PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLEThis article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 3 September 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 784375604]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UKCityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713410570Cities for people, not for profitNeil Brenner; Peter Marcuse; Margit MayerOnline Publication Date: 01 June 2009To cite this Article Brenner, Neil, Marcuse, Peter and Mayer, Margit(2009)'Cities for people, not for profit',City,13:2,176 184To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13604810903020548URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810903020548Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThis article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.CITY, VOL. 13, NOS. 23, JUNESEPTEMBER 2009ISSN 1360-4813 print/ISSN 1470-3629 online/09/02-30176-09 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13604810903020548Cities for people, not for profitIntroductionNeil Brenner, Peter Marcuse and Margit MayerTaylor and Francis CCIT_A_402227.sgm 10.1080/13604810903020548 City: Analysis of Urban Trends 1360-4813 (print)/1470-3629 (online) Original Article 2009 Taylor & Francis 13 2-3 000000 June-September 2009 NeilBrenner neil.brenner@nyu.eduherapidlyunfoldingglobaleconomicrecessionisdramaticallyintensifyingthecontradictionsaroundwhichurbansocialmovementshavebeenrallying,suddenlyvalidatingtheir claims regarding the unsustainabilityanddestructivenessofneoliberalformsofurbanization.CitiesacrossEurope,fromLondon,Copenhagen,ParisandRometoAthens,Reykjavik,RigaandKiev,haveeruptedindemonstrations,strikesandprotests,oftenaccompaniedbyviolence.Youthfulactivistsarenotaloneintheiroutragethatpublicmoneyisbeingdoledout to the banks even as the destabilizationofeconomiclifeandtheintensificationofgeneralized social insecurity continues. TheEconomist Intelligence Unit (2009) recentlyoffered the following observation: A spate of incidents in recent months shows that the global economic downturn is already having political repercussions There is growing concern about a possible global pandemic of unrest Our central forecast includes a high risk of regime-threatening social unrest.Similarly,thenewUSdirectorofnationalintelligencehaspresentedtheglobaleconomiccrisisasthebiggestcontempo-rarysecuritythreat,outpacingterrorism(Schwartz,2009).Preparationstocontrolandcrushpotentialcivilunrestarewellunderway (cf. Freier, 2008).Inlightofthesetrends,itappearsincreasinglyurgenttounderstandhowdifferenttypesofcitiesacrosstheworldsystemarebeingrepositionedwithinincreasinglyvolatile,financializedcircuitsof capital accumulation. Equally importantisthequestionofhowthiscrisishasprovokedorconstrainedalternativevisionsofurbanlifethatpointbeyondcapitalismasastructuringprincipleofpoliticaleconomicandspatialorganiza-tion.Capitalistcitiesarenotonlysitesforstrategies of capital accumulation; they arealsoarenasinwhichtheconflictsandcontradictionsassociatedwithhistoricallyandgeographicallyspecificaccumulationstrategies are expressed and fought out. Assuch,capitalistcitieshavelongservedasspaces for envisioning, and indeed mobiliz-ingtowards,alternativestocapitalismitself, its associated process of profit-drivenurbanizationanditsrelentlesscommodifi-cationandre-commodificationofurbanspaces.ItisthisconstellationofissuesthatwewishtoemphasizewiththetitleofthisspecialissueofCITY,CitiesforPeople,Not for Profit. Through this formulation,wemeantounderscoretheurgentpoliti-calpriorityofconstructingcitiesthatcorrespondtohumansocialneedsratherthantothecapitalistimperativeofprofit-making.Thedemandforcitiesforpeople,notforprofithasbeenarticulatedrecur-rentlythroughoutmuchofthehistoryofcapitalism.Itwas,forinstance,expressedparadigmaticallybyEngels(1987[1845])asheanalyzedthemiserableconditionoftheEnglishworkingclassinthedilapi-datedhousingdistrictsof19th-centuryManchester.ItwasarticulatedinyetanotherformbywritersasdiverseasJaneJacobs(1962)andHenriLefebvre(1996[1968])astheypolemicizedagainstthehomogenizing,destructiveandanti-socialconsequencesofpostwarFordisturbanTDownloaded By: [New York University] At: 19:36 3 September 2009BRENNER ET AL.: CITIES FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR PROFIT 177renewalprojects.Ithasbeenexplicitlypoliticizedand,insomecases,partiallyinstitutionalizedbymunicipalsocialistmovementsindiversecontextsandconjuncturesduringthecourseofthe20thcentury(BoddyandFudge,1984;MacIntoshandWainwright,1987).Ofcourse,bothnegativeandpositivelessonscanalsobedrawnfromtheexperienceofcitiesunderreallyexistingsocialism,inwhichtop-down,centralizedstateplan-ningreplacedcommodificationasthestructuringprincipleofsociospatialorga-nization(seeFlierlandMarcuse,thisissue).Andfinally,thelimitsofprofit-basedformsofurbanismhavealsobeenemphasizedinthecontemporarygeoeco-nomiccontextbycriticsofneoliberalmodelsofurbandevelopment,withitshypercommodificationofurbanlandandotherbasicsocialamenities(housing,transportation,utilities,publicspace)incitiesaroundtheworld(see,forinstance,Harvey,1989;Smith,1996;BrennerandTheodore, 2003; Keil, this issue).MostofthecontributorstothisissueofCITY seek to extend reflection on this sameproblematic in the current moment, in whichtheworldwidefinancialcrisisof20082009continuestosendshock-wavesofinstabilityandconflictthroughouttheglobalurbansystem. One of our goals in this collection istocontributeintellectualresourcesthatmaybeusefulforthoseinstitutions,movementsandactorsthatlikewiseaimtorollbackthecontemporaryhypercommodificationofurbanlife,andonthisbasis,topromotealternative, radically democratic, socially justandsustainableformsofurbanism.Writingover30yearsago,Harvey(1976,p.314)succinctlycharacterizedthischallengeasfollows: Patterns in the circulation of surplus value are changing but they have not altered the fact that cities [] are founded on the exploitation of the many by the few. An urbanism founded on exploitation is a legacy of history. A genuinely humanizing urbanism has yet to be brought into being. It remains for revolutionary theory to chart the path from an urbanism based in exploitation to an urbanism appropriate for the human species. And it remains for revolutionary practice to accomplish such a transformation.Harveyspoliticalinjunctionremainsasurgentaseverintheearly21stcentury.InHarveys view, a key task for critical or revo-lutionary urban theory is to chart the pathtowards an alternative, post-capitalist form ofurbanization. How can this task be confrontedtoday,asanewwaveofaccumulationbydispossession (Harvey, 2008) washes destruc-tively across the world economy?The need for critical urban theoryMappingthepossiblepathwaysofsocialtransformationinHarveysterms(1976,p. 314),chartingthepathinvolves,firstandforemost,understandingthenatureofcontemporarypatternsofurbanrestructur-ing,andthen,onthatbasis,analyzingtheirimplicationsforaction.Akeychallengeforradical intellectuals and activists, therefore, istodeciphertheoriginsandconsequencesofthecontemporaryglobalfinancialcrisisandthepossibilityforalternative,progressive,radicalorrevolutionaryresponsestoit,atoncewithin,amongandbeyondcities.Suchunderstandings will have considerable impli-cations for the character, intensity, direction,duration and potential results of resistance.Thefieldofcriticalurbanstudiescan,webelieve,makeimportantcontributionstoongoingeffortstoconfrontsuchquestions.This intellectual field was consolidated in thelate1960sandearly1970sthroughthepioneeringinterventionsofradicalscholarssuchasHenriLefebvre(1996[1968],2003[1970]),ManuelCastells(1977[1972])andDavid Harvey (1976). Despite their theoreti-cal,methodologicalandpoliticaldifferences,theseauthorssharedacommonconcerntounderstand the ways in which, under capital-ism,citiesoperateasstrategicsitesforDownloaded By: [New York University] At: 19:36 3 September 2009178 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 23commodificationprocesses.Cities,theyargued,aremajorbasingpointsfortheproduction,circulationandconsumptionofcommodities,andtheirevolvinginternalsociospatialorganization,governancesystems and patterns of sociopolitical conflictmustbeunderstoodinrelationtothisrole.Theseauthorssuggested,moreover,thatcapitalistcitiesarenotonlyarenasinwhichcommodification occurs; they are themselvesintensivelycommodifiedinsofarastheirconstitutivesociospatialformsfrombuild-ingsandthebuiltenvironmenttoland-usesystems,networksofproductionandexchange,andmetropolitan-wideinfrastruc-tural arrangementsare sculpted and contin-uallyreorganizedinordertoenhancetheprofit-making capacities of capital.Ofcourse,profit-orientedstrategiesofurbanrestructuringareintenselycontestedamong dominant, subordinate and marginal-izedsocialforces;theiroutcomesareneverpredeterminedthroughthelogicofcapital.Urbanspaceundercapitalismisthereforeneverpermanentlyfixed;itiscontinuallyshapedandreshapedthrougharelentlessclashofopposedsocialforcesoriented,respectively,towardstheexchange-value(profit-oriented)anduse-value(everydaylife) dimensions of urban sociospatial config-urations (Harvey, 1976; Logan and Molotch,1987;Lefebvre,1996[1968]).Moreover,strategiestocommodifyurbanspaceoftenfaildismally,producingdevalorized,crisis-riven urban and regional landscapes in whichlaborandcapitalcannotbecombinedproductivelytosatisfysocialneeds,andinwhichinheritedsociospatialconfigurationsareseverelydestabilized,generallyatthecostofconsiderablehumansufferingandmassiveenvironmentaldegradation.And,evenwhensuchprofit-makingstrategiesdoappear to open up new frontiers for surplus-valueextraction,whetherwithin,amongorbeyondcities,theseapparentsuccessesareinevitablyprecarious,temporaryonesoveraccumulation,devalorizationandsystemic crisis remain constant threats. Para-doxically,however,theconflicts,failures,instabilitiesandcrisistendenciesassociatedwithcapitalisturbanizationhavelednottoitsdissolutionortranscendence,buttoitscontinualreinventionthroughadynamicprocessofimplosionexplosion(Lefebvre,2003)andcreativedestruction(Harvey,1989).Consequently,despiteitsdestructive,destabilizingsocialandenvironmentalconsequences,capitalsrelentlessdrivetoenhanceprofitabilityhaslongplayed,andcontinues to play, a powerful role in produc-ingandtransformingurbansociospatialconfigurations.1Theseanalyticalandpoliticalstartingpointshave,sincethe1970s,facilitatedanextraordinaryoutpouringofconcrete,criti-callyorientedresearchonthevariousdimensionsandconsequencesofcapitalistformsofurbanizationincludingpatternsofindustrialagglomerationandinter-firmrelations;theevolutionofurbanlabormarkets;thepoliticaleconomyofrealestateandurbanpropertyrelations;problemsofsocialreproduction,includinghousing,transportation,educationandinfrastructureinvestment;theevolutionofclassstrugglesandothersocialconflictsinthespheresofproduction,reproductionandurbangover-nance;theroleofstateinstitutions,atvari-ousspatialscales,inmediatingprocessesof urbanrestructuring;thereorganizationofurbangovernanceregimes;theevolutionofurbanizedsocio-natures;andtheconsolida-tion of diverse forms of urban social mobili-zation,conflictandstruggle(foroverviews,seeDearandScott,1980;Soja,2000;Heynenetal.,2006).Suchanalysesinturncontributedtotheelaborationofseveraldistinctstrandsofcriticalurbanresearchthathaveinspiredgenerationsofintellectualandpoliticalengagementwithurbanques-tions. These research strands include, at vari-ouslevelsofabstraction:(a)periodizationsofcapitalisturbandevelopmentthathavelinked(world-scale)regimesofcapitalaccu-mulationtochanging(nationalandlocal)configurationsofurbanspace;(b)compara-tiveapproachestourbanstudiesthathaveexploredtheplace-andterritory-specificDownloaded By: [New York University] At: 19:36 3 September 2009BRENNER ET AL.: CITIES FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR PROFIT 179formsofurbansociospatialorganizationthathavecrystallizedwithineachofthelatterconfigurations;and(c)conjuncturalanalysesthatattempttodecipherongoing,site-specificprocessesofurbanrestructur-ing,theirsourceswithintheunderlyingcrisistendenciesofworldcapitalism,theirramificationsforthefuturetrajectoryofurbandevelopment,andthepossibilityofsubjectingthelattertosomeformofpopu-lar-democratic control.Thisisnot,however,tosuggestthatcriti-calurbanstudiesrepresentsahomogeneousresearch field based on a rigidly orthodox orparadigmaticfoundation.Onthecontrary,the development of critical approaches to thestudyofcapitalisturbanizationhasbeenfraughtwithwide-rangingdisagreementsabout any number of core theoretical, meth-odological and political issues (for overviews,seeSaunders,1984;Katznelson,1993;Soja,2000).Eventhoughtheirform,contentandstakeshaveevolvedconsiderablyinrelationtothecontinuedforward-movementofworldwidecapitalisturbanization,suchcontroversiesremainasintenseinthelate2000s as they were in the early 1970s.Nonetheless,againstthebackgroundofthelastfourdecadesofvibranttheorizing,research,debateanddisagreementonurbanquestionsundercapitalism,webelieveitisplausibletospeakofabroadlycoherent,criticalbranchofurbanstudies.Thiscriti-calbranchcanbeusefullycounterposedtomainstreamortraditionalapproachestourbanquestions(forfurtherelaborationonthespecificityofcriticalurbantheory,seethecontributionstothisissuebyMarcuse,Brenner,GoonewardenaandRankin,respectively). In the most general terms, crit-icalapproachestourbanstudiesareconcerned:(a)toanalyzethesystemic,yethistoricallyspecific,intersectionsbetweencapitalism and urbanization processes; (b) toexaminethechangingbalanceofsocialforces,powerrelations,sociospatialinequal-itiesandpoliticalinstitutionalarrangementsthatshape,andareinturnshapedby,theevolutionofcapitalisturbanization;(c)toexposethemarginalizations,exclusionsandinjustices(whetherofclass,ethnicity,race,gender,sexuality,nationalityorotherwise)thatareinscribedandnaturalizedwithinexistingurbanconfigurations;(d)todeci-pher the contradictions, crisis tendencies andlinesofpotentialoractualconflictwithincontemporary cities, and on this basis, (e) todemarcateandtopoliticizethestrategicallyessentialpossibilitiesformoreprogressive,sociallyjust,emancipatoryandsustainableformations of urban life.Cities in crisis: theory and practiceThis special issue of CITY is concerned witheachoftheseissues,andinthissense,itrepresentsasustainedcollectiveengagementwiththeprojectofcriticalurbanstudies.Earlierversionsofthesecontributionswerepresented in November 2008, at a conferenceheldattheCenterforMetropolitanStudies,Berlin,inhonorofPeterMarcusesbirth80 years earlier in the same city. The confer-ence was framed broadly around some of thekey issues to which Marcuse has devoted hisacademiccareerasacriticalurbanistandplannerthetransformationofcitiesandurbanspaceundercontemporarycapitalism;theroleofthestateandurbanplanninginmediating those transformations; the politicsof urban sociospatial exclusion and polariza-tion along class and ethnoracial lines; and thepossibilitiesforprogressiveorradicalinter-ventions and mobilizations to produce moresociallyjust,radicallydemocraticandsustainableurbanformations.Thesethemesare well represented in the contributions thatfollow,whichspanfromreflectionsonthenatureofcriticalurbantheoryandtheconceptoftherighttothecity(Marcuse,Brenner,Goonewardena),throughanalysesof historical alternatives to the commodifica-tionofurbanspace(FlierlandMarcuse,Steinert), discussions of how best to interpretthecontemporarymomentofworldwideurbanrestructuring(Keil),criticalengage-mentswithestablishedbodiesofknowledgeDownloaded By: [New York University] At: 19:36 3 September 2009180 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 23onurbanquestions(Rankin,Slater,BerntandHolm),concreteinvestigationsofvari-ouscontemporarypatternsofurbansociospatialrestructuringandexclusion(Steinert,Keil,Yiftachel,Uitermark),andcriticalaccountsofcontemporarymobiliza-tionsthatcontestcurrentlydominantpatternsofurbanism(ScharenbergandBader, Boudreau, Mayer).Allofthecontributionstothisspecialissueinsistonthecentralityofcommodifi-cationasanintellectualandpoliticalrefer-encepointforanycriticalaccountofthecontemporaryurbancondition.Buttheyapproachthisproblematicthroughvarioustheoreticalandmethodologicallenses,andtheyassessitsimplicationsforconcreteurbanconfigurationsfromdiversethematicstandpoints.Themajorityofthecontribu-tionsfocusonpatternsofurbanrestructur-ingandtheirassociatedcontradictionsduringthelastdecade,withparticularrefer-encetothehypercommodifiedurbanspacesofwesternEuropeandNorthAmerica,butalso,insomecontributions,withreferencetourbanizationprocessesintheMiddleEast(Yiftachel)orintheglobalSouth(Rankin).SeveralcontributionsengagewithLefeb-vres classic concept of the right to the city(1996 [1968]), which has recently been redis-coveredbyradicalacademicsandactivistsalike (Marcuse, Mayer). This slogan representsone important rallying cry and basis for trans-formativepoliticalmobilizationinmanycontemporary cities, and it also resonates withearliercallstocreatecitiesforcitizensthroughthereinvigorationofparticipatoryurban civil societies (Douglass and Friedmann,1998).However,asMayerpointsout,thispotentially radical political slogan, much likethatofsocialcapital,isalsobeingusedideologically by state institutions, which haveco-opted it into a basis for legitimating exist-ing, only weakly participatory forms of urbangovernance, or for exaggerating the systemicimplicationsofnewlyintroducedformsofcitizenparticipationinmunicipalaffairs(seealsoMayer,2003).Lefebvre(2009[1966])himself grappled with an analogous probleminthe1960sand1970s,whentheEurocom-munist concept of autogestionliterally, self-management,butperhapsbesttranslatedasgrassrootsdemocracywasbeingperva-sively misappropriated by various interests tolegitimatenewformsofstatebureaucraticplanning.Incontrasttosuchtendencies,Lefebvreinsistedthatlimitingtheworldofcommoditieswasessentialtoanyprojectofradical democracy, urban or otherwise, for thiswould give content to the projects of demo-craticplanning,prioritizingthesocialneedsthat are formulated, controlled and managedby those who have a stake in them (Lefebvre,2009 [1966], p. 148). While several contribu-tionsexplorethechallengesanddilemmasassociatedwithsuchanurbanpoliticsofgrassrootsparticipation(Marcuse,Rankin,ScharenbergandBader),othersadvocateitsconstruction, extension or reinvention in thewakeofrestructuringprocessesthatareintensifyingthemarginalization,exclusion,displacement, disempowerment or oppressionofurbaninhabitants(see,forinstance,Yiftachel, Steinert, Slater, Uitermark; cf. alsoPurcell, 2008).Clearly,sincetheFordistKeynesianperiod,urbansocialmovementshavehadtheir ups and downs. On occasion, they havesucceeded in producing major changes, but inothercasestheirradicalpromisehasbeenaborted,co-optedormainstreamed.Ofcourse, as the above remarks indicate, not allsuchmovementsactuallysoughtsystemicchange.2 But from the perspective of the fieldof critical urban studies, one may venture thefollowingconjectureregardingthecurrentsituation:thetransformativepotentialofsocialmovementmobilizationswilldependon two basic factorsthe objective position,power and strategies of those currently estab-lishedinpositionsofdomination;andtheobjectiveposition,powerandstrategiesofthosewhoaremobilizinginoppositiontoestablished forms of urbanism.Asindicatedabove,theobjectivepositionin which both elements currently find them-selvesis crisis.Initially,thatcrisisappearstoDownloaded By: [New York University] At: 19:36 3 September 2009BRENNER ET AL.: CITIES FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR PROFIT 181berootedintheeconomicstructure,butithasalsobeenextendedtoformsofgover-nance, regulation and political consciousness.Thestrategyofthoseinpowerisunfortu-natelyquiteclear,andcanbesummarizedunder the rubric of neoliberalism and its vari-ouspermutations.Thisformsthebackdropformanyofthecontributionstothisspecialissue,whichexaminevariouswaysinwhichthesocialpowerrelationsofcapitalismalongwithimperialism,colonialism,racismandothermodalitiesofsocialdisempower-mentareinscribedwithinurbansociospa-tiallandscapesaroundtheworld(Keil,Rankin,Yiftachel,Steinert,Slater,BerntandHolm,Uitermark).Butwhatabouttheforcesofresistancetodomination,thosesufferingduetothecurrentcrisisand,indeed, the longer-term relations of exploita-tion of which the current situation is a conse-quenceandpart?Whatistheirfuture,andwhatkindofchange,ifany,willtheyproduce?The nature of the groups that are adverselyaffectedbyexistingarrangementsandcontemporary restructuring processes is like-wiseaddressedinseveralpapersbelow.For instance,Marcusedistinguishesbetweenthedeprivedthosewhoareimmediatelyexploited,unemployed,impoverished,discriminatedagainstinjobsandeducation,in ill health and uncared for, or incarcerated;andthediscontentedthosewhoaredisre-spected, treated unequally because of sexual,political or religious orientation, censored inspeech,writing,researchorartisticexpres-sion, forced into alienating jobs, or otherwiseconstrainedintheircapacitytoexplorethepossibilities of life. Members of both of thesepartiallyoverlappinggroupshaveconsider-ablecausetoopposetheexistingsystemofcapitalism and contemporary forms of urban-ism. But they are a heterogeneous group, andtheir common interest is not always obvious,norisconcertedactioneasy.Theeventsof1968arementionedrecurrentlyinseveralofthe contributions here as manifesting, simul-taneously,thetransformativepotentialandtheendemicdifficultyofunited,collectiveactionacrossdiverseconstituencies.Thepossibilityforsuchactionisfurtherconstrained by the potent force of the corpo-ratemedia,thedaily,routinizedlanguageofpoliticsandtheperceivedneedtodealwitheverydaycrisesbeforelong-term,systemicissuescanbeaddressed.And,aboveall,transformativeactionisconstrainedbythe propagandaofmarketfundamentalism,the induced appeal of mass consumerism, thetechnicallyinstrumentalizededucationalsystem, the oppressive weight of bureaucracyand,throughitall,theoverwhelmingforceofdominantideologiesofexclusionandsupremacy(forinstance,nationalism,Eurocentrism,Orientalism,heteronormativ-ity, speciesism and so forth).Severaldifferentapproachestoresistanceand change are, however, possible. The over-whelmingreactiontothecollapseoftheprevailingprivatemarketfinancialsystem,whose trivial public regulation is itself in thehandsofthedominantinstitutionsandcorporations of the private world, is popularoutrage. That outrage could well be directedagainst the system as a whole; it could take aradicalturn,inthespiritofLefebvre.Theargumentcouldbemadethatthepresentcrisisexposesthevicesofthecapitalistsystem as a whole, and that the realization ofa genuine right to the city requires the aboli-tionoftheruleofprivatefinance,andthuswithittheruleofprivatecapital,overtheurbaneconomy,andindeed,thatoftheworld economy as a whole. That would be aradicalresponse,oneorientedpreciselytowardstheconstructionofanurbanismappropriateforthehumanspecies,asenvi-sioned by Harvey (1976, p. 314).3A liberal-progressive or reformist response,on the other hand, would focus on individualandexcessivegreed,whetherofbankersorfinanciersorpoliticians,asthevillainsthathaveproducedthecurrentcrisis.Sucharesponse would, accordingly, focus on regu-latingtheactivitiesofsuchpower-brokersmorethoroughlythanexistingregulationspermit.Itwoulddirectoutragenotatthesystem as a whole, but at the bonuses whichDownloaded By: [New York University] At: 19:36 3 September 2009182 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 23executivesgetfromit,thePonzischemeswhich some have perpetrated or the abuses ofpolitical power that have likewise been impli-cated in the current crisis. To the extent thatthis response thematizes nationalization at all,itseesthisasasteptowardsrestoringthebanks to health, that is, renewed profitabil-ity, and then returning them to their private,corporateowners,perhapsnowshelteredfrom excessive risk through better regula-tion. Thus the outrage is eviscerated, and therighttothecityshrivelstoarighttounem-ploymentbenefitsandpublicinvestmentinurban infrastructure (needed anyway to keepbusinessescompetitive),withmassivebail-outs for banks being offset by some minimalprotectionsforsmallandmiddle-classborrowers of viable mortgages.Willcontemporaryurbansocialmove-ments be thus co-opted, as they were duringtheausterity,roll-outphaseofneoliberalrestructuringinthe1980s?Willtheybecontentwithreformsthatmerelyrebootthesystem,orwilltheyattempttoaddresstheproblemofsystemicchangeasdidthemili-tantstudentandlabormovementsof1968?Asofthiswriting(May2009),bothincreasedmilitancy,asinthesquattingofforeclosedhomes,andco-optation,asintheendlessdebatesaboutmortgageregulation,appear possible. Prediction is hazardous, notleastbecauseurbanspacecontinuestoservesimultaneously as the arena, the medium andthestakeofongoingstrugglesregardingthefuture of capitalism. It is, in Harveys formu-lation(2008,p.39),thepointofcollisionbetweenthemobilizationsofthedeprived,the discontented and the dispossessed, on theone side, and on the other, ruling class strate-gies to instrumentalize, control and colonizesocialandnaturalresources,includingtherighttothecityitself,forthebenefitofthefew.Assuchstrugglesoverthepresentandfutureshapeofourcitiesintensify,wehopethatthisissuewillcontributetoclarifyingwhat needs to be understood and what needsto be done in order to forge a radical alterna-tivetothedismal,destructivestatusquoofworldwidecapitalisturbanization.Theslogan,Citiesforpeople,notforprofit,isthus intended to set into stark relief what weview as a central political objective for ongo-ingefforts,atoncetheoreticalandpractical,to address the crises of our time.AcknowledgementsWearegratefultotheeditorialcommitteeofCITYforsupportingthecollectiveworkembodiedinthisissue.CITYisanidealforumfordiscussionoftheproblematicofcitiesforpeople,notforprofit,duetoitslong-standingcommitmenttobringingtogether,inreadableform,theoreticalreflectionsonthecontemporaryurbancondition,analysesofpracticalexperiencesincontemporaryurbanconflicts,andperhapsmostcrucially,explorationsoftheirnecessary,ifconstantlyevolving,interrela-tionships.WeareparticularlygratefultoBobCatterall,editorofCITY,forhiscomradelysupport,intellectualengage-ment,encouragementandpatienceaswehaveworkedtocompletethisprojectunderpressingdeadlines.WewouldalsoliketoconveyourthankstoPaulChattertonforhisexpertandpromptassistanceinvariouseditorialandproduction-relatedmatters;toDanSwantonandMartinWoessnerfortheirhelpfulcommentsonaselectionofthetexts;andalsotoCarolynHaynes,CITYsresourcefulandintellectuallyengagedproductioneditor,forherassistanceandexpertise.Earlierversionsofthepapersincludedherewereoriginallypresentedataninternationalconferencefundedprima-rilybytheGermanResearchAssociation(DFG)andheldinNovember2008attheCenterforMetropolitanStudies(CMS),Berlin.TheCMSandtheDFGalsogener-ouslysupportedaco-teachingarrangementforagraduateseminarconvenedjointlybythethreeeditorsofthisissueintheDepart-mentofSociology,NewYorkUniversityandtheGraduateSchoolofArchitectureandUrbanPlanning,ColumbiaUniversityinfall2006.ManyoftheideasbehindthisDownloaded By: [New York University] At: 19:36 3 September 2009BRENNER ET AL.: CITIES FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR PROFIT 183journalissuewereforgedthroughourdiscussionsinthatseminar;wethankourstudentsfortheseriousnessoftheirengage-mentwithourevolvingideas.WeareextremelygratefultotheDFGforsupport-ingourintellectualcollaborationandforcontributingessentialfundingtowardstheBerlinconference.WeoweaspecialdebtofgratitudetoMsKatjaSussneroftheBerlinCMSforherinvaluableworkinorganizingtheconference.Withoutherexpertassis-tanceandorganizationalsupport,thisprojectwouldhavebeenanimpossibleundertaking.Finally,wewouldliketoconveyourthankstotheRosaLuxemburgStiftungforcontributingcrucialadditionalfunding towards the Berlin conference.Notes11 Exploration of the nexus between cities and commodification had, of course, already been initiated in the mid-19th century by Engels in his classic study of industrial Manchester (1987 [1845]). However, this constellation of issues was subsequently neglected by most mainstream 20th-century urbanists, who opted instead for some combination of transhistorical, technocratic or instrumentalist approaches and tended to interpret cities as the spatial expressions of purportedly universal principles of human ecology or civilizational order (for a partial exception see Mumfords revealing account of coketown [1961, pp. 446481]).22 While Castells (1977 [1972]) limited his definition of social movements to those that succeeded in producing systemic change, we embrace a broader conceptualization. The issue of success or failure is contested, particularly on a systemic level, and it may vary according to whether it is assessed under, for example, genuinely emancipatory criteria or those of mainstream power politics. Both are relevant.33 If the election of Obama shows the power of the people to use the political process to achieve some change, it also underscores the intrinsic limitations of election-based, parliamentary-democratic strategies of social transformation. When the centers of economic power remain in the hands of multinational corporations and unaccountable financial institutions, elections may have only a limited impact on the actual operations of global capitalism.ReferencesBoddy, M. and Fudge, C. (eds) (1984) Local Socialism? Labour Councils and New Left Alternatives. London: Macmillan.Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (eds) (2003) Spaces of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Castells, M. (1977 [1972]) The Urban Question. A Marxist Approach. London: Edward Arnold.Dear, M. and Scott, A.J. (eds) (1980) Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society. London: Methuen.Douglass, M. and Friedmann, J. (eds) (1998) Cities for Citizens. New York: Wiley.Economist Intelligence Unit (2009) Governments under pressure: how sustained economic upheaval could put political regimes at risk, 19 March, http://viewswire.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=VWArticle VW3&article_id=954360280&rf=0How sustained economic upheaval could put political regimes at risk.Engels, F. (1987 [1845]) The Condition of the Working Class in England. Trans. V. Kiernan. New York: Penguin.Freier, N. (2008) Known unknowns: unconventional strategic shocks, Defense Strategy Development. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute. army.mil/Harvey, D. (1976) Social Justice and the City. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Harvey, D. (1989) The Urban Experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Harvey, D. (2008) The right to the city, New Left Review 53, pp. 2340.Heynen, N., Kaika, M. and Swyngedouw, E. (eds) (2006) In the Nature of Cities. New York: Routledge.Jacobs, J. (1962) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.Katznelson, I. (1993) Marxism and the City. New York: Oxford University Press.Lefebvre, H. (1996 [1968]) The right to the city, in H. Lefebvre, Writings on Cities. Ed. and Trans. E. Kofman and E. Lebas, pp. 63184. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Lefebvre, H. (2003 [1970]) The Urban Revolution. Trans. R. Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Lefebvre, H. (2009 [1966]) Theoretical problems of autogestion, in H. Lefebvre, State, Space, World. Ed. N. Brenner and S. Elden, pp. 138152. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Logan, J. and Molotch, H. (1987) Urban Fortunes. Berkeley: University of California Press.MacIntosh, M. and Wainwright, H. (eds) (1987) A Taste of Power: The Politics of LocalEconomics. London: Verso.Downloaded By: [New York University] At: 19:36 3 September 2009184 CITY VOL. 13, NOS. 23Mayer, M. (2003) The onward sweep of social capital: causes and consequences for understanding cities, communities and urban movements, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(1), pp. 110132.Mumford, L. (1961) The City in History. New York: Harcourt.Purcell, M. (2008) Recapturing Democracy. New York: Routledge.Saunders, P. (1984) Social Theory and the Urban Question, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Schwartz, N. (2009) Rise in jobless poses threat to stability worldwide, New York Times, 15 February.Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier. New York: Routledge.Soja, E. (2000) Postmetropolis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Downloaded By: [New York University] At: 19:36 3 September 2009