If you've looked into enough literature on human psychology you've probably come across the codependent/narcissist model. I'm starting to see some legitimate parallels to this model in regards to neoliberalism and our reaction to it, how it is maintained. It was especially noticeable to me when David mentioned that the neoliberalists are engaged with victim blaming and that the public blamed themselves for their financial predicament. I mean, that is essentially the codependent/narcissism dynamic playing out. Propaganda is not unlike gaslighting. This just goes to show really how entrenched this dynamic is in human civilization.
As above, so below...See Harvey/Marx 's explanation of the parasitical dynamics of Capitalism. Also see Jung on Alchemy and the Unconscious. We absorb at a deep level the dynamics of the environment we are embedded in and play them out on a personal level. In essence we become it. Harvey alludes to it in this interview. "We are all Neo-Liberal in a way!" - Neo Liberal/Narcissism are just terms for describing inter-relational dynamics of the system in question...it's underlying nature is rapacious/parasitical.
@simple man It is. Fascism is a natural outgrowth from Liberalism. Neo Liberalism can be accurately viewed as proto-fascism. The basic ideology of Liberalism is that good governance comes from the mediation of the two opposing forces of the social (liberty, equality, solidarity) vs Capital (the economic). Fascism is when Liberalism completely abandons the social in favor of Capital. Neo Liberalism is the preparatory stage to fascism.
Neoliberalism is essentially a halfway between Keynes and classical liberal economics practiced before Great Depression (what Ron Paul advocates for). Eventually, the result is the same as before.
Not sure how it's halfway between anything, but it has some of the same aims. It replaces Keynesian stimulus with credit. This buoys effective demand and therefore profitability and capital accumulation, but without narrowing the inequality gap. When you raise someone's pay or give them an education that raises their earning power, and they buy a house, they own something. But if you loan them the money for an education and a house, especially at inflated monopoly prices, you stake a claim on their future earnings, and in the case of real estate, you still own the house, plus the note. This accelerates concentration of wealth toward the top without destroying effective demand, which is a significant innovation for capital. Then, because the loans and their derivatives are essentially designed to fail, and the government has to bail the banks out when the defaults mount up, the public cost is even greater than a straight Keynesian stimulus-- just giving people money-- and the banks still own the houses and the debt. We can think of it as stimulus by credit, which accelerates inequality at great public cost and risk. Sort of reverse Keynesianism, because you buoy effective demand without letting the non-owner class increase their economic power. On a side note, the whole reason for disrupting the trend toward less inequality is that it erodes profitability. When I was young, they called this the Crisis of Democracy.
The Left today suffers from not being working-class. They are predominantly people who have never had to spend a day on an assembly line, or in a mine, or digging a ditch. They have clean and soft hands and faces. For that reason, they have lost their focus: to take from the wealthy and raise up the poor. They spend their time instead in "intellectual" discussions of various definitions of terms and creation of new terms: neoliberalism is an example. The abandonment of social responsibility for individual freedom, which is presented as a characteristic of neoliberalism is nothing new. It was the theme of Ayn Rand. The removal of government regulation from the economy is nothing new. It was the preaching of Milton Friedman. The exclusive reliance on markets, on the "invisible hand" in nothing new, it was the mantra of Alan Greenspan, until he apologized for its consequences. The Left today is a specter in the minds of the ruling elite, but it has no reality; it has no unity; it has no polity. It is a ghost of a past when there was a socialist party, a communist party, trade unions, and leaders willing to risk their lives against thugs, armed guards, federal and local police. Those were the days, my friend; we hoped they'd never end - but they did.
The problem is that the working class is now globalized, and therefore much harder to organize. Add to that the fact that the working classes in individual countries, and especially the "developed" Western countries, have been weakened by globalization and by decades of assault by the corporate-political class. But that's no reason to think that the revolution will not come. It will, despite people who resign themselves to a future that's like the present (or worse).
@The Real News Network : VOLUME! I need to keep telling TRNN to correct the damn volume and to let users, listeners, use their own volume controls. I can barely hear what David says in this interview, so will now stop the whole thing, after having tried to listen to about 2 minutes of part 1/2. The host is clearly audible to me, but David isn't. If the guest can't speak clearly, then drop the guest. I have a neighbor who likes to speak in whispers and I have no tolerance for that. Do it with your woman friend when you're in bed together, but not with me. I often can't understand what my neighbor is saying because he feels that he needs to speak super softly. A small mouse running across the floor makes awfully little sound, but my neighbor is almost worse. I need clear communication. If David only wants to whisper, then leave him out. Humanity needs clear communication! For this reason alone, I have to give this video a Thumbs Down.
Modern day Right Libertarianism is fundamentally Neoliberal at its core. And it was basically spawned out of the non-ideological individual libertarianism of the 1960s. This also helps to explain why our current Liberals are extremely opposed to ideology, of any sort. And they, in turn, use this term "Alt-Right" to describe anyone who adheres to any sort of ideology.
Neo-liberalism was always just the ideology, though the Ascendant interests believed to a considerable extent. Lame ducks must die, but when confronted with dying swans in 2008, the apparatchiks and the eminences grises in the shadows knew what had to be done. There is, however, after a dozen years of quantitative easing an Modern Monetary Practice, the unfortunate possibility the system may die of monetary dysentery. Warren Mosler was right, to a considerable extent, but he did understand there were limits to MMT: I fear that in the privileged circumstances of an American economist, and given the fact of the dollar being the reserve currency, he may not have fully appreciated it’s limits.
When it comes to Marx's statement about capitalism creating more income disparity, wasn't a big rift within the Communes in the late 19th century that it was being shown that income disparity was falling? Yeah, it's rising again within many Western countries, but why was it falling in the late 19th century and continuing onward into the 20th? Capitalism was much more unfettered then. Stronger labor movements? Were more people investing their money rather than consuming? Savings rates are the lowest they've ever been in the US. Is this part of a cycle? That is to say, is it both the cause and effect of greater income disparity?
The real question is whether or not Keynesianism can really help us out right now. Even though I'd much rather have Keynesianism than any other version of capitalism, I doubt it.
I thought ultraliberalism was "no rule in economic competition" and neoliberalism "a lot of rules to maintain consent", particularly to push for the illusion of justice in the meritocracy ladder. In this perspective neoliberalism appears in the Clinton area, not before.(Reagan and Thatcher were ultraliberal). Soon European parliament will validate or not the neoliberal leader team which has been chosen and maintain or not this status quo of a rotten Europe. If confirm we will have more and more brexit with "gilets jaunes" and bipartisan cracks around Europe. I was for Europe I'm not anymore. If the US politics is the future of Europe we are doomed.
Reagan and Thatcher lied. They called it conservatism, and presided over a wave of privatization and expansion of the finance industry in cooperation with the state that continues today under both political parties.
There is nothing "neo" about neoliberalism. It is purely and simply a revisiting of policies active at the turn of the 18th - 19th Century. What makes this project different from that time is the rolling back of gains, made by the working class, since the turn of the 19th - 20th Century. It should more accurately be termed "retroliberalism". There is nothing new about massive wealth concentration, economic inequality, institutionalized greed, and finacial corruption. These are all features that date as far back as ancient Rome. By now it should be clear that humanity is incapable of any other form of trade or economic interaction. Marx represents an analytical methodology that, on the one hand suggests hope, but when applied to both history and current events proves this deadly human innability to change. Any experiment to do things differently is met with brute force to maintain the status quo. Blood is increasingly being spilled by our system and there is no way out. It's already too late.
Neoliberalism was adopted in the former communist eastern block as a result of not being able to imitate Sweden with it's progressive socialism. Not every country can afford 3 years of maternity leave ...but then it's not an excuse to go to the other extreme and bring back feudalism as it were.
The last I've heard is that Sweden has initiated state-sponsored prepper programs for all its citizens which isn't a bad idea considering that neoliberalism has helped create the most fragile civilization in history.
I think left wing academics and people who work in a leftist ‘milieu’ overestimate the influence of the left. People like Sanders and Corbyn, who are considered dangerous radicals by the mainstream, are really just old school social democrats and they are still quite a way from wielding real power. To succeed, the left needs to build mass appeal which it can’t do with its current obsession with identity politics and moral and ideological purity. It puts having the ‘correct’ mindset ahead of being working class or negatively affected by capitalism. It really really limits the left’s appeal and helps the right by feeding into its stereotype of the left as a puritanical thought and language police. The left needs to get seriously organized beyond endlessly talking about stuff that has no impact on people or politics in the real world and debating the finer points of the Democratic Party’s useless candidates. What the left needs more than anything is influence and right now it doesn’t have much. Right now it’s basically a talking shop for academics and supporters of this or that neoliberal Dem Party candidate.
It's very alive because everything and anything public is privatised and an avalanche of the new gig economy where all are self-employed, contractor, subcontractor
In regards to the structure of news media it's good to insure there is more than one source of media doing investigative reporting in the field would be a more effective watchdog of our democracy here and abroad by having more eyes to fool or blind. The suggested new format combined with the old structure that contained many small outlets that put more focus on covering vital local issues in their area. Either portion should be sizeable enough to get truthful reporting out to enough voters to raise the alarm when one or the other is attempting to be hijacked by consolidation of power or in the case of the "wikipedia" style media small independent media would be more apt to repeatedly cover and educate the public on issues that are good for the people but are not currently populist ideas.ie Medicare 4 All -Not a populist majority approved issue in the recent past until it was repeatedly explained.
He conflates neoliberalism with liberty, freedom, and individuality; assuming that these things have in common which i feel he might have been duped into the propaganda himself. Furthermore, he goes on to say that anarchism even adopted the neoliberal elements of liberty, freedom and induviduality even though those things in particular were part of the anarchist tradition way before the conception of neoliberalism in the early 1970s that stems back to the enlightenment of the 16th century which industrial capitalism of the 19th century already discarded by then thru scientific managerialism and strike breaking that would later influenece Lenin's USSR
Those enlightenment ideals gave way to neo-liberalism. During that era, two strands came about; liberalism and socialism. The British Empire and to a lesser extent the US became pillars of liberalism. Although one could also say the American tradition was likewise 'nationalism', over the British free trade system. Either way the concepts of liberty, freedom, and individuality stem from the presuppositions of liberalism. Anarchism (true libertarianism) is just classical liberalism taken to it's logical extent, even Chomsky notes this.
so people are blaming themselves that's why they ain't out in the streets trying to take back what was taken from them how do we educate people to make them realize their whole world is disappearing in front of their eyes if we don't do something now we're all dead
This tendency of Marxists to collapse right wing libertarianism with "anarchism" with no hisorical or any other subtlty is what makes anarchists not trust Marxists. The idea that anarchists have absorbed neo-liberal cultural forms of which they are totally unaware, is a gross over simplification at every level. Let's start with the fact that there are a lot of kinds of anarchists (just as there are a lot of kinds of socialists). And saying that people who embrace personal freedom are "embracing neo-liberalism" is a specious argument at best and down-right frightening at worst. (Sounds like nascent authoritarianism to me.) Just saying that the left has assumed neo-liberal forms over and over without specifying A LOT MORE what you mean makes this discussion very unsatisfying and not very informative.
By nature we are given a different level of intelligence so that compassion and charity toward a lower-class will produce a grateful response, so that all will work in harmony to bring about the creative improvements that will be designed by the genus-class. For if everyone had the same intelligence, it would be impossible for there to be compassion, charity, gratitude or anything that resembled harmony.
The opposite of classical Liberalism is Monarchy. So why would the Left object to Liberalism? Frankly I don't get it. The opposite of Liberalization is Hierarchy. Are you pro hierarchy, absolutism, or what? What do you want? Liberalization of gender, race is your entire shtick, no?
Clinton, Obama. Centrist, moderate, establishment, lifestyle democrats, for the status quo and corporate power. Democratic leadership, shifted rightward in recent decades. Liberal, not left.
Huh! Gobbledeegook! There is only right and wrong! Too simple you say? Government exists ONLY to protect our rights! What rights you ask? Exactly my point! There should be no Ruling Class, only servants of the people to do their will. The argument here is, "What kind of rulers should rule over us?"
Socialism is a social construct which has become anachronistic, as Labour power is diced up across jurisdictions to near impotence. More critically, the aspirations of the early Labour movement have failed: the Labour movement has failed. The age of classical class relations is over. We have entered the age of existential threats, real, and perceived. Only a mass movement across frontiers could break the Neo-liberal ascendancy, and only then in a crisis of unprecedented proportions. Fear must first overcome the Defences of the Hamptons, the Cotswolds, the gated communities, all comfortable Upper middle class enclaves. Probably this means fear of impoverishment in the event of some massive, unprecedented financial crisis. So the Radical must await the ebb tide in the West to become a race, sweeping all boats to ruin.
Intellectual navel gazing.”To know a terrible injustice is a tragedy, but to know of a tragedy and not speak of the horrific injustice is, in itself, a crime against humanity.” Judah Halevi. ae911truth.org
Excellent discussion. Especially pointing out Hillary Clinton and neoliberal feminism.
Creeping neo-liberalism INTO Feminism.. like a bacteria breeding in the human body
If you've looked into enough literature on human psychology you've probably come across the codependent/narcissist model. I'm starting to see some legitimate parallels to this model in regards to neoliberalism and our reaction to it, how it is maintained. It was especially noticeable to me when David mentioned that the neoliberalists are engaged with victim blaming and that the public blamed themselves for their financial predicament. I mean, that is essentially the codependent/narcissism dynamic playing out. Propaganda is not unlike gaslighting.
This just goes to show really how entrenched this dynamic is in human civilization.
Well said. And on top of this, the neoliberal ideologies promote narcissism internally, often rewarding such behavior with "personal success".
Looks like Carl took the Blue Pill. And Leftist are indeed experts at the Gaslighting Technique.
As above, so below...See Harvey/Marx 's explanation of the parasitical dynamics of Capitalism. Also see Jung on Alchemy and the Unconscious. We absorb at a deep level the dynamics of the environment we are embedded in and play them out on a personal level. In essence we become it. Harvey alludes to it in this interview. "We are all Neo-Liberal in a way!" - Neo Liberal/Narcissism are just terms for describing inter-relational dynamics of the system in question...it's underlying nature is rapacious/parasitical.
it makes to much money for oligarchs for it to not go on living
@simple man It is. Fascism is a natural outgrowth from Liberalism. Neo Liberalism can be accurately viewed as proto-fascism. The basic ideology of Liberalism is that good governance comes from the mediation of the two opposing forces of the social (liberty, equality, solidarity) vs Capital (the economic). Fascism is when Liberalism completely abandons the social in favor of Capital. Neo Liberalism is the preparatory stage to fascism.
Neoliberalism is essentially a halfway between Keynes and classical liberal economics practiced before Great Depression (what Ron Paul advocates for). Eventually, the result is the same as before.
Not sure how it's halfway between anything, but it has some of the same aims. It replaces Keynesian stimulus with credit. This buoys effective demand and therefore profitability and capital accumulation, but without narrowing the inequality gap. When you raise someone's pay or give them an education that raises their earning power, and they buy a house, they own something. But if you loan them the money for an education and a house, especially at inflated monopoly prices, you stake a claim on their future earnings, and in the case of real estate, you still own the house, plus the note. This accelerates concentration of wealth toward the top without destroying effective demand, which is a significant innovation for capital. Then, because the loans and their derivatives are essentially designed to fail, and the government has to bail the banks out when the defaults mount up, the public cost is even greater than a straight Keynesian stimulus-- just giving people money-- and the banks still own the houses and the debt. We can think of it as stimulus by credit, which accelerates inequality at great public cost and risk. Sort of reverse Keynesianism, because you buoy effective demand without letting the non-owner class increase their economic power. On a side note, the whole reason for disrupting the trend toward less inequality is that it erodes profitability. When I was young, they called this the Crisis of Democracy.
@@noisepuppet Spot on
LIKE THE ANCIENT ROMAN EMPIRE the ' structures will survive even though the empire is dead.
The interviewer should have read, A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey before conducting this.
Bad sound. Why didn't you turn up the mike on this guy?
The Left today suffers from not being working-class. They are predominantly people who have never had to spend a day on an assembly line, or in a mine, or digging a ditch. They have clean and soft hands and faces. For that reason, they have lost their focus: to take from the wealthy and raise up the poor. They spend their time instead in "intellectual" discussions of various definitions of terms and creation of new terms: neoliberalism is an example. The abandonment of social responsibility for individual freedom, which is presented as a characteristic of neoliberalism is nothing new. It was the theme of Ayn Rand. The removal of government regulation from the economy is nothing new. It was the preaching of Milton Friedman. The exclusive reliance on markets, on the "invisible hand" in nothing new, it was the mantra of Alan Greenspan, until he apologized for its consequences. The Left today is a specter in the minds of the ruling elite, but it has no reality; it has no unity; it has no polity. It is a ghost of a past when there was a socialist party, a communist party, trade unions, and leaders willing to risk their lives against thugs, armed guards, federal and local police. Those were the days, my friend; we hoped they'd never end - but they did.
The problem is that the working class is now globalized, and therefore much harder to organize. Add to that the fact that the working classes in individual countries, and especially the "developed" Western countries, have been weakened by globalization and by decades of assault by the corporate-political class. But that's no reason to think that the revolution will not come. It will, despite people who resign themselves to a future that's like the present (or worse).
Kings n queens/ wealthy ( corporations) vs peasants (everyone else) why would u peasants support any policies that support them
Brainwashing to fight for scraps and carry your rulers as a burden of subconscious honor on your backs. That's why... unfortunately
WHY? BRAIN DEAD! ( brain 'hard drive' filled with garbage!)
Thankyou for bringing proffesor Harvey
In multi-part videos, please put links to the other parts in the description. Thanks.
@The Real News Network : VOLUME! I need to keep telling TRNN to correct the damn volume and to let users, listeners, use their own volume controls. I can barely hear what David says in this interview, so will now stop the whole thing, after having tried to listen to about 2 minutes of part 1/2. The host is clearly audible to me, but David isn't. If the guest can't speak clearly, then drop the guest. I have a neighbor who likes to speak in whispers and I have no tolerance for that. Do it with your woman friend when you're in bed together, but not with me. I often can't understand what my neighbor is saying because he feels that he needs to speak super softly. A small mouse running across the floor makes awfully little sound, but my neighbor is almost worse. I need clear communication. If David only wants to whisper, then leave him out. Humanity needs clear communication! For this reason alone, I have to give this video a Thumbs Down.
Thank you for this interview.
Great talk. Thanks.
There can be no justice except on the individual level. Anything else increases injustice.
Great stuff. Always good to hear from Professor Harvey. BTW someone should tell David (2:00) that zombies are noted for their activity.
Modern day Right Libertarianism is fundamentally Neoliberal at its core.
And it was basically spawned out of the non-ideological individual libertarianism of the 1960s.
This also helps to explain why our current Liberals are extremely opposed to ideology, of any sort. And they, in turn, use this term "Alt-Right" to describe anyone who adheres to any sort of ideology.
I really suggest reading David Harveys book with greater context for all of this "A Brief History of Neoliberalism"
Leaving out neoliberalism roots neoconservatism and Capitalism jumps over it's origins.
Finally someone is speaking about neoliberalism
Brilliant
Nice shirt professor.
Neo-liberalism was always just the ideology, though the Ascendant interests believed to a considerable extent.
Lame ducks must die, but when confronted with dying swans in 2008, the apparatchiks and the eminences grises in the shadows knew what had to be done. There is, however, after a dozen years of quantitative easing an Modern Monetary Practice, the unfortunate possibility the system may die of monetary dysentery. Warren Mosler was right, to a considerable extent, but he did understand there were limits to MMT: I fear that in the privileged circumstances of an American economist, and given the fact of the dollar being the reserve currency, he may not have fully appreciated it’s limits.
When it comes to Marx's statement about capitalism creating more income disparity, wasn't a big rift within the Communes in the late 19th century that it was being shown that income disparity was falling? Yeah, it's rising again within many Western countries, but why was it falling in the late 19th century and continuing onward into the 20th? Capitalism was much more unfettered then. Stronger labor movements? Were more people investing their money rather than consuming? Savings rates are the lowest they've ever been in the US. Is this part of a cycle? That is to say, is it both the cause and effect of greater income disparity?
is there anybody to leave the people into this revolution and educate them where are these people at
The real question is whether or not Keynesianism can really help us out right now. Even though I'd much rather have Keynesianism than any other version of capitalism, I doubt it.
I thought ultraliberalism was "no rule in economic competition" and neoliberalism "a lot of rules to maintain consent", particularly to push for the illusion of justice in the meritocracy ladder. In this perspective neoliberalism appears in the Clinton area, not before.(Reagan and Thatcher were ultraliberal). Soon European parliament will validate or not the neoliberal leader team which has been chosen and maintain or not this status quo of a rotten Europe. If confirm we will have more and more brexit with "gilets jaunes" and bipartisan cracks around Europe. I was for Europe I'm not anymore. If the US politics is the future of Europe we are doomed.
Reagan and Thatcher lied. They called it conservatism, and presided over a wave of privatization and expansion of the finance industry in cooperation with the state that continues today under both political parties.
Good review! Thanks
love the guayabera, very sharp!
why is this suggested for me??? why?! why?! why?!
i love that david harvey always reps the red button down
David Harvey looks like he is being interviewed from jail
That's a commentary on the omnipresence of the neoliberal framework.
There is nothing "neo" about neoliberalism. It is purely and simply a revisiting of policies active at the turn of the 18th - 19th Century. What makes this project different from that time is the rolling back of gains, made by the working class, since the turn of the 19th - 20th Century. It should more accurately be termed "retroliberalism". There is nothing new about massive wealth concentration, economic inequality, institutionalized greed, and finacial corruption. These are all features that date as far back as ancient Rome.
By now it should be clear that humanity is incapable of any other form of trade or economic interaction. Marx represents an analytical methodology that, on the one hand suggests hope, but when applied to both history and current events proves this deadly human innability to change. Any experiment to do things differently is met with brute force to maintain the status quo. Blood is increasingly being spilled by our system and there is no way out. It's already too late.
Agreed other than to suggest Marx was controlled opposition as he was related to those who understood capitalisms mechanics: The Rothschilds.
David Harvey is a sweet old man
Wonderful tie to 68.
I misread the title as "The parasite of Neoliberalism".
Neoliberalism was adopted in the former communist eastern block as a result of not being able to imitate Sweden with it's progressive socialism. Not every country can afford 3 years of maternity leave ...but then it's not an excuse to go to the other extreme and bring back feudalism as it were.
The last I've heard is that Sweden has initiated state-sponsored prepper programs for all its citizens which isn't a bad idea considering that neoliberalism has helped create the most fragile civilization in history.
I think left wing academics and people who work in a leftist ‘milieu’ overestimate the influence of the left. People like Sanders and Corbyn, who are considered dangerous radicals by the mainstream, are really just old school social democrats and they are still quite a way from wielding real power.
To succeed, the left needs to build mass appeal which it can’t do with its current obsession with identity politics and moral and ideological purity. It puts having the ‘correct’ mindset ahead of being working class or negatively affected by capitalism. It really really limits the left’s appeal and helps the right by feeding into its stereotype of the left as a puritanical thought and language police.
The left needs to get seriously organized beyond endlessly talking about stuff that has no impact on people or politics in the real world and debating the finer points of the Democratic Party’s useless candidates. What the left needs more than anything is influence and right now it doesn’t have much. Right now it’s basically a talking shop for academics and supporters of this or that neoliberal Dem Party candidate.
It's very alive because everything and anything public is privatised and an avalanche of the new gig economy where all are self-employed, contractor, subcontractor
In regards to the structure of news media it's good to insure there is more than one source of media doing investigative reporting in the field would be a more effective watchdog of our democracy here and abroad by having more eyes to fool or blind. The suggested new format combined with the old structure that contained many small outlets that put more focus on covering vital local issues in their area. Either portion should be sizeable enough to get truthful reporting out to enough voters to raise the alarm when one or the other is attempting to be hijacked by consolidation of power or in the case of the "wikipedia" style media small independent media would be more apt to repeatedly cover and educate the public on issues that are good for the people but are not currently populist ideas.ie Medicare 4 All -Not a populist majority approved issue in the recent past until it was repeatedly explained.
He conflates neoliberalism with liberty, freedom, and individuality; assuming that these things have in common which i feel he might have been duped into the propaganda himself. Furthermore, he goes on to say that anarchism even adopted the neoliberal elements of liberty, freedom and induviduality even though those things in particular were part of the anarchist tradition way before the conception of neoliberalism in the early 1970s that stems back to the enlightenment of the 16th century which industrial capitalism of the 19th century already discarded by then thru scientific managerialism and strike breaking that would later influenece Lenin's USSR
Those enlightenment ideals gave way to neo-liberalism. During that era, two strands came about; liberalism and socialism. The British Empire and to a lesser extent the US became pillars of liberalism. Although one could also say the American tradition was likewise 'nationalism', over the British free trade system. Either way the concepts of liberty, freedom, and individuality stem from the presuppositions of liberalism. Anarchism (true libertarianism) is just classical liberalism taken to it's logical extent, even Chomsky notes this.
so people are blaming themselves that's why they ain't out in the streets trying to take back what was taken from them how do we educate people to make them realize their whole world is disappearing in front of their eyes if we don't do something now we're all dead
That jumpsuit-looking shirt against the plain, brick wall makes him look like a political prisoner. #freedavidharvey
it looks like Harvey got arrested in some foreign country and is being forced to wear that red shirt.
I thought the same thing! Lol
I would like to define the difference between cowboy capitalism and neoliberalism.
The former is hyper-individualized capitalists and the latter is oligarchic collectivism.
Wonder if he knew my dad, Martin Southwold, at St. John's.
It looks like this guy is in prison.
Aren't we all.
I literally googled him to see if he was imprisoned for something! Thank God I'm not the only one.
Is he the one in facebook named Harvey David who offers job and immigrant to Canada??
I thought they guy was in prison ..lol
I though he was wearing a prison jumpsuit in the thumbnail lol
Too many people pleased with their intelligence in the comments section.
Why is David Harvey in prison? Is this some neo red scare situation?
Mr. Zizek, please meet Mr. Harvey:D
PART 2 link th-cam.com/video/5w-Lu5czbk0/w-d-xo.html
Turn up the fucking volume!
Whassamattahyou?
Almost impossible to hear Professor Harvey!
Sheesh!
TRNN finally got D.H. on. Took y'all long enough.
It looks like your interviewing a convict in prison
This tendency of Marxists to collapse right wing libertarianism with "anarchism" with no hisorical or any other subtlty is what makes anarchists not trust Marxists. The idea that anarchists have absorbed neo-liberal cultural forms of which they are totally unaware, is a gross over simplification at every level. Let's start with the fact that there are a lot of kinds of anarchists (just as there are a lot of kinds of socialists). And saying that people who embrace personal freedom are "embracing neo-liberalism" is a specious argument at best and down-right frightening at worst. (Sounds like nascent authoritarianism to me.) Just saying that the left has assumed neo-liberal forms over and over without specifying A LOT MORE what you mean makes this discussion very unsatisfying and not very informative.
Dave looks like an inmate. lol
By nature we are given a different level of intelligence so that compassion and charity toward a lower-class will produce a grateful response, so that all will work in harmony to bring about the creative improvements that will be designed by the genus-class. For if everyone had the same intelligence, it would be impossible for there to be compassion, charity, gratitude or anything that resembled harmony.
Nope.
at leat RushLLimbugh id loud.
The opposite of classical Liberalism is Monarchy. So why would the Left object to Liberalism? Frankly I don't get it. The opposite of Liberalization is Hierarchy. Are you pro hierarchy, absolutism, or what? What do you want? Liberalization of gender, race is your entire shtick, no?
I'm actually amazed at how politically illiterate you are.
Clinton, Obama. Centrist, moderate, establishment, lifestyle democrats, for the status quo and corporate power. Democratic leadership, shifted rightward in recent decades. Liberal, not left.
Huh! Gobbledeegook! There is only right and wrong! Too simple you say? Government exists ONLY to protect our rights! What rights you ask? Exactly my point! There should be no Ruling Class, only servants of the people to do their will. The argument here is, "What kind of rulers should rule over us?"
Nonsense.
@@MRWDL800 You nailed it! Non-sense!!
Did he just misrepresent Anarchism? Dick move dude.
and he's not being called out on t by the interviewer. Just fucking great.
Socialism is a social construct which has become anachronistic, as Labour power is diced up across jurisdictions to near impotence. More critically, the aspirations of the early Labour movement have failed: the Labour movement has failed.
The age of classical class relations is over. We have entered the age of existential threats, real, and perceived.
Only a mass movement across frontiers could break the Neo-liberal ascendancy, and only then in a crisis of unprecedented proportions.
Fear must first overcome the Defences of the Hamptons, the Cotswolds, the gated communities, all comfortable Upper middle class enclaves. Probably this means fear of impoverishment in the event of some massive, unprecedented financial crisis.
So the Radical must await the ebb tide in the West to become a race, sweeping all boats to ruin.
President Trump.... Real Republican or a neoliberal hitman for the Republican party? 😂😂😂😂😂
Intellectual navel gazing.”To know a terrible injustice is a tragedy, but to know of a tragedy and not speak of the horrific injustice is, in itself, a crime against humanity.” Judah Halevi. ae911truth.org
Sound not so good. David is speaking in a very weak way, not so enthusiastically. It became almost boring.