Urban in power in some people but in

Urban cities are good environments that allow
people to have better economic and social opportunities, but in the same way,
cities are environments where more inequalities and marginalization are
experienced. Thus, the argument between the aspirations of people to obtain the
same rights and opportunities, and the inequalities that limit those
expectations are important for the creation of subversive political groups in
cities. Moreover, in these urban cities, inequalities are the main factors that
drive social movements, they are good environments for fostering subversive
political relations and movements, and as a result, these mobilizations have
changed cities like Los Angeles. For this, when people become conscious can
mobilize and fight against these practices that control their right to the
city.

The general socioeconomic factors that
stimulated urban mobilizations over the past 25 years are inequalities, such as
displacement, deportation, and gentrification. Urban cities are places where
new ways of ordering and controlling social life are created often times, cause
inequalities to already marginalize people. Additionally, this produces the
increase in power in some people but in the case of low-income people, it diminishes.
According to David Harvey, the growth of economic and political power results
in displacement of marginalizing people. Also, Harvey explains that this is
“the accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey), the process of concentrating
power that results in depriving people of their right to live and act in
cities. Dispossession is functioning locally and it is happening in everyday
life. The process of disposition contributes to creating moral shocks, this
means people believe they have the same rights to act and live in the city,
however; they face inequalities. As a result, this becomes a form of resistance
and give rise to subversive and political relations and movements. Moreover,
these factors played out an important role especially in transforming the city
of Los Angeles. The increase of social and spatial inequalities has accompanied
this change, making the search for social and spatial justice increasingly
urgent and demanding. Edward W. Soja emphasis how social movements have
transformed the city of Los Angeles from being a “‘placeless’ urban world to
the “most vigorous and effective urban labor movement in the united states”
(Soja, 24). L.A. is the main example of how cities are good environments for
fostering subversive political relations and movements.

Urban cities produce conflict over space, and
as a result, social movements and subversive political groups form to express
and fight against. For this, cities are great environments for nourishing
subversive political relations and movements. The qualities that make urban
cities particularly good for nourishing these groups and movements are density,
size, and diversity (Wirth, pg. 7, 9). However, density can generate conflicts over
space (Bollens). Also, cities are big in size, and they have plenty numbers of
sources (money, and networks, etc.) to support organizations and groups.
Similarly, diversity allows cities to become the perfect places where new
relations and connections between minorities and marginalize groups form and
demand the right to the city (Wirth). As a result, social movements manifest
and protest to demand the equal right to urban space. Conflict and movements
arise locally but also spread nationally as activists and organizations create
relations between local and national organizations. The city of Los Angeles is
a good example of how political subversive groups and movements can transform a
city. Los Angeles has become the main center for the formation of labor and
community groups and movements that demand and to fight for the spatial right.

The city of Los Angeles has been transformed
by the creation of subversive political relations and movements. In order for
cities to pay out organizations, cities need to have money, however; in the
1980s cities suffered a massive reduction in federal funds and also a decline
in tax revenues, as a result this causes the decrease of power between
organizations and communities (Walter, Nicholls). In addition, in the 1990s Los
Angeles started to see new organizations and social justice movements to
flourish such as immigrant organizations, and new unions that started to reach
out from other labor unions. The riots of 1992 marked a turning point for the
labor movement in Los Angeles, provoking a strong acknowledge that it the
government would not respond successfully and for this, they needed new methods
and strategies in order to fight for a better social and economic justice
(Soja). These events became an important moment for the city of Los Angeles, by
connecting not just the local but the national labor movement and creating
strong connections between labor, community, and other institutions.
Additionally, Los Angeles became the center for the development of what it came
to be known as “the community based regionalism” (Soja, 9), The main purpose of
this was not only to create bigger and stronger organizations but also to
emphasize that the economy and geography were powerful and dominant forces that
shape the physical and economic growth of a city. For this, the city of Los
Angeles is the clear example of how political subversive groups and movements
can organize and demand the right to the city.

Cities are unique environments divided with
inequalities and problems, however; this facilitates the creation of subversive
political groups. For this, the right to the city is the opportunity to
transform an equal place in which one can live with dignity, be recognized as
part of it, and where people have the same right to the city.