfectly represents YIMBY thought (though I do see a few familiar faces above). But it speaks to this specific disconnect that, when faced with a simple rights-based argument, so many people counter with a demand for specific policy. While I know that the author of the piece is more than capable of opining on policy-specific demands, the more important point is that not every utterance one makes needs to be tied to a concrete policy proposal. Polemics based on rights, values, and normative statements are perfectly valid and are necessary in their own right.
Once you start to look at the YIMBY question from this angle, it starts to tie to the larger picture much more easily. I've remarked on this same disconnect between specifics and the bigger picture recently with respect to abolition. This was, in my estimation, the biggest weakness in the most recent book I read, as the author undercut his seeming desire for fundamental rights with fealty to market solutions. The larger transition in American governance from rights-based frameworks to policy wonkery was well-documented in one of last year's hot new releases. And if you squint, you can even see a younger, more naïve Mike wrestle with this same problem and come to a similar, if less explicit diagnosis.
The simplest (and most likely) explanation for all of these threads and more is this: YIMBYs and their analogues are fundamentally committed to capitalism, and thus can only conceive of solutions to problems through the pathways that capitalism allows for (ie. the market). Whereas the left is committed to rights, to ideals, to people, and through much study and reflection has come to the conclusion that the only way to fully address the problems of capitalism is to transcend capitalism itself. Put another way, we did not choose socialism, it chose us. This is of course an oversimplification: I assume at least some YIMBYs are earnestly committed to the same rights as the left but have drawn a very different conclusion about how to secure them. And I know there are plenty on the left that are driven by more impetuous and self-righteous motives to oppose capital. But if you really dig in and try to determine the root assumptions and the fundamental commitments of your opponents, you'll often find that these very different animating principles explain most of the contradictions between you and others who are seemingly fighting for the same outcomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment