Steven Yourke How can you say this? He's an idiot. You have read Popper, he obviously hasn't. We stand on the shoulders of giants and see further.All comments welcome.
Popper is Great , I love Dave here but he is a nut , of the old marxist school anyway here is a reading list. Karl Marx, Racist, By Weyl Nathaniel ( Recommended) The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich von Hayek A World Without Jews. By (the racist) Karl Marx The Open Society and its Enemies, by Karl Popper Marx's Religion of Revolution: Regeneration Through Chaos by Gary North PhD. Communist Eschatology, by Francis Nigel Lee PhD. Socialism, by Ludwig Von Mises
Marx and Keynes are hugely important, whether we agree with them or not. (I do not). I appreciate the efforts of Harvey and his ilk for trying to help us understand what Marx was going on about and why he still appeals to people.
More reading: "Karl Marx and the Close of His System" by Bohm-Bawerk "Planned Chaos" by Mises "Classical Economics" by Rothbard "Main Currents of Marxism" by Kolakowski "Darwin, Marx, Wagner" by Jacques Barzun "The Drama of Atheistic Humanism" by Henri de Lubac "Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx, and Freud" by R.F. Baum "The Passing of an Illusion" by Francois Furet "Communism" by Richard Pipes "The Soviet Tragedy" by Martin Malia
First class lecture. Wish I´d seen this before defending my MSc thesis on foreign direct investment in LDCs to an apopolectic external examiner who was also a WB consultant
Such ironic coincidence, i was just going to look for something new from David Harvey, and lo and behold, a talk that was uploaded today! I had not realized until now how advanced his talks are, they are still good though.
A very good discussion of the inner tensions within capitalism. Thank you for sharing it with us. Before we can solve the problems posed by the capitalist system, we first have to understand those problems thoroughly. Marx is certainly the most important analyst of capitalism's inner conflicts. But unfortunately understanding the problems, though vitally important, is not enough to actually solve them. That will take a lot of hard work and political organizing on an international scale.
If you wish to make your world a better place, I suggest you look for what you have in common with people you can group up with instead of focusing on what your differences are. It's fine to disagree but not to dismiss.
"This is why college students still need training after college...Academia teaches them how to identify problems - not how to solve them. All Mr. Harvey does is identify problems - any 3rd grader can do that. It takes problem solving skills and guts to resolve and communicate the pathway towards success. Harvey utilizes English well. Where does he get his money? From college tuition payments made by parents who are in the capitalist system. He's a Capitalist - whether he acknowledges it or not." What a stupid comment. If anything, it is today the exact opposite: universities focus on producing "expert problem solvers" without any ability to identify the problem. Identifying the problem determines how you conceive of a problem and determines your solution. The current "solutions" you are talking about simply accept the definition of the problem unquestioningly.
Care to give examples? I've followed Harvey's lectures and what I've heard him say about it is that the falling rate of profit has a lot of counter-acting and delaying issues about it so you might find better answers to falling profits in our current situation through the problems regarding circulation in vol 2, 3 and in the Grundrisse. Not meaning that he disregards neither the labor theory of value or the falling rate of profit.
Good point- they should teach economics in 3rd grade- as I have never heard a 3rd grader talk about the exchange value versus use value of a house. They should also teach socratic method- where the path to knowledge is through asking the right questions. And finally they should teach the difference between judgement and communication. When they teach this in 3rd grade, I suggest you go back and attend class!
Beginning to enjoy this Leftwing Professor , he has sorta a nice way of speaking , then again that is his British demeanor which can be rather arrogant or pleasantly nice . Still in this video , he never talks about the Mercantilistic Monarchists of the world
I think a capitalist, in the marxist vernaculum, is the one who owns the ways of production. Harvey doesn't own the ways of production, so he is not a capitalist. He is a worker, or maybe a little capitalist (midle-class or little bourgeois), which is completely different from a capitalist. I think pointing out the system's flaws is not as easy as you say. It is not solving the problem, but is part of the solution. Maybe Harvey would say that the solution is the workers' revolution.
Rick Roderick had a provocative definition of the working class. "Don't work for a year. If you're still good, no problem. If you're having trouble in your life, you were in the working class and didn't even know it." The problem Harvey, and other rational academics have - as do I, much though I sympathise with their critique - is the irrational, addictive, animal nature of humanity: that is, put simply, squaring Marx and Freud. To quote Frank Zappa "people like to own stuff". People are greedy, violent. We're a virus with shoes. Its not about hiving off a small group of money obsessed lunatics: these days kids look at me strangely when I challenge their obsession with money. Who DOESN'T want to be rich? Its the sine qua non of our entire culture and its ideology. Its the water these kids swim in - BE YOURSELF, BE AN INDIVIDUAL. Common property is all very well but its not something that is understood any longer - otherwise people wouldn't trash parks with garbage and tags. This park isn't mine - it regulates my behaviour, it tells me to keep off the grass. The park is for other people. Its for grandma. So we need, in tandem with hands on the levers of power, a transformation of general attitude, mindfulness, insight, a slow and sensible detox from materialism. Easily said, not so easily done. Early Faberian Socialism in Britain built on puritanical Christian origins: the work ethic, the self abnegation, the doing without. This sounds joyless and uniform - and coercive - as a program today. And believe me, I've been round a communist supermarket - it is pretty joyless and has you craving all the bad stuff - cheap Chinese goods, sugary foods, discount booze. Communism sounds great, but five Communists often have a hard time sharing a fridge, never mind a world.
There's a number of things wrong with what your analysis. 1) It is wrong to say that human nature is inherently base. Humans are remarkably flexible. They bend and sway with their environment. If you have a socioeconomic system that is based on greed, you will produce mainly greedy humans. If you have one based on needs and sharing, you will produce more compassionate humans. It seems we're inherently greedy, because capitalism is all we know (and sadly is probably all we'll ever know). Humans have been around for 200,000 years and for the vast majority of that time, we lived communally in egalitarian societies. It was because of scarcity around 10,000 years ago that class divided societies began to emerge, and then the dark side of humans developed. So lets change the system, to improve human behaviour. 2) You have a very West-centric view of the world. You say 'people like to own stuff' and they dont want to give up that privilege. But you ignore the fact that billions of people around the world dont even have drinkable water, or enough food. Believe me, the last thing theyre thinking is owning surplus wealth. They just want to survive. The global capitalist system has not been kind to them. 3) Who says you cant be an individual under socialism? In fact, its under capitalism that over the half the world are reduced to virtual slaves living in grotesque conditions of abject poverty. Under socialism, everyone would have the material wherewithal to live meaningful lives and to be able to follow their own dreams. 4) You suggest China is communist. Let's be clear, communism / socialism has never existed, because working people have never been in control of the means of production. China is an example of state capitalism, as is North Korea, Cuba, the USSR etc etc. They're still systems based on profit, only its a small political bureaucracy who owns the capital.
Nevertheless, and believe me I am sympathetic to socialism and class myself as a socialist, as Zizek has pointed out it is easier for our cultural imaginary to contemplate the destruction of all life on earth (The Road, Deep Impact) than it is to contemplate an alternative to capitalism, whether on western model, Chinese model, etc. I'm not saying that this is a satisfactory state of affairs, but addressing dominator culture... as Terence Mckenna calls it, needs to be a part of the solution.
Also I am unconvinced by the communal society prelapserian argument. Many "primitive " societies of hunter gatherers are rigidly hierarchical. Yes agricultural technologies may exaggerate the notion of land owned and defended, but we are not in a position to feed the world's poor by hunting and gathering any longer. Our population as a species has become agriculture dependent.
luckyswine Ok fair enough, it sounds like Im preaching to the largely converted! I agree with you re addressing the dominant culture. This is essentially what Gramsci was talking about when he talks of 'war of position'. And you're right, it's going to be fucking hard to change people's minds on that. But if we dont, capitalist induced climate change will doom us within the next 50 years. So we have everything to gain in trying. 'we are not in a position to feed the world's poor by hunting and gathering any longer', Thats absolutely true. But we ARE in a position to feed the word through socialism. Anyway, I was simply making the case that theres nothing inherently greedy in human nature, and pre-neolithic hunter gatherer society demonstrates that.
As for a good source, lets try America's top intellectual Noam Chomsky: "It is only the Third World that is to be subjected to the destructive forces of free market capitalism, so that it can be more efficiently robbed and exploited by the powerful". So who should we trust? A think tank's index which has been criticized by many economists as tautology that prosperity=freedom or one of the most respected minds to ever come from this country?
Waqas Amin Back when the charging of interest was disallowed by law, there was no way for an entrepreneur to get started, unless he had already inherited money or happened to befriend a rich guy willing to give him charity. I don't see what the problem with interest is supposed to be? Surely, paying a little extra to have something before you can afford it, isn't all that different from paying someone to deliver something to your door so you don't have to drive and pick it up. Either way, someone has to offer to do it, and someone has to think it's a sufficiently good deal to warrant consideration. Not to mention, I think it's a good thing that producers of goods are penlized for taking time. There should definitely be a premium for shortening your production processes - not to mention a baseline safe return on investment, against which you can compare your entrepreneurial projects. I can kind of see how someone could think it's a good idea to oppose private property (if I tilt my head and squint, and the light falls just right.) Democracy is a common enough ideal, and not for entirely bad reasons, and the idea of having something of your very own which is not available to the rest of society does run contrary to that ideal. But, once you've accepted private property and trade, then how can you take umbridge with something as innocuous as paying a premium for early access?
Oxidizable money would not end capitalism because capitalist store their wealth in the form of stock not money. However, oxidizable money would prevent recurrence of capitalism after it's been dismantled. In the end, wouldn't a wealth tax be the same as oxidizable money?
How Orwellian of you to say that, capitalism=economic freedom. Capitalism=Economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, with the goal of making a profit. Funny that I don't see where 'freedom' is a part of that definition. Libertarians always try to equate capitalism to freedom even though it has created some of the least free conditions ever. Also Heritage foundation is a shit source, its a conservative think tank that sees American Capitalist model as freedom.
it is unfortunate that the narrative follows the pattern that has come to known as cultural marxism. the goal as laid out by gramsci, is the "march through the institutions." because the population did not immediately see the benefit of giving up and adopting marxism, and socialism, they laid out the plan to destroy western culture by causing a loss in confidence in culture. thus leaving the population in despair and ready to sway away from western culture, and it's behavior of "trade." the talks, by this gentleman, wolf, and if you read marcuse, adorno, habermans, et al, are filled with simile, metaphor and ostensible reasoning, that build the rhetoric that the world is collapsing, soiety is rotten, we are evil, the environment is destroyed. only after we adopt the utopian ideal will the world be repaired, egalitarian, fair, just, and "better" than what we have. based on his reputation, i am guessing his salary is over 120K per year. www2.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/page-assets/about/administration/offices/labor-relations/labor-contracts/2010-2017-CUNY-PSC-Salary-Schedule-1.pdf pretty good pay for a marxist on public payroll, basically, advocating the overthrow of the US Government. after all, think about it, this demand he is making will only be possible by a violent overthrow. follow by what? every instance of the adoption of marxism has resulted in totalitarian regimes that murder their own population. this is what common housing that noone owns in a communist country: www.elstonhill.com/sitebuilder/images/Mongolia21_003-527x405.jpg i guess he forgot that is in our nature - as animals - to store goods, (food) things you need, for later use - aka, sqirrels. the more i listen, these utopian ideals appear to have more contradictions than capitalism.
Yeah, I agree with GoopBlue. Stop being a cheerleader and see how different outcomes produces different outcomes, which in turn produces different outcomes. Science is the way to go, economy is perhaps some of the weakest sciences at the moment, it got nothing on biology/chemistry/physics (and divering branches, cognitive psychology etc etc etc) because it must incorporate those realities in as well to have decent models. Again, stop the cheerleading.
This is why college students still need training after college...Academia teaches them how to identify problems - not how to solve them. All Mr. Harvey does is identify problems - any 3rd grader can do that. It takes problem solving skills and guts to resolve and communicate the pathway towards success. Harvey utilizes English well. Where does he get his money? From college tuition payments made by parents who are in the capitalist system. He's a Capitalist - whether he acknowledges it or not.
Yeah My bad I really like Harvey But He still is backing away from a HUGE theory in Marx and it completes the picture. I would recommend Harvey but he is incomplete and sometimes sounds like a Keynesian not a Marxist TH-cam search Andrew Kliman, and you will see, its the Falling rate of profit
I am no longer a fan of Harvey. But am no less of a Marxist. He has made a great error in understanding Marx. He has left fundamental theories out of his equation. Andrew Kliman is the new rising Marxist. He is looking deeper in the labor theory of value. And the falling rate of profit. you tube (Rethinking Marxism: Andrew Kliman 1 of 2 "Contradictions of Capitalism's Value production) to see what I mean
well that is a very simplistic way to explain 2008 crisis, I was expecting more for such a smart guy, maybe emotions getting on the way?. Why neither Karl nor his groupies want to talk about supply and demand and always assume supply and demand in balance?
That's the contradiction explained in Poverty Amidst Plenty. At no point do people want to be homeless, they just can't afford their homes. it's not a problem of supply or demand of houses , it's a problem of the supply and demand of money. Is there a lack of trees or carpenters or land to develop in the United States? absolutely not. Do people want to live in the street? absolutely not. The US is the largest, most developed economy in human history and in a single year millions lost their homes and their pensions and jobs without a war or a natural disaster. Harvey explains that houses primary purpose have become as financial assets instead of shelter. When you treat homes and the mortgages associated with them like bitcoin, when the bubble bursts people don't just see their crypto wallet worth nothing, they lose their homes.
@@jacobjones630 well the point of US becoming so rich is the absolute financialisation of the system, otherwise you can’t develop productivity fast enough to have such high growth % a year from the industrialisation era. This includes housing, healthcare, public transport, etc.
@@elaleyo The US is wealthy because of our vast natural and human resources. Financialization and speculation is like whip cream on a cake. it makes the cake bigger but it's mostly air. the amount of air to cake is becoming increasingly unbalanced and unless we reign in the absolute financialization of every single part of the economy, the entire thing will become unstable and collapse like in the 1930s. You can't have compounding growth year over year forever. There aren't enough goods or services on the planet for that. The insatiable profit motive will therefore turn to riskier and more speculative forms of money creation, like gambling on mortgage debt, combining securities into riskier and riskier assets, and crushing competition by forming monopolies and cartels. We either end this kind of unproductive greed or it is going to end us.
He does acknowledge that he is a capitalist. Your argument is paper thin. Just because a person lives in a system and benefits from it doesn't mean they are a hypocrite because they question and criticise it. Who is in a position to criticise to capitalism? Not the poor and down trodden, only people in a privileged position like David Harvey. I don't think you would apply the same criticism to a person in a privileged position in a communist society who questioned it.
First off if you knew anything about what you were talking about you'd know that North Korea isn't Marxist, they are a Juche. Second you have no clue what capitalism is more than likely, as you probably believe the failed theories of the Austrian school of economics. People who love capitalism should live in Africa or Bangladesh, those are the only areas in the world with what one would call pure capitalism. Maybe you should read a book. Some slaves love their chains.
Excellent talk. David Harvey is a very good writer and his many books are well worth reading.
Steven Yourke How can you say this? He's an idiot. You have read Popper, he obviously hasn't. We stand on the shoulders of giants and see further.All comments welcome.
Popper is Great , I love Dave here but he is a nut , of the old marxist school anyway here is a reading list.
Karl Marx, Racist, By Weyl Nathaniel ( Recommended)
The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich von Hayek
A World Without Jews. By (the racist) Karl Marx
The Open Society and its Enemies, by Karl Popper
Marx's Religion of Revolution: Regeneration Through Chaos
by Gary North PhD.
Communist Eschatology, by Francis Nigel Lee PhD.
Socialism, by Ludwig Von Mises
Marx and Keynes are hugely important, whether we agree with them or not. (I do not). I appreciate the efforts of Harvey and his ilk for trying to help us understand what Marx was going on about and why he still appeals to people.
More reading:
"Karl Marx and the Close of His System" by Bohm-Bawerk
"Planned Chaos" by Mises
"Classical Economics" by Rothbard
"Main Currents of Marxism" by Kolakowski
"Darwin, Marx, Wagner" by Jacques Barzun
"The Drama of Atheistic Humanism" by Henri de Lubac
"Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx, and Freud" by R.F. Baum
"The Passing of an Illusion" by Francois Furet
"Communism" by Richard Pipes
"The Soviet Tragedy" by Martin Malia
I was at this lecture :-)
Great work, Harvey. Tying the economic analysis to the politics. Getting more radical. Keep it up.
First class lecture. Wish I´d seen this before defending my MSc thesis on foreign direct investment in LDCs to an apopolectic external examiner who was also a WB consultant
Sounds interesting.
Such ironic coincidence, i was just going to look for something new from David Harvey, and lo and behold, a talk that was uploaded today! I had not realized until now how advanced his talks are, they are still good though.
Contradictions start @ 12:44
great great stuff, can't wait to see more of this when I join!
thanks for the upload Atanas!
A very good discussion of the inner tensions within capitalism. Thank you for sharing it with us. Before we can solve the problems posed by the capitalist system, we first have to understand those problems thoroughly. Marx is certainly the most important analyst of capitalism's inner conflicts. But unfortunately understanding the problems, though vitally important, is not enough to actually solve them. That will take a lot of hard work and political organizing on an international scale.
brilliant teaching.
If you wish to make your world a better place, I suggest you look for what you have in common with people you can group up with instead of focusing on what your differences are. It's fine to disagree but not to dismiss.
"This is why college students still need training after college...Academia teaches them how to identify problems - not how to solve them. All Mr. Harvey does is identify problems - any 3rd grader can do that. It takes problem solving skills and guts to resolve and communicate the pathway towards success. Harvey utilizes English well. Where does he get his money? From college tuition payments made by parents who are in the capitalist system. He's a Capitalist - whether he acknowledges it or not."
What a stupid comment. If anything, it is today the exact opposite: universities focus on producing "expert problem solvers" without any ability to identify the problem. Identifying the problem determines how you conceive of a problem and determines your solution. The current "solutions" you are talking about simply accept the definition of the problem unquestioningly.
Care to give examples? I've followed Harvey's lectures and what I've heard him say about it is that the falling rate of profit has a lot of counter-acting and delaying issues about it so you might find better answers to falling profits in our current situation through the problems regarding circulation in vol 2, 3 and in the Grundrisse. Not meaning that he disregards neither the labor theory of value or the falling rate of profit.
Is there by any chance a transcript of this lecture available?
Good point- they should teach economics in 3rd grade- as I have never heard a 3rd grader talk about the exchange value versus use value of a house. They should also teach socratic method- where the path to knowledge is through asking the right questions. And finally they should teach the difference between judgement and communication. When they teach this in 3rd grade, I suggest you go back and attend class!
Beginning to enjoy this Leftwing Professor , he has sorta a nice way of speaking , then again that is his British demeanor which can be rather arrogant or pleasantly nice .
Still in this video , he never talks about the Mercantilistic Monarchists of the world
Fantastic
I think a capitalist, in the marxist vernaculum, is the one who owns the ways of production.
Harvey doesn't own the ways of production, so he is not a capitalist. He is a worker, or maybe a little capitalist (midle-class or little bourgeois), which is completely different from a capitalist.
I think pointing out the system's flaws is not as easy as you say. It is not solving the problem, but is part of the solution. Maybe Harvey would say that the solution is the workers' revolution.
Commonality certainly helps with the listening part, for sure.
Good and interesting
Harvey's conclusions couldn't be further from Keynes, he talks of the impossibility of sustaining growth and the need for a 0% growth economy.
Sorry about this David. I have to ask. Have you or do you communicate with the new leader of the Brit Labour Party? Thank you.
brilliant
The irony, it burns...
Can someone tell me some points on how marx says capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction?
notable
We would like to offer spanish subtitles for this lecture. How can we do this? you can contact us at info@biocon.net
Rick Roderick had a provocative definition of the working class. "Don't work for a year. If you're still good, no problem. If you're having trouble in your life, you were in the working class and didn't even know it."
The problem Harvey, and other rational academics have - as do I, much though I sympathise with their critique - is the irrational, addictive, animal nature of humanity: that is, put simply, squaring Marx and Freud. To quote Frank Zappa "people like to own stuff". People are greedy, violent. We're a virus with shoes. Its not about hiving off a small group of money obsessed lunatics: these days kids look at me strangely when I challenge their obsession with money.
Who DOESN'T want to be rich? Its the sine qua non of our entire culture and its ideology. Its the water these kids swim in - BE YOURSELF, BE AN INDIVIDUAL. Common property is all very well but its not something that is understood any longer - otherwise people wouldn't trash parks with garbage and tags. This park isn't mine - it regulates my behaviour, it tells me to keep off the grass. The park is for other people. Its for grandma.
So we need, in tandem with hands on the levers of power, a transformation of general attitude, mindfulness, insight, a slow and sensible detox from materialism. Easily said, not so easily done. Early Faberian Socialism in Britain built on puritanical Christian origins: the work ethic, the self abnegation, the doing without. This sounds joyless and uniform - and coercive - as a program today. And believe me, I've been round a communist supermarket - it is pretty joyless and has you craving all the bad stuff - cheap Chinese goods, sugary foods, discount booze. Communism sounds great, but five Communists often have a hard time sharing a fridge, never mind a world.
There's a number of things wrong with what your analysis.
1) It is wrong to say that human nature is inherently base. Humans are remarkably flexible. They bend and sway with their environment. If you have a socioeconomic system that is based on greed, you will produce mainly greedy humans. If you have one based on needs and sharing, you will produce more compassionate humans. It seems we're inherently greedy, because capitalism is all we know (and sadly is probably all we'll ever know). Humans have been around for 200,000 years and for the vast majority of that time, we lived communally in egalitarian societies. It was because of scarcity around 10,000 years ago that class divided societies began to emerge, and then the dark side of humans developed. So lets change the system, to improve human behaviour.
2) You have a very West-centric view of the world. You say 'people like to own stuff' and they dont want to give up that privilege. But you ignore the fact that billions of people around the world dont even have drinkable water, or enough food. Believe me, the last thing theyre thinking is owning surplus wealth. They just want to survive. The global capitalist system has not been kind to them.
3) Who says you cant be an individual under socialism? In fact, its under capitalism that over the half the world are reduced to virtual slaves living in grotesque conditions of abject poverty. Under socialism, everyone would have the material wherewithal to live meaningful lives and to be able to follow their own dreams.
4) You suggest China is communist. Let's be clear, communism / socialism has never existed, because working people have never been in control of the means of production. China is an example of state capitalism, as is North Korea, Cuba, the USSR etc etc. They're still systems based on profit, only its a small political bureaucracy who owns the capital.
Nevertheless, and believe me I am sympathetic to socialism and class myself as a socialist, as Zizek has pointed out it is easier for our cultural imaginary to contemplate the destruction of all life on earth (The Road, Deep Impact) than it is to contemplate an alternative to capitalism, whether on western model, Chinese model, etc. I'm not saying that this is a satisfactory state of affairs, but addressing dominator culture... as Terence Mckenna calls it, needs to be a part of the solution.
Also I am unconvinced by the communal society prelapserian argument. Many "primitive " societies of hunter gatherers are rigidly hierarchical. Yes agricultural technologies may exaggerate the notion of land owned and defended, but we are not in a position to feed the world's poor by hunting and gathering any longer. Our population as a species has become agriculture dependent.
luckyswine Ok fair enough, it sounds like Im preaching to the largely converted!
I agree with you re addressing the dominant culture. This is essentially what Gramsci was talking about when he talks of 'war of position'. And you're right, it's going to be fucking hard to change people's minds on that. But if we dont, capitalist induced climate change will doom us within the next 50 years. So we have everything to gain in trying.
'we are not in a position to feed the world's poor by hunting and gathering any longer', Thats absolutely true. But we ARE in a position to feed the word through socialism. Anyway, I was simply making the case that theres nothing inherently greedy in human nature, and pre-neolithic hunter gatherer society demonstrates that.
As for a good source, lets try America's top intellectual Noam Chomsky: "It is only the Third World that is to be subjected to the destructive forces of free market capitalism, so that it can be more efficiently robbed and exploited by the powerful". So who should we trust? A think tank's index which has been criticized by many economists as tautology that prosperity=freedom or one of the most respected minds to ever come from this country?
Maybe, for everyone's benefit, you can elaborate?
The problem is usury/interest - not capital. A non-usury based economy works well.
Can you show research to demonstrate this?
ondank There's a book called 'the problem with interest' by Tarek El Diwany. A practical model will be coming to Pakistan in the coming years.
Waqas Amin
Back when the charging of interest was disallowed by law, there was no way for an entrepreneur to get started, unless he had already inherited money or happened to befriend a rich guy willing to give him charity.
I don't see what the problem with interest is supposed to be? Surely, paying a little extra to have something before you can afford it, isn't all that different from paying someone to deliver something to your door so you don't have to drive and pick it up. Either way, someone has to offer to do it, and someone has to think it's a sufficiently good deal to warrant consideration.
Not to mention, I think it's a good thing that producers of goods are penlized for taking time. There should definitely be a premium for shortening your production processes - not to mention a baseline safe return on investment, against which you can compare your entrepreneurial projects.
I can kind of see how someone could think it's a good idea to oppose private property (if I tilt my head and squint, and the light falls just right.) Democracy is a common enough ideal, and not for entirely bad reasons, and the idea of having something of your very own which is not available to the rest of society does run contrary to that ideal.
But, once you've accepted private property and trade, then how can you take umbridge with something as innocuous as paying a premium for early access?
the state lost control on monopoly on money to private hands
For an oxidizable means of circulation: bioecon.net
Oxidizable money would not end capitalism because capitalist store their wealth in the form of stock not money. However, oxidizable money would prevent recurrence of capitalism after it's been dismantled.
In the end, wouldn't a wealth tax be the same as oxidizable money?
I'm finding out Harvey is actually pretty far from Marx
How Orwellian of you to say that, capitalism=economic freedom. Capitalism=Economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, with the goal of making a profit. Funny that I don't see where 'freedom' is a part of that definition. Libertarians always try to equate capitalism to freedom even though it has created some of the least free conditions ever. Also Heritage foundation is a shit source, its a conservative think tank that sees American Capitalist model as freedom.
Hopefully you dismissed it *after* you made this comment. If before, I don't think your dismissing stuck.
Jackson Frank Thompson Ronald Garcia Ruth
it is unfortunate that the narrative follows the pattern that has come to known as cultural marxism. the goal as laid out by gramsci, is the "march through the institutions." because the population did not immediately see the benefit of giving up and adopting marxism, and socialism, they laid out the plan to destroy western culture by causing a loss in confidence in culture. thus leaving the population in despair and ready to sway away from western culture, and it's behavior of "trade." the talks, by this gentleman, wolf, and if you read marcuse, adorno, habermans, et al, are filled with simile, metaphor and ostensible reasoning, that build the rhetoric that the world is collapsing, soiety is rotten, we are evil, the environment is destroyed. only after we adopt the utopian ideal will the world be repaired, egalitarian, fair, just, and "better" than what we have.
based on his reputation, i am guessing his salary is over 120K per year. www2.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/page-assets/about/administration/offices/labor-relations/labor-contracts/2010-2017-CUNY-PSC-Salary-Schedule-1.pdf
pretty good pay for a marxist on public payroll, basically, advocating the overthrow of the US Government.
after all, think about it, this demand he is making will only be possible by a violent overthrow.
follow by what? every instance of the adoption of marxism has resulted in totalitarian regimes that murder their own population.
this is what common housing that noone owns in a communist country: www.elstonhill.com/sitebuilder/images/Mongolia21_003-527x405.jpg
i guess he forgot that is in our nature - as animals - to store goods, (food) things you need, for later use - aka, sqirrels.
the more i listen, these utopian ideals appear to have more contradictions than capitalism.
you know how long it takes to understand Marx ?
by the time you understand it ... you will deny yourself knowing that Marx was wrong !
Yeah, I agree with GoopBlue. Stop being a cheerleader and see how different outcomes produces different outcomes, which in turn produces different outcomes. Science is the way to go, economy is perhaps some of the weakest sciences at the moment, it got nothing on biology/chemistry/physics (and divering branches, cognitive psychology etc etc etc) because it must incorporate those realities in as well to have decent models. Again, stop the cheerleading.
This is why college students still need training after college...Academia teaches them how to identify problems - not how to solve them.
All Mr. Harvey does is identify problems - any 3rd grader can do that. It takes problem solving skills and guts to resolve and communicate the pathway towards success.
Harvey utilizes English well. Where does he get his money? From college tuition payments made by parents who are in the capitalist system. He's a Capitalist - whether he acknowledges it or not.
Stupid comment. Harvey does not own the means of production. Your ignorance is amazing.
Yeah My bad
I really like Harvey But He still is backing away from a HUGE theory in Marx and it completes the picture.
I would recommend Harvey but he is incomplete and sometimes sounds like a Keynesian not a Marxist
TH-cam search Andrew Kliman, and you will see, its the Falling rate of profit
I am no longer a fan of Harvey. But am no less of a Marxist.
He has made a great error in understanding Marx. He has left fundamental theories out of his equation. Andrew Kliman is the new rising Marxist. He is looking deeper in the labor theory of value. And the falling rate of profit.
you tube (Rethinking Marxism: Andrew Kliman 1 of 2 "Contradictions of Capitalism's Value production) to see what I mean
well that is a very simplistic way to explain 2008 crisis, I was expecting more for such a smart guy, maybe emotions getting on the way?. Why neither Karl nor his groupies want to talk about supply and demand and always assume supply and demand in balance?
That's the contradiction explained in Poverty Amidst Plenty. At no point do people want to be homeless, they just can't afford their homes. it's not a problem of supply or demand of houses , it's a problem of the supply and demand of money. Is there a lack of trees or carpenters or land to develop in the United States? absolutely not. Do people want to live in the street? absolutely not. The US is the largest, most developed economy in human history and in a single year millions lost their homes and their pensions and jobs without a war or a natural disaster. Harvey explains that houses primary purpose have become as financial assets instead of shelter. When you treat homes and the mortgages associated with them like bitcoin, when the bubble bursts people don't just see their crypto wallet worth nothing, they lose their homes.
@@jacobjones630 well the point of US becoming so rich is the absolute financialisation of the system, otherwise you can’t develop productivity fast enough to have such high growth % a year from the industrialisation era. This includes housing, healthcare, public transport, etc.
@@elaleyo The US is wealthy because of our vast natural and human resources. Financialization and speculation is like whip cream on a cake. it makes the cake bigger but it's mostly air. the amount of air to cake is becoming increasingly unbalanced and unless we reign in the absolute financialization of every single part of the economy, the entire thing will become unstable and collapse like in the 1930s. You can't have compounding growth year over year forever. There aren't enough goods or services on the planet for that. The insatiable profit motive will therefore turn to riskier and more speculative forms of money creation, like gambling on mortgage debt, combining securities into riskier and riskier assets, and crushing competition by forming monopolies and cartels. We either end this kind of unproductive greed or it is going to end us.
He does acknowledge that he is a capitalist. Your argument is paper thin. Just because a person lives in a system and benefits from it doesn't mean they are a hypocrite because they question and criticise it. Who is in a position to criticise to capitalism? Not the poor and down trodden, only people in a privileged position like David Harvey. I don't think you would apply the same criticism to a person in a privileged position in a communist society who questioned it.
A person in a privileged position in a communist society questioning that communist society would be dead or in a gulag. That's the first difference.
i dismiss this comment.
First off if you knew anything about what you were talking about you'd know that North Korea isn't Marxist, they are a Juche. Second you have no clue what capitalism is more than likely, as you probably believe the failed theories of the Austrian school of economics. People who love capitalism should live in Africa or Bangladesh, those are the only areas in the world with what one would call pure capitalism. Maybe you should read a book. Some slaves love their chains.
why is it crap?