Blog #15 – The Right to the City and Occupy: History and Evolution.


Blog #15 – The Right to the City and Occupy: History and Evolution.[1][2]

 

A.     History: Rise, Defeat, and New Life of the Resistance Movements

 

Capitalism, early fostering industrialization but not identical with it, has created wealth and technological development, but in a manner also increasing exploitation and discontent and never including all in its benefits. In its early phases it was accompanied by increased immiseration as its processes of production produced a poorly paid working class, part of which was inevitably relegated to lives of poverty.

 

As it developed, its productive capacity increased exponentially, and, perhaps already in the years after World War I, created the potential to have prosperity with poverty, providing a decent standard of living for all within its compass. Colonial expansion contributed to that ability, but after World War II the advance of globalization also permitted, in theory at least, the sharing n that prosperity around the world

 

After World War II, the strength of anti-colonial movements and wars of liberation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, on the one side, and the increasingly obvious ability of society to produce wealth sufficient for all, made the gap between the potential and the actual more and more visible. The welfare state, introduced originally to maintain an inequitable distribution of wealth and power, as by Bismarck in Germany, or to avoid injury to the holders of that wealth and power, as in the early English and continental European public health, or to facilitate the smooth functioning of the system as it was,  made the surviving inequalities and miseries glaringly evident. Rapidly increasing urbanization made social problems glaringly visible in concentrated forms and concentrated locations. The growing disparity between what would today be called the 1% and the 99% was increasingly hard to conceal.

 

As an objective matter, it was not hard to conclude that even utopia was possible. The “end of utopia” was a formulation[3] that began to make sense, suggesting that the possibility of utopia was no longer utopian, bt achievable in reality. The realization, also phrased as “another world is possible,” helped inspire the waves of unrest that washed up in cities and countries around the world in the 1960, peaking in 1968.

 

The tension between what could be and what was, embodied in the resistance of the 99% to the rule of the 1%, erupted in revolutions in 1918, most abortive, one, in Russia, successful but without needed social or political transformation in Russia. but pressure to accelerate industrialization undermined effort at peaceful and relaxed democracy, and went under.  It was possibly the last great pus for power to the industrial proletariat, although in a country in which the proletariat was itself underdeveloped.

 

After World War II a new configuration of resistance developed. The unrest of 1967-8 was functionally an anti-capitalist movement, if without an explicit ideological position on the shape of the alternative it was pursuing. It combined disparate elements: the forces of those resisting economic exploitation, those discontent with and alienated  from the existing structures of  domination, and those excluded from the benefits of that structure.  Its roots were those that today make up the activist component of the 99%

 

It was a heady mix, perhaps most visible on the streets of Paris in 1968, but with manifestations around the world on university campuses and streets and public places, in imperial centers and colonialized peripheries around the world.  Even revolution seemed to be on the agenda.

 

But it was not to be.

 

Exploitation and alienation has produced, over the long course of history, various forms of organized resistance to capitalism, up to and including revolution;

revolutions[4] that have fundamentally transformed both economic and political structures. The means used have varied from (marginally) legal to violent illegal: appeals to constitutional rights, electoral campaigns, mass demonstrations, mass strikes, physical disruptions at various scales, occupations, terrorist tactics, armed insurrections. [5]

 

The large-scale popular actions of the 1960’s, culminating in 1967-8, were a high point in significant resistance in the post-World War II period. But it was defeated. Electoral victories turned to Thatcherite defeats;[6] strikes were suppressed and lost; disruptions, a la Weathermen or Baader-Meinhof, has not visible impact on policies or structures; physical disruptions were small scale, tolerated, or suppressed, lawsuits produced gains, but hardly revolutionary ones. The power of the establishment was too strong to be defeated by force, economic changes weakened the power to disrupt and representative democratic structures weakened electoral opportunities.  Membership in labor unions declined in numbers and in militancy, The New Left declined in organized strength, SDS dissolved, Rudi Dutschke was assassinated, the greens took over some critical content in attenuated form, the media’s ideological force grew ever more subtle and pervasive, , the Weathermen were effectively outlawed and suppressed, the criminal justice system incapacitated the most oppressed and exploited.

 

Some believe that, despite these dangers, “we are on the threshold of a new era.”[7]

I believe there is much to do before we get there.

 

All of the factors that produced widespread opposition and militant resistance are still there. The pressures for major social change continue, if increasingly below the surface, but, given the strength of the opposing forces, the objective possibility for revolution is slim to non-existent.

 

Revolution is no longer on the agenda.[8] As David Harvey, with David Wachmuth, says, “throughout the world we are not in a revolutionary moment”[9].

 

Since the causes of the desire for revolution, the exploitation and discontent and oppression, remain, what do the forces desiring revolution do when revolution is not on the agenda?

 

The anti-capitalist character of the 1968 movements has adapted to this situation with significant changes as it has resurfaced in movements such as the Right to the City, based on the exploited and the oppressed, and the Occupy movement, based largely on the discontented. These are where the impulses of 1968 have resurfaced today, augmented by the effects of globalization. Within both younger movements, the absence of revolution on the agenda has been recognized, and although their basic impulses remain the same, they have changed in their approaches, recognizing the realities of the situation.  The strategies of the Occupy movement and the Right to the City are parallel in ultimate desire but different in constituency and origin. They are still open, and are partly converging;

 

The history just recounted has led to significant changes in who the potential full 99% are, and what specifically the protest component of the 99% (the 15.5%, taken here to be represented  by the Occupy and Right to the City movements) has become today  and what its future might.

 

To turn now to the reactions of protest movements to the new situation in which revolutionary change is not on the agenda but is still deeply desired, using the response of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Right to the City Alliance as the examples.

 

The history of Right to the City and Occupy as organized movements is revealing.

B.      The Death and Life of the Right to the City Movement[10]

 

Right to the city as the Alliances, roots in Lefebvre’s framework, but other similar movements: National People’s’ Action, Take Back the Land National Economic and Social Rights campaigns.

 

The right to the city slogan[11] has been taken up in three ways:

 

1.     Right to the City One: The ideological concept. [12]

 

The right to the city is a slogan that has caught on, and is used as a framework for much of the activity covered by Right to the City Three. The concept in its modern meaning was developed in 1968 by Lefebvre and popularized in the demonstrations in Paris and other cities. In Lefebvre, the city, the urban, is seen not as the existing, but as the alternative content in a new society, perhaps implicitly assumed to be socialist in Lefebvre’s somewhat undisciplined writings. There is by now an enormous literature on this, with many open questions as to precise meaning.[13]

 

In Lefebvre’s usage the right to the city is a “cry and a demand,” a slogan that legitimates and ties together many concrete demands but is not limited to them, but envisages a revolutionary change in what current cities are.

 

But Henri Lefebvre’s resuscitation of the right to the city as a slogan in the context of the urban unrest of the 1960’s deserves close attention today. Literally, its meaning is perverse, in terms on the intent of its users, yet symbolically it is exactly right. The formulation of what is desired as a “right” assumes an existing structure of rights, whereas Lefebvre intends it as a call to change those rights. “City” in its ordinary usage, means the existing city; that is precisely the opposite of what Lefebvre intends. Common to most understandings is that the term “city” is used, not to mean the existing city, but as a synecdoche, a metaphor, for a society implementing an idealized vision of what urban life could and should be, that “right” is taken as a moral claim, not a legal proposition. Lefebvre does not pay explicit attention to the means by which the city he speaks of would be brought about. When he speaks of an urban revolution, he is speaking of the transformation of society from an industrialized to an urbanized contour, not a set of actions that would produce a further change. The “cry and demand” formulation, with the cry being the protest of the oppressed and the demand that of the exploited and discontented, is a post-Lefebvre interpretation.[14]

 

The frequent linkage of the slogan with the “urban” requires interpretation to bring out the class content it covers. Yet, because of the moral substance of the claim it represents, and because the city to which it refers is not only a future goal but also the present site of key conflicts necessary to achieve that goal, it is a proud slogan, and its use by so many social, political, and economic movements, if radically interpreted, deserves full support. If the agents of radical change are so often urban based, and if it is indeed the one written on their banners, it can be proudly followed

 

The appeal of the formulation has also been strong in academic circles.  And excellent summary is provided by Katie M Mazer, Katharine N Rankin:[15]

 

The `right to the city’ is a formulation for demanding social justice that has gained considerable resonance on the left, not just in academic circles (eg, Goonewardena, 2008; Harvey, 2008; Mitchell, 2003; Purcell, 2002) but in broader social movements. For those who seek to engage critical theory for the pursuit of social justice, this formulation offers a way to pose basic, potentially transformative, questions: What is the city for? Who gets to live here? Who decides and how? At the most basic level, the right to the city is the idea that everyone, but especially the disenfranchised, has the right not only to `stay put’ in her city and neighbourhood but also to shape and influence the place where she lives (Hartman et al, 1982).

 

The appeal of the `right to the city’ framing lies in its power to take our research beyond questions of access to housing and physical space and to encompass broader questions about meeting human needs for self-realization and self-determination and achieving access to one’s neighborhood, city, and society. It also helps to shift our analysis away from a particular sector housing being the most predominant in the literature and to emphasize the right to a totality in which both material and procedural demands are at stake. We argue that such an ethical perspective on gentrification embedded in a moral claim to the right to the city can best be articulated by starting from the experiences of those who are at the greatest risk of displacement, and from there documenting disruptions to what we call social space.

 

2.      Right to the City Two: the liberal version

 

Here the slogan becomes an abstract statement of theoretical human rights, as in Declarations of the Rights to the City in the World Charter[16], the European Charter on Women, and other international conferences.[17] It includes an assembly of separate programmatic immediate realistic goals, seen as achievable and enforceable with the prevailing systems of law and governance. It has a potential to assist in bringing together at an international level, many complimentary campaigns and organizations, but it is only thinly linked to Right to the City One. [18] The liberal usage in such charters generally shies away from challenging capitalism as such, and rather seeks to establish the rights they contain within the framework of the existing social, political and economic systems within which the Charter is proposed.

 

3.     Right to the City Three: Alliance on Individual Issues.

 

The use that reflects the existing practice, urban social movements/organizations banding together in a Right to the City Alliance, an assemblage of specific diverse groups, ranging from the homeless to GLBT, to welfare recipients, to public housing tenants, etc., addressed by more or less militant action but within the system. The transformative nature of the demands made may or may not lie in the background, but the view that the problems are caused by common characteristics of the system is nevertheless shared.

 

It is of the essence of the claim and the organizations forming the movement that they are multiple and diverse.

 

As the Right to the City organization in Hamburg formulates it:

 

Wir sind wütend – und das aus den unterschiedlichsten Gründen.[19]

 

But the differentiated grounds, in the in the right to the city organized movement, the Allilance in the  United States , is made of of groups with conrete demands: homes for the homeless, a living wage for the exploited,ending discrimination for the LGBT, decent support for those on welfare – look at list of the groups in the New York City  alliance.

Committees Against Anti- Asian Violence
Community Voices Heard
FIERCE (African-American LGBT)
FUREE (Families United for Racial and Economic Equality )
Good Ole Lower East Side (GOLES)
Jews for Racial and Economic Justice
Make the Road NY (Latino, working class)[20]
Mothers on the Move
Picture the Homeless
Queers for Economic Justice
Teachers Unite
VOCAL NY (formerly NYC Aids Housing Network)

Or the member groups in Hamburg.[21]

 

The web site of the Right to the City Alliance provides the following history:

 

Right to the City was born out of desire and need by organizers and allies around the country to have a stronger movement for urban justice. But it was also born out of the power of an idea of a new kind of urban politics that asserts that everyone, particularly the disenfranchised, not only has a right to the city, but as inhabitants, has a right to shape it, design it, and operationalize an urban human rights agenda.

 

In the realm of ideas, a key resource and touchstone is “Le droite à la ville” (Right to the City) a book published in 1968 by French intellectual and philosopher Henri Lefebvre.  In the sphere of human rights, this powerful idea was adopted by the World Urban Forum and elaborated into the World Charter of the Right to the City in 2004. Building from these ideas, and forward looking grassroots organizing, the Right to the City Alliance was established in January 2007. [22]

 

4.     The Future: The Dangers Ahead

 

The Right to the City movement is in danger, internally, of: 1) fragmentation (e.g. members act independently, alliance as such is sclerotic;; 2) loss of ideological vision of comprehensive change framework and goal (e.g. the ideological confusion of the existing city with the urban society, the balancing of the need for immediate victories with the need to preserve long-term perspective); 3) resistance to unity with the discontented (e.g. allies kept at a distance, only we are the poors, worry about levels of trust); 4) letting the achievement of limited but important rights become the limited goal of its key campaigns (e.g. the right to sleep on park benches).

 

The right to the city movement is in danger externally from: 1) the media barrage, and its academic feeders, sanctifying the “middle class” as the favored targets of public support, extolling the private market as the superior determinant of government objectives; 2) public “austerity” measures making the struggle to survive aa-consuming of time and energy; 3) forcible repression and criminalization of protest (e.g. stop and frisk, racial profiling, criminalization of conduct, restrictions on the use of public space)

 

C.      The Four Faces of the Occupy Movement

 

What Occupy is: part of a long tradition. The discontented, the heart of Occupy Wall Street, class directed, but other Occupies are simply deeply felt discontents with various sectors, places, formal relationships. In the tradition of many early resistance movements, most recently, the movements of 1968, , the World Social Forums, the self-consciously civil society.[23]

 

1.     Occupy One: Class Targeted Discourse.

 

Wall Street as symbolic of the ruling elite, l% if not just income.  Wall Street as representative of the ruling elite, seen as in conflict with the 99%, rejecting compromise/consensus seeking solutions. . Aimed at raising consciousness, affecting the discourse, getting picked up by others e.g. in election campaigns, and eschewing specific concrete “demands” and programmatic goals in favor of principled positions. Seeking transformation in the social structure as a whole.  But avoiding, avoiding direct dealing with issues of power and real-politik; wanting a revolution, but without being in a position to plan revolutionary action.

 

2.     Occupy Two: Physically Taking Over Spaces.

 

Literally, occupy spaces, originally those directly symbolic of and/or located in the heart of the beast, as in Zuccotti Park, or Oakland.  The expansion of this approach to site occupation to explore the uses of public space in particular, and to focus on the democratic aspect of arrangements for the provision and use of public space, is consistent with Occupy One, but something of a dilution of its confrontational and class-related aspect., dealing with much less than the systemic whole of the former.  But it can lead to what I have called a fetishized conception of space.[24]

 

And the term Occupy in Occupy Wall Street does not centrally mean occupy the space of that street or its buildings. That sense, the literal sense, of the term “occupy” derives from Occupy Wall Street’s historical origin, but its meaning has developed far beyond the spatial.

3.     Occupy Three: An Umbrella Function.

 

All Occupy groups have been very openand supportive of other campaigns that they see as moving in the same direction as their own broad vision. This includes both campaigns with immediate and limited goals, e.g. picket lines at anti-union employers, as well as less immediate goals, as in  in Occupy Los Angeles, , or Occupy the Economy, or Occupy Columbia, or Occupy Production. Here Occupy has by and large subordinated its transformative approaches to the immediate needs of the action it is supporting, including those of the right to the city movement.

 

‘We are the 99%’ was a prescient slogan that captured one version of reality – that those who drove our country off a cliff with criminal financial speculation represent a very small group, and that their actions harmed everyone else.

But since then, a new kind of reality has emerged, one where groups are focusing on their core issues, constituencies and competencies. Students are organizing around student debt, foreclosure victims are organizing to stop evictions, etc.
Let’s remember though, that the birth of #Occupy was when we all came together. It happened then, it happened on May Day, and it will happen again. [25]

 

4.     Occupy Four: Occupy as Process.

 

From the start, Occupy groups have been very conscious of their internal procedures of discussion and decision-making. Occupy spatial encampments are seen by their participants as models of what democratic processes would be. The General Assemblies, at which all members can speak and vote, with instant voting by show of hands and hand gestures, with 90% majority requirements and attention being given to the varying strength of individual objections, are all seen as prototypes of how a society as a whole might operate. Attention is not, however, to my knowledge, focused on how such techniques might be carried over into actual governmental or organizational procedures outside of the encampments.

 

5.     The future: The Dangers Ahead

 

The Occupy movement is in danger, internally, of 1) the fetishization of space, particularly public space, by the circumstances of its organizational birth in physical occupations; ;and thus 2) letting the movement be seen as one whose major concern is with the use of public space 3) fragmentation, into the support of others’ limited campaigns (the pressure to formulate “concrete demands;” 4) depoliticization because of adoption of a model-building strategy with a focus on internal super-participatory democratic procedures (see Blog #16 strategies below)..

 

The Occupy Wall Street movement is In danger externally of 1) cooptation (rights claim  made harmless by being defined as legal rights; 2) displacement of source of difficulty, capitalism, into a psychological backlash based on “values” religious fundamentalism, national chauvinism (the tea parties); 3) the physical force of the state (the criminalization of protest.4) cooptation by commiseration (we are all with you, 99% of us, even the 1%, such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates); 5) being made harmless by the structure of the political system (either swallowed within a power-seeking political party or diverted to waste its energies in electoral campaigns; 6)  excluded from any influence by charges of irrelevance and utopianism; 7) restrictions on the use of public space (but see Blogs #4 and  #5).

 

But there is also a danger that the Occupy movement gets to be seen as the left’s tea party. It is a very factually false analogy. The tea party is financed by large sums from the most reactionary of billionaires. It has no coherent ideological position, even negatively: it talks of opposing big government, but its backers desperately need big government to survive and secure their roles in society. Its political strategy is entirely different: it places major emphasis on electoral politics. Its demonstrations are mean-spirited, intolerant, thoughtless, aggressive.

 

There is a certain over-lap in motivations between the tea parties and Occupy; see above, but that does not lead to Occupy being the left equivalent of the tea party.


[1] I am aware that the discussion here, and to a large extent throughout tis paper, does not considers the global aspects both of capitalism and the reactions to it only very briefly, and is very “Western” centered. In fact, the imperial exploitative relations between the industrially developed countries of the west and what Samir Amir calls the tricontinentals, Asia, Arica, and Latin America, play a key role both in the advances produced by advanced capitalism and the resistance to it. See Samir Amin,  in Monthly Review.

[2] From blog death and life version 3, much modified.. Some used. See not used, and  also terrorism and globalism.

 

[3] See Marcuse, Herbert. “The End of Utopia.” [Ramparts, April 1970, pp. 28-34] in Five Lectures: Psychoanalysis, Politics, and Utopia. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970, pp. 62-82.

 

[4] “Revolution” is a term with an accepted historical meaning, but its usefulness today is less certain. It is certainly possible that revolutions, in their traditional sense of abrupt and partially violent overthrow of existing class structures and relations of domination, will not be seen but that radical changes in such structures will come about by mixed means and only site-wise. To avoid that discussion, the term preferred here as equivalent today to the older concept of revolution is “transformative change.”

[5] The list can be extended and more nuanced; Cite Tilly and my piece

[6] U. S. presidential elections are symptomatic, if wildly subject to interpretation. But in 1964 Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater by a landslide; in 1968, Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern by a hair, and did not get the right-wing vote of George Wallace; from there on the long-term trend is to the right. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html has the figures.

[7] See, for example, Joseph Stiglitz: “The 99 Percent Wakes Up,”

From Cairo to Wall Street’ edited by Anya Schiffrin and Eamon Kircher-Allen. 272 pp. The New

Press. $17, extract available at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/02/joseph-stiglitz-the-99-percent-wakes-up.html. Or, from the early days of Occupy Wall Street,  Roger Keil: “Revolutions are measured in four digits: 1789, 1848, 1871, 1917, 1968, 1989. 2011 is gearing up to take its rightful place among those iconic years.” “Occupy the strip malls”: Centrality, Place and the Occupy Movement, November 17th, 2011, available at http://suburbs.apps01.yorku.ca/2011/11/17/%E2%80%9Coccupy-the-strip-malls%E2%80%9D-centrality-place-and-the-occupy-movement/

[8] Although it surfaces on some occasions. In ontreal, after a protest of some 500,000 against new restrictive legislatin against demonstratons, a young protestor was asked, “well, what’s next on the agenda?” His answer: “revolution!”

[9] In  ———Brenner, Marcuse, and Mayer, Cities for People, Not for Profit, p. 273.

[10] For background see Marcuse, see aWhat Right toWhat City5, in process.

[11] David Harvey appropriately acknowledges that the right to the city formulation is “an empty signifier full of immanent but not transcendent  possibilities.  This does not mean it is irrelevant or politically impotent.  Everything depends on who gets to fill the signifier with revolutionary as opposed to reformist immanent meaning.” Rebel Cities, Chapter 5.

[12] Merrifield. A. (2011a) “The Right to the City and Beyond: Notes on a Lefebvrian Reconceptualization,” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, June-August, Vol.15, Numbers 3-4, pp473-481See the work of David Harvey, Neil Brenner, Andy Merrifield, Ed Soja, Peter Marcuse, and many many others.

[12]

 

[14] See Marcuse, Peter. 2011. “From critical urban theory to the right to the city : What right, whose right, to what city, how?” in Cities For People, Not For Profit: Critical Urban Theory And The Right To The City, Neil Brenner, Peter Marcuse And Margit Mayer, eds

[15] “The social space of gentrification: the politics of neighbourhood accessibility in Toronto’s Downtown West.”  Katie M Mazer and Katharine N Rankin, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2011, volume 29, pages 823-4.

[16] Elaborated at the Social Forum of the Americas (Quito, Ecuador – July 2004) & the World Urban Forum (Barcelona, Spain – September 2004) See my paper, Marcuse, Peter, “Rights in Cities and the Right to the City?” in Ana Sugranyes and Charlotte Mathivet (editors), 2010, Cities for All:  Proposals and Experiences towards the Right to the City, Habitat International Coalition, Santiago, Chile, pp. 87-98, also available at http://www.hic-net.org/content/Cities%20fol%20All-ENG.pdf.

[17] On July 13, 2010 Mayor Marcelo Ebrard of the Federal District of Mexico signed the Mexico City Charter for the Right to the City.

[18] See Marcuse, Peter, “Rights in Cities and the Right to the City?” in Ana Sugranyes and Charlotte Mathivet (editors), 2010, Cities for All:  Proposals and Experiences towards the Right to the City, Habitat International Coalition, Santiago, Chile, pp. 87-98, also available at http://www.hic-net.org/content/Cities%20fol%20All-ENG.pdf.

[19] “We are mad – and out of the most diversereasons.” http://www.rechtaufstadt.net/.

[21] 8DMAtribe | Abbildungszentrum | Aktionsbündnis Entschlossen OFFEN! | AKU – Arbeitskreis Umstrukturierung Wilhelmsburg | Altes Zollhäuschen hinterm Elbtunnel | Andere Umstände | Anwohnerini-Schanzenviertel | Apfelbaum braucht Wurzelraum | Arbeitskreis Lokale Ökonomie e.V. | ASP Eimsbüttel- Nord e.V. | Ateliergemeinschaft “Heini Quartorze” | Avanti – Projekt undogmatische Linke | Bambule | BellaStoria Film | Bildungsstreik Hamburg | BRAKULA | Brandshofer Deich bleibt | Buttclub | Café Knallhart | Centro Sociale | dock europe e.V. | Einwohnerverein St. Georg | Elbtreppenhäuser | Emil-Andresen-Initiative | Es regnet Kaviar | Euromayday HH | fairies&cyborgs | Fanladen St.Pauli | Frappant e.V. | FAU Hamburg | Freies Netzwerk für den Erhalt des Schanzenparks | Freizeithaus Kirchdorf-Süd | FSR Germanistik | GEW Hamburg | Gewerkschaftliche Hochschulgruppe HH | GWA St. Pauli e.V. | Gartenkunstnetz e.V. | Golden Pudel Club Hamburg | Grünzug Altona | Hände weg vom Isebek | HafenVokü | Hamburg brennt | Hamburgs Wilder Osten (HWO) | Hedonistische Internationale – Sektion Glück in der Großstadt | HUDE – Jugendsozialarbeit in Hamburg-Nord | Hunde-Lobby e.V. | HWP wieder in Bewegung | Jour Fixe der Gewerkschaftslinken Hamburg | Jugendgruppe Grunewaldstrasse e.V. “Get-to”| Kein IKEA in Altona Bürgerinitiative | Kirchengemeinde Altona-Ost | Komm in die Gänge! | Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft Schuldnerberatung Hamburg e.V. | LINDA e.V. | LOMU | MädchenOase – Dolle Deerns e.V. | Mieter helfen Mietern Hamburger Mieterverein e.V. | Mietshäuser Syndikat HH | Molotow | Monkeydick-Productions | Moorburgtrasse stoppen | nachtspeicher23 e.V. | Nautilus Buchhandlung | Nicos Farm e.V. | Not In Our Name, Marke Hamburg | No BNQ! | Noya Hamburg | OZM – Schanze | Palette e.V. | Park Fiction | Pferdemarkt bleibt! Initiative | PLANETkamp | Plenum Hafenstraße | quartieren.org | Regenbogen/Alternative Linke Uni Hamburg | ROBIN WOOD Regionalgruppe Hamburg/Lüneburg | Rock’n’Roll Hotel Kogge | Rote Flora | Rote Szene Hamburg | Schlupfloch – Gästewohnungen für obdachlose Jugendliche in Rahlstedt | SKAM e.V. | Solidarische Psychosoziale Hilfe Hamburg (SPSH) e.V. | SOPO -Sozialpolitische Opposition Hamburg | Stadtteilbüro Mümmelmannsberg | Stadtteilladen Eimsbüttel | St. Georger Bürgerinitiative Ohne Mix is nix! | St. Pauli-Archiv e.V. | Streetlife e.V., Straßensozialarbeit Rahlstedt | TammTamm, Initiative “Künstler informieren Politiker” | Tanzinitiative Hamburg e.V. | Uebel & Gefährlich | Übersleben – Theaterproduktion | ver.di Hamburg | Verlag Assoziation A | Villenbrechen | Vokü Planwirtschaft | Vorwerkstift | Washington Bar | Weltenlos e.V. | We make the City | Wohnprojekt Bahnhofstr. e.V. | Wohnprojekt Eschenhof | Wohnprojekt Inter-Pares | Wohnprojekt Jägerpassage | Wohnprojekt Ludwigstraße | Wohnprojekt Omaba | Wohnprojekt Parkhaus | Wohnprojekt Schanzenstr. 41a

http://www.rechtaufstadt.net/

[23] The World Social Forum (WSF) is an annual meeting of civil society organizations, first held in Brazil, which offers a self-conscious effort to develop an alternative future through the championing of counter-hegemonic globalization. Some consider the World Social Forum to be a physical manifestation of global civil society, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum

[24] See Samuel Stein, “Sites Speak Louder than Words,”  Progressive Planning,  no 190, Winter 2012, p. 2-ff. Note the title.

[25] From the Newesletter of the New York City General Assembly, available at http://ows.occupy.li/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=106

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s