New Cities/New Soviets

February 24, 2005

Labor Camp

In his writing about the architecture of collective living, Karel Tiege has one enemy he places above all others: barracks housing. All other invectives, mostly directed against the traditions of bourgeois ornamentation and fantasies of "gracious living," are informed by the need to eliminate distractions in the all-out struggle with this enemy -- the architecture of the labor camp -- a form which he stresses is incompatable with socialist development.


This all came back to mind when I was describing the lot of many pushcart vendors to a friend. This kind of life, maximally deprived of social contact, is not even liveable as a permanent or isolated situation for many people.

Then we are confronted by the reality of the economy of New York City (or any other large city), where the lowest tier of labor is exactly this population, who survive by holding their breaths, working 8-10 months at a stint apart from their families, sending home small amounts of remittance money which, thanks to the unequal exchange rates, can offer substantial support to family members in their home countries.

What is the answer for these populations? Do complicated immagrant histories make them impossible to organize?

Clearly housing, which has become a huge proportion of the cost of living, is a big issue. Is this an effective way to forge connections in urban politics?

Posted by Sam at February 24, 2005 08:01 AM

imz can be orged
of cpurse they can
easier then locals
but over the decades
the whitehouse of labor
has wanted em gone
not orged

Posted by: herb at February 24, 2005 03:38 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?