I am totally impressed by this critical analysis of the “Plan to Expand the Production of Surplus Value and Satisfy the Demand for Exploitable Bodies” (see previous post). Planning documents are produced as Gospel and usually they are taken as such. Muindi has made a great effort to tear the Plan apart and show us what’s really intended. Bravo!
An objective which we could achieve collectively over the next six months to a year, as the development of the Plan becomes clearer, is a redux of this critical analysis in the plainest language possible, for the comprehension of the 99%. What we could aim for is a 2-sided tract linked to a web site with full information. It’s too early to do it now, ’cause the whole thing is not yet off the ground and there is no way to seperate fact from fiction. But if we can debunk it during its earliest phases of implementation, then we would be doing the city’s inhabitants a real favor.
It seems crucial to me – and not stressed enough here – that the Plan grows out of desperation with the Federal government, and in fact envisages a whole new kind of metropolitan corporate state. This is clear from the Brookings Institute papers on the Metropolitan Strategy, which are discussed on this website under the category “Plans.” It is undoubtedly true that these planners recognize the new centrality of the metropolitan scale in the transnational economic competition, as Saskia Sassen describes it. But what is really forcing the Chicago elites into action is their perception that Federal infrastructural, educational and urbanistic programs, pioneered by FDR and brought to their height under the Kennedy/Johnson administrations, are now definitively stalled. They see Washington as dysfunctional (and who could disagree?). Politically, we need to understand that this is a Democratic plan, it is made to be sold to a specific constituency. Could it be a Democratic response to what is being done in Houston and other Sun-belt cities? What kinds of metropolitan planning recipes are being offered by, say, the Heritage Foundation? Probably such comparisons would cast light on the specific differences of Chicago.
Another thing I like about this analysis is that it declares the former phase of “mega-gentrification” to be over. Effectively, the Metropolis 2020 Plan oversaw the transformation of the Loop and the construction of UIC with its world-class medical center, during the very period when the Merc rose to its position of global centrality in the derivatives markets. Pauline Lipman does a great job in describing the radical transformation of Downtown and North Coast neighborhoods during that period. Mega-gentrification defined the neoliberal era of the 80s and 90s, with a kind of apotheosis/crash in the 2000s. Mind you, it’s not exactly dead: the finance economy continues to dominate and a major concern of the Plan is how to revalorize “neighborhood assets,” aka real eatate. However, about a third of the corporations that appear on the board of World Business Chicago (like Boeing, Motorola Solutions, Excelon, Illinois Tool, Walgreen, Paragon Pharmaceuticals, United Continental) are actually industries that draw on the historic centrality of Chicago in geographic, demographic, organizational and distributional terms. For them, Chicago is still an inland port city, the transportation hub that links the Coasts to the Heartland. This gave it a huge political importance in the past, reflected in the Chicago school of sociology, in the Daley machine, and even in the current presidential administration. What Rahm wants to know is how – and on what economic basis – to remake this political machine and propel it again to the heights of national power? In that sense the issue is not just about the functionalities of capitalism, but also and simultaneously about how those functions are made into political rhetoric. I guess we have to deal with both those things. In other words, we have to deal with the state-capital nexus at the metropolitan level. It’s about where the money will come from, what it will be used for, and how its use will be made acceptable to the population.
An aspect of this critique that I would rethink is this one: “States discipline and qualify labor with welfare programs or by the use of force.” Yes, but not only. They also do it with incentives and even more, with institutional training. Incentives come in the form of tax breaks and bureaucratic streamlining, which can reach way down to the molecular level. You can see it in the way home ownership has been promoted, but also in an industry like trucking, where individuals are channeled/forced into the so-called “ownership” of their own rigs: not exactly discipline, but a pretty far cry from freedom and prosperity either. What I’ve called training – and others would call “ideology” or “governmentality” – is even more important than incentives. The prison system and the military schools are out there to exert discipline, for sure, but the charter schools and the revamped university system are there to inculcate an entrepreneurial spirit along with hi tech know-how. What Muindi calls “flexible metropolitan governance” could never work on the basis of discpline alone. The worst thing about it is that people are made to believe in it, to the point where they willingly carry it out. And then when we try to open up a debate, they yell: “Get a job!”
Against that note, I like the way this analysis ends by asking if the bid to redesign public education will run afoul of parents, teachers and students. Yeah, it might. And it just might run afoul of everyone with eyes to see, and with the expressive capacity to make their perceptions public.
all the best, Brian