Just Finished Reading: Rebel Cities – From The Right to the City to the Urban Revolution by David Harvey (FP: 2012)
Marx, it would seem, was wrong about one thing. The future proletarian revolution would not start in the factories and would not be led by the vanguard of the working class. Instead the revolution would happen in the cities and would be led by politically educated urbanites who had witnessed to depredations of capitalism at first hand on the streets and in the public spaces of their capital. At least that is the theory portrayed in this sharply argued and rather intense little book (only 164 pages long).
Drawing on examples from across the globe over the past 150 years (or so) and referencing events such as the Paris Commune of 1871, the Anarchist collectives in the Spanish Civil War and the recent Occupy Movement the author sees that suitably motivated people with little connection to the traditional Marxist drivers of revolutionary activity can still move things in that direction. Often dismissed as irrelevant or, at best, subsidiary to such political earthquakes the author argues that, with urbanisation becoming the dominant force in the world, city residents are in a unique position to drive revolutionary politics forward and challenge Capitalism on its home turf. It is no coincidence, the author maintains, that acts of rebellion and resistance often centre on the Commons in cities such as Beijing, New York and Cairo. These public spaces are literally ‘occupied’ by citizens using the practical opens spaces provided for them and by doing so stake a very public claim to be heard by those in power. It is hardly surprising that the authorities react strongly to such events doing everything in their power to restrict access to and finally to clear such areas before acts of rebellion can get off the ground enough to threaten the existing power structure.
It is in cities that the future battles, both metaphorical and literal, between the forces and Capital and anti-Capital in all its diverse forms will take place. Single issue organisations already exist in cities across the globe. With the increasing connectivity between places previously isolated from world events it is now possible for even the smallest and poorest groups to reach out to others with similar issues and widely different solutions or proposals. Protests can be organised on local, regional and international levels in response to very local problems. Lessons can be learned, new techniques tried out, support can be gained and, at least occasionally, successes can be celebrated. With centuries of urban protests to draw on the future of urban revolt looks to be very interesting indeed.
Despite struggling with some of the political theory at times I find this book to be rather interesting. The authors focus on the city as the future of revolutionary politics was an intriguing one. I remain to be convinced that such a revolution is possible even at a local level but I do see the possibilities as outlined in this slim volume. As always the author has given me much to think about and a few avenues of study to follow up. As a city-born myself I can see their attraction in many ways. It’s beyond argument that the future belongs to them (unless the whole edifice collapses that is) so keeping a weather eye on their political development seems more than prudent. One more city related book to come then a technology triple read. After that I’m back to politics I’m afraid. I think it’s going to be that kind of year!
4 comments:
that's why the government wants control over the internet, i guess: so they can squelch planned gatherings in the bud... without it, it would be pretty hard to get any kind of mass movement going... unless it was spontaneous, like when the public tried to burn down London in the 1850's(?) as described in Barnaby Rudge...
This does sound interesting. Without a doubt, mass movements, protests and revolutions have always organized in cities.
Over the past year and a half, now that we must contend with Trump, have participated in many multiple demonstrations myself so this is something that I can relate to.
Not to sound overly cynical, but yes -- cities are the nucleus of mob rule, regardless of the ideology of the mob. (How did the Nazis start? Marches through the streets, and a putsch that began in a bar...) That is why, as fascinating and wonderful as I find them, I wouldn't want to live in one.
Also, cities are managed environments where people often depend on centralized systems (pipes, power, etc), so there's an easy tendency to central control.
@ Mudpuddle: Essentially I think that governments of all flavours want as much control as they can have over as much as they can. It makes them sleep much more soundly in their beds. Controlling the Internet is a governments wet dream - and is pretty much a fantasy.Some governments have managed to shut it down locally but, in the end, it finds a way around.
@ Brian: It's interesting to watch mass protests form around the world. On the face of it they don't seem to generally achieve much but I suppose, if nothing else, they are useful training grounds to politicise people.
@ Stephen: Oh, you're hardly cynical at all [grin]. But democracy, in its crudest sense, is little more than mob rule. It's why the Ancients were so disparaging of it! Cities are OK. The worst thing about them is the expense - of living there more than anything else. Take that out of the equation and they are often the best places to be - depending on your choice of city of course. I was born not far from a city centre, lived there for 10 years, worked in London for 6 years and did 2 degrees in another city not far from here. I like them.
Cities of any size are complex creatures and have to be centrally controlled (or at least managed). This is not, in my ind, a bad thing at all....
Post a Comment