The Feminist Perspective Of Neo-Marxism And Capitalism

This reflection will expand the capitalism contradictions through the lens of the neo-Marxist theory and the implication in the planning field. All of them discuss the relationship between built infrastructure, capitalism and the role and independence of the State (and, therefore, planners). Specifically, Harvey discusses the relationship between planning and reproduction of the (capitalist) social order. Fainstein and Fainstein used Harvey approach and expanded it to the US, and Krumbholz provides a real word example of built infrastructure dilemma. All of them agrees that the outcome of capitalist land-use pattern is uneven development, rejecting the notion of “balanced” or “steady” growth.
Harvey and Fainstein and Fainstein discuss the …show more content…
The Neo Marxist framework allows us to have a critical evaluation of current and past social issues. In the previous papers, analytical methods (and oversimplification) and modeling were the main tools used by planners to came up with a solution. However, as we recall from previous reading, problems are not unidimensional and. Therefore, there is no straightforward solution. During week 2, we discussed the concept of wicked problems and how it relates to urban planning. To my understanding, wicked problems and neo-Marxist paradigm are highly related. Neo Marxist theorist claims that the relationship between capital and labor is highly complex and, in any case, it is not a linear case. So it will be fair to say that the class struggle is a wicked problem per se. If we as planner accepts this notion, then what is our role? Should we should shift our effort from getting solution toward understanding the relationship? Is Harvey’s criticism of planning correct? This debate is a continuation of the discussion of the role of the scientific rationality in the planning theory and practice. Despite that neo-Marxist theorists does not intend to provide “solution,” as rational planners would do, it is evident that these ideas have influenced and shaped some intervention. In the past, the planning theories were excluding and antagonist. However, as planner we should think critically and …show more content…
This method will allow me to understand not only the outcome yet stress on the why. Most of the program assumed microenterprise as the smallest economic unit in the market system. However, this definition is unidimensional and, therefore, incomplete; it does not take into account that we are dealing with people that have expectation and feelings. We forget that the “return” of these firm it is not only economic but also social. These entities can foster community building and help people to move from welfare. We have an unsolved dilemma: do we encourage more individual structures or in a more collective form such as cooperatives? Because if we chose for the first one, we might be confirming Harvey criticism: we are perpetuating the capitalist economic