His post presents an interesting take on Brenner and Theodore's arguments regarding neoliberalism as creative destruction.
Hi Shmuel,
After reading Theodore and Brenner’s
article, I became interested in how neoliberal policies manifest and how they
are implicated in Los Angele’s urban structure, past or present. (How much does
it affect segregation and lead to the phenomenon you discuss in which communities
are shaped and disturbed by self-interest and monetary power?) Thus, I
appreciated your exploration of Van Nuys and its rallying citizens, who fought
to keep a GM plant in place. By deeming neo-liberal economics “corrupted,” you
point out the destructive nature of such individualistic, elitist interests and
decisions for local development and businesses. This argument is echoed by
Theodore and Brenner, who claim “urban restructuring” occurs on smaller scales,
not solely large scales. Moreover, your discussion reminds me of a certain
mechanism of neoliberal localization outlined in Theodore and Brenner’s table: “restructuring
strategies of territorial development” (415). This includes “increasing
exposure of local and regional economies to global competitive forces” and
rechanneling “infrastructure investments into globally connected local/regional
agglomerations” (415). You effectively argue against such capitalist
globalization when you state that GM is only concerned with surplus value, much
like Marx argues when he described the bourgeoisie relationship with the
proletariat. In the case you include, the threat of GM’s removal led to some
level of community cohesion; the workers banded together to protect the
business. This solidarity, though likely temporary, demonstrates that unity
exists in the urban fabric as well as difference; if the fabric is torn, in this
case by neoliberalism’s exploitative tendency, societies often attempt to fix
themselves. Karl Polanyi, author of The
Great Transformation, would assert that this push against capitalism is an
expected movement towards social welfare; the two movements counter each other.
Your
claim that firms and housing areas are located where they are “for the greater
profit of the firm-owner or landlord” gets me thinking. Is it possible any
businesses are located where they are for the “local community’s good?” I agree that we need not remain in a
neoliberal mindset despite its prevalence. I wonder, however, what the other
alternatives are. I like Majora Carter’s way of thinking. She would agree that positive
action to rebuild and refurbish communities left in the dust of capitalist
development can beneficial to all those involved, while not completely
deviating from the capitalist principles bolted to the mechanisms of our ‘societal
factory,’ if you will. Like you mention, we can improve our socio-economic
conditions, and this will not occur unless some sort of deviation from the norm
occurs. We can work with the corrupted system we have by finding ways to bend
the rules until the rules change. For example, Stuart Hall underlines the
significance of affirmative action, such as offering equal opportunity
employment. When legal action falls short of improving societal problems—not uncommon—it
is important to take advantage of the commonalities that exist in cities. They may
be hidden behind diversity, but they exist. The example you provide is that the
GM workers were bonded by their desire not be laid-off, the need to support
themselves or their families.
Thank
you for your unique perspective, I respect your support of a more selfless
society. With the rise of the environmental justice movement, it seems as
though at least some citizens are becoming concerned not only with the
conditions of the environment, but also the condition of fellow human beings.
Are we again pushing towards social welfare?
