WASHINGTON, D.C., July 10 — Over 100 workers occupied a vacant parcel of government-owned land and erected a tent city, demanding that the government keep its promise to build affordable housing there and throughout the city instead of catering to the needs of the rich. This action was led by a community-based organization Organizing Neighborhood Equity (ONE DC) and included members and friends of PLP who understand that the demands will not be met without a revolution.
Capitalism is a racist system, with the riches of the bosses coming from increasing the poverty of the workers. This is clear in the housing conditions faced by the world’s working class. In the U.S., millions are ill-housed and hundreds of thousands are actually homeless, including many workers whose jobs pay so little that they can’t afford housing at all!
The History of Parcel 42
As in every arena of exploitation, the working class fights back and resists its dehumanization by the bosses. The battle against gentrification and for decent affordable housing shows this resistance, both overt and subterranean.
For 15 years, D.C. has seen the steady erosion of affordable housing and the encroachment of high-priced condominiums in many historically black working-class neighborhoods. The city has housing waiting lists for 26,000 households and 700 people living with AIDS. Rich developers working with their politicians have created this racist, anti-working class process. The previous mayor, Anthony Williams, declared that he wanted to bring in 100,000 new residents to the District, with the clear message that these would be well-to-do professionals who would increase the tax base.
Meanwhile affordable housing eroded and was replaced by housing for the rich. This was nowhere as evident as in the Shaw and U Street neighborhoods, where hundreds of condos costing $400,000-$800,000 each have been erected overlooking the historic U Street’s “Black Broadway,” the center of black entertainment during the period of Jim Crow and racial segregation. The current mayor, Adrian Fenty, intensified this gentrification process while paying lip service to expanding affordable housing. He occasionally endorsed “community benefits agreements” that require developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units in new residential construction to gain city support.
One example was the mayor’s negotiation with ONE DC over Parcel 42, a now-vacant piece of land that previously housed a city-run community health clinic. ONE DC argued that residential development on that parcel should include affordable housing, with some rents or mortgages low enough so that very low-income households (earning less than $25,000 annually) could live there. Then the Mayor changed his mind. All units would be priced for people making about $50,000, with no provision for the housing needs of lower-income workers.
Workers Seize the Parcel
So ONE DC and its allies decided that direct action was needed to mobilize opposition to what they saw as a betrayal by the Mayor. At the end of its annual block party, ONE DC led workers to Parcel 42, surrounded it and then seized it! This was a bold act of working-class resistance to the deepening crisis of capitalism. At the seizure rally, several local residents declared that they had lost their homes due to rent increases and job loss and could no longer live in the community they grew up in.
ONE DC established a tent city on the site in a matter of minutes and placed large signs on the fence around it, declaring that the parcel now belonged to the community and that affordable housing was needed throughout the city. Police threatened to tear down the tents and arrest the “trespassers,” but ultimately backed down due to the politically sensitive nature of such an action in the run-up to the election.
Management illegally threatened nearby low-income residents in subsidized housing with eviction if they joined the occupation. But as we go to press, the occupation continues and the bold signs remain in place.
Where will this struggle go from here? Some activists are calling for more seizures of city land and establishing sustainable “intentional communities.” Others are calling for putting more pressure on the local politicians to support affordable housing. PLP’ers argue that, while bold actions are good, we should have no illusions about the lying politicians of all stripes or about the limits of this direct action struggle. The bosses will order the police to smash this effort if they feel threatened, so we must use this experience to become steeled for the long haul of communist revolution. As Engels noted in 1872 (see box), the housing crisis of the working class can only be solved by workers smashing the state, seizing the leadership of society and re-organizing it to meet workers’ needs.
PLP’s work in the housing struggles was on display with several members and friends participating in the block party and the rally. These students have been active in the struggle for housing for patients with HIV/AIDS and several have been involved in PLP study groups. The next step is for friends of the PLP in the housing struggle to become anti-racist, communist members of the PLP to strengthen the long-range ability of the working class to seize power through revolution. J
‘Every City Has One or More Slums...’
In 1844, Friedrich Engels, the co-author of the Communist Manifesto, wrote of the despicable housing conditions that early capitalism foisted on the young proletariat: “Every great city has one or more slums, where the working class is crowded together. True, poverty often dwells in hidden alleys close to the palaces of the rich; but, in general, a separate territory has been assigned to it, where, removed from the sight of the happier classes, it may struggle along as it can (The Condition of the English Working Class in 1844.)
In 1872, in a debate with German socialists who believed that capitalism could be reformed to improve housing, Engels forcefully argued that, “[Only by] the abolition of the capitalist mode of production is the solution of the housing question made possible.” (The Housing Question). The same analysis applies today!
