Abstract
Abstract This paper aims to understand the limits and possibilities of the fight for the right to the city taking into consideration the recent contributions from the State derivation debate. The methodology utilized was the dialectical historical method, considering theoretical and historical-social aspects from the transformation of urban space fight. It was possible to verify that legal and political forms are essential for the reproduction of the current sociability as they derive from the commodity form. Thus, as a conclusion, the struggle for the right to the city based only on institutional demands by the positivation of rights and public policies reduces its emancipatory potential by restricting it to the social forms of capital.
Highlights
It is understood that the right to the city, in the conception created by Henri Lefebvre and currently developed by David Harvey, has two dimensions: the overlap of the use-value of urban space in relation to the exchange value and the utopian dimension
Central to this analysis are the studies situated within the state's derivationist debate (CALDAS, 2014, p. 12) and their contributions to understanding “issues related to the problem of value, accumulation and social forms of capitalism” (MASCARO, 2018b)
Understanding the limits and possibilities of the struggle for the right to the city through critical thinking is an opening for reflections that are urgent in the context of theory as well as political practice
Summary
It is understood that the right to the city, in the conception created by Henri Lefebvre and currently developed by David Harvey, has two dimensions: the overlap of the use-value of urban space in relation to the exchange value and the utopian dimension. Research on political and legal structures is important, together with the apprehension of the limits of the struggle in the institutional field for public policies and laws that aim to promote the right to the city. Central to this analysis are the studies situated within the state's derivationist debate In the context of this debate, the idea that State and Law are neutral instruments, that is, that they can be used for any purpose, is rejected (CALDAS, 2014, p. 192)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call