Search Results

The first of the two main sections of this chapter discusses Marx's goal and the elements of a Marxist tradition, and presents the views of various later scholars (David Little, Steven Lukes, Alvin Goulder, Edward Thompson, Leonard Krieger, Georg Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, and others) on these elements. The three distinctive but inter‐related projects elaborated in Marx's aim of reconstructing the post‐capitalist world are examined in detail: the construction of a theory of history to account for the change between epochs on the largest possible scale, which focuses on the struggles between social classes within the twin frame of the development of the forces of production, and the nature of the relationships joining people in the social features of the production process; the building of a model of the economy within the capitalist epoch; and the construction of a social theory capable of inventing explanations about specific capitalist societies (the focus of most of this book). Gramsci elaborated on the most promising lines of inquiry embedded in Marx's historical writings to develop the base–superstructure distinction as a complex web of relations in which the economic, political, and cultural elements of a situation are interconnected, and in which the historicity of social structure is made central. The final section of the chapter explores these issues of Marxist social theory in the work of Edward Thompson, Raymond Williams, Eric Hobsbawm, and G. A. Cohen (who demonstrate the repertoire of alternative theoretical moves developed since Gramsci), and points out that the capacity of Marxism to provide an attractive alternative to the differentiation problematic in studies of the city hinges on the character and persuasiveness of these linkages. In the concluding discussion, the author returns to the issue of the capaciousness of Marxist theory.

The most important urban studies within Marxism since the 1960s are examined by looking at the work of Henri Lefebvre, David Harvey, and Manuel Castells, the three most influential recent students of Marxism and the city, who, through the study of the city, have introduced space into the core of one or more of Marxism's three projects. By examining their work, it is possible to assess the current status of the respatialized Marxism they have tried to fashion, and this post‐1960s Marxism of the city has shown how Marxist social theory can powerfully illuminate things urban, and also how an explicitly urban focus can strengthen Marxism as social and empirical theory. The work accomplished in the past quarter‐century has treated Marx's project of understanding epochal change mainly as background to more current events, although it has successfully elaborated and deepened his project of the analysis of capitalism as an economic system. However, in spite of much effort, it has contributed only unsteadily to Marx's project of a social theory for capitalist societies. The limitations of these Marxist urban studies are identified as being due principally to a certain narrowness of subject matter, a lack of engagement with history, and a restrictive treatment of the issues central to, but difficult for, Marxist social theory: base and superstructure, structure and agency, and causal determination, which neither Harvey nor Castells tackled persuasively in their later work in the 1980s.

This introductory chapter starts by discussing the vast array of definitions and typologies of the city and the many specifications of the objects of urban studies (geography, sociology, politics, urban economics, etc.) that are symptomatic of uncertainty not only as to whether the social sciences possess the necessary tools to analyse cities, but also as to whether the city, both as an empirical and theoretical concept, constitutes a coherent entity. It is suggested that a critique is needed of the tradition in Western social theory that tries to apprehend the partial elements of the city within an approach that treats modernity in terms of differentiation, and that Marxism's claim that it can illuminate studies of the city is precisely because it uses wide‐spanning and comprehensive concepts and hypotheses about the shape of history. The next section of the chapter looks at the differences between Marxism and the differentiation approaches to cities in the company of Max Weber, whose analysis was grounded in the large‐scale processes that underpin urban development; it also discusses the views of some of his contemporaries. The final section examines the specific content of Marxist social theory/analysis that stresses social processes and relationships, and counterposes the differentiation problematic in the analysis of cities. It also discusses the urban omissions within Marxism, and work done later (in the late 1960s and early 1970s by Henri Lefebvre, Manuel Castells, and David Harvey) that reinvigorated the urban conversation within Marxism.

For Marxism, the main issues of social theory within the industrial phase of capitalism focus on the formation of working classes, and this subject is best treated, in significant measure, as an urban one. The spatial requirements of industrial capitalism shaped nineteenth‐century cities – their patterns of growth, interconnections, built environments, and social geographies – and, in turn, the experience of such cities, and attempts to make sense of their properties, were decisive elements in the early histories of Western working classes. The cost to Marxism of its neglect of cities is especially pronounced with regard to these issues, and the new urban Marxism of the 1970s and 1980s has been important precisely because of its attempts to put an end to the tradition's urban and spatial elisions – what Marxist social theory badly requires but has never secured is the systematic inculcation of an urban–geographical imagination into the analysis of working‐class formation. This chapter sketches an example of such an effort, which entails three related steps: a specification of the structural determinants of city growth and development; a presentation of the spatial configurations characteristic of these new spaces; and a systematic, contingent, and comparative account of how the new working classes made sense of these spaces in the different Western countries. It does so by comparing and contrasting the cases of working‐class formation in nineteenth‐century England and the United States, although most of the discussion of spatial reorganization focuses on English cities.

The previous chapter showed that neither David Harvey nor Manuel Castells in the early 1980s tackled the limitations of Marxist urban studies persuasively, each in his own way abandoning the project of Marxist social theory, whose central questions concern the joining together of structure and agency in a single hand. This chapter presents an analysis of the route taken by Friedrich Engels in his early work on cities in The Condition of the Working Class in England; in his compressed discussion of Manchester and other early industrial revolution urban centres, Engels blazed a road that has not been travelled either by Marxism or by students of the city, and identified mechanisms that connect structure and agency. The provocative union of Marxism and the city proposed by Engels had nothing to say about the history, character, and activities of national states. His contribution, rather, lies in the way he raised fundamental questions in three dimensions that correspond to each of Marx's theoretical projects: (1) questions about the linkages between large‐scale processes, principally the development of capitalism, and the emergence of the modern capitalist city; (2) questions about the linkages between the city as a point in the accumulation process and its internal forms; and (3) questions about the linkages between these forms and the development of class and group consciousness. These are the tasks entailed in joining Marxism and the city, and these are the questions explored in the remaining chapters of the book.