"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”. ~ Frederic Bastiat
John Foster Dulles explained it to his brother Alan in about 1950. John Foster said: "The poor envy the rich and want to plunder them. However our policy is that the rich should plunder the poor."
What a fantastic lecture! I am a Shakespearean, and interested in social history of early modern England concerning enclosure of common land. Prof. Harvey's lecture gives me an insightful lens into Shakespearean references to primitive accumulation of capital and its accompanying violence in his plays such as 2 Henry VI, As You Like It, The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, etc.
@@LARPANET_3087 LOL! Prospero is a master capitalist aspiring mindless accumulation through dispossession, and Ariel is his secret agent to exploit surplus value?
Excellent video! I love the topic; I'm studying history in grad school (music history to be precise, not directly related), but as a leftist I was always fascinated by how capitalism got started. Chapters 26 and 27 of Volume 1 are the chapters that give the details; but the Marxist Historian Ellen Meiksins Wood also gave a great understanding of the transition in her book "The Origins of Capitalism: A Longer View" (2002). It is provocative and powerful, and is remarkably orthodox and its application of historical materialist methods. But it also succeeds in revolutionizing even the traditional Marxist understanding of how things came to be. It's a profound book which i recommend.
Continuous growth does seem to be intrinsic to Capitalism. Someone noted that some country was aiming for what appeared to be a modest growth of 3% of an Economy. In practice this would mean a doubling of the size of the Economy every 24 years -- an exponential growth. If there is no 'growth' over a 3 month quarter, people start to talk of a recession. This exponential growth every 24 years makes no sense on a finite Earth. It will come to a shuddering halt when essential resources are gobbled up (or by Climate Disruption).
But maybe someone will invent an app that makes new copper or nuclear fusion or something and saves us in time. Who knows! BTW I’m the *conservative*! You are the *radical*! NEVER STOP THE GROWTH TRAIN
My own study of U.S. economic history brings me to identify not the introduction of new technologies as the main driver but the expansion of rentier landlordism. A continent characterized by a huge territory, rich in natural resources, came under the control of a relatively small number of rent-seeking individual and corporate interests. The process was already substantially established during the colonial period under British, French and Spanish competition for hegemonic domination of the continent. Nearly all of the key colonial figures held sizeable landed estates and were speculators in such enterprises as the Ohio Land Company. A significant portion of the personal fortune of George Washington, as one example, was derived from land speculation. In the early 19th century, land speculation preceded and accompanied the migration of people westward from the Atlantic coastal regions, accelerated by, first, the canal-building period, then by the railroads. Fast forward to the era of the automobile and the profits to be gained from land speculation intensified. After the end of the Second World War came the rapid expansion of the interstate highway system as well as expansion on limited-access roadways through and around every population center. Some cities (Detroit as an important exception) expanded their commuter rail systems to reach further and further out from the urban core, stimulating speculation in suburban and exurban land rapidly developing into edge cities. And, these edge cities brought new public goods and services that enhanced the economic value of even further out land. Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A. Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org
Stark, sterile space stations floating in emptiness and futuristic bombers validate the pride and imagination of the ego. But joy, beauty and harmony is what validates the heart. Loveless, lifeless technology created with numbers by the number thinking counting corpses is completely absent of light, warmth, love, joy, magic, meaning beauty and wisdom.
The idea that a violent origin is what makes society violence is so metaphysical. It’s something you have to learn to argue against as a revolutionary The violence comes *from* conditions. It’s a response. If capital was started by flipping switches in everyone’s head that made them all suddenly liberal minded and suddenly transformed society from feudalism to capitalism, and this was all done without a peasant’s house burned down or a king beheaded, it would still be necessary to commit violence to maintain capitalism-or any class society. Socialism is likewise violent because you either take initiative and fight back, or are crushed. Socialism is violent because the interests of workers are so irreconcilable to those of capital that, even if we pursue them nonviolently, we will meet violence from the state. There’s a reason social democrats failed to stop the rise of fascism, to bring about a worker-controlled society, or stop imperialism. By refusing to spread revolutionary defeatism against WW1, to support the Bavarian Revolution, and by pursuing only bourgeois parliamentary means, social democracy aided in the deaths of tens of millions of people all across Europe and the world, and contributed to the terrible conditions that forced the USSR to make so many rollbacks on its revolutionary energy, leading to their isolation (“socialism in one country”), and to the biggest demobilization of the Western Left outside of the Palmer Raids, COINTELPRO, and the Red Scare. Marxists aren’t violent or adventurists. We’re honest materialists who win over the rest of our class by our clearheaded pragmatism and principled analysis. If we don’t advocate the right to self defense, culminating in the revolutionary seizure of power, then our class will only ever know defeat.
Modern capitalists theft of the cannabis industry from the workers, is an excellent example of primitive accumulation being reproduced in our era. A majority of markets in the USA have already been monopolized by just a handful of companies. Often with the help of retired politicians who previously had thwarted any attempts to legalize cannabis. look up, John Boehner, former speaker of the house.
marx; the masses were deprived of the means of production through violent appropriation and reorganization of the social order- its the original sin. Jacques Derrida any social order, as it comes into being bears the marks of its violent origins, it can never expunge that history.the violence of its origins return continually to haunt us.
The Accumulation of Capital (full title: The Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to an Economic Explanation of Imperialism, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals: Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Erklärung des Imperialismus) is the principal book-length work of Rosa Luxemburg, first published in 1913, and the only work Luxemburg published on economics during her lifetime.
With hundreds of millions, if not billions of people in Asia and Africa not yet absorbed into the wage-labor market, the room for more primitive accumulation seems to be there, unfortunately. Western banks are foaming at the mouth trying to get into China so that they can lend towards real estate and own the future monetization of work needed to pay the ever increasing prices for land and housing. The rest of the developing world will no doubt follow, and then and only then, will primitive accumulation reach its limit. At least this is how I see it.
I believe that mechanism for this original capital acomulation goes much back in human history than just this after feudal redistribution. Actually whole human history of civilisation is based on mechanisms of this primitive acomulation. Its embedded in very nature of living organisms. Expansion of one organism is always on account of other, end this expansion it self is violence as such or origin of it. So we deal here with fundamental forces of living nature. Overcoming this conflict is only possible if we take whole our living world on earth as one organism. Is it this possible is only question. Are we as species are capable of organising whole life on earth, we see that we are capable for destroying it but other way oround its questionable. Only thing that there is no doubt that this is only way, and actually if we look behind this natural conflict processes we see tendention for this simbiotic arrangement of life. Which is visible on our society also. What force will prevail depends mostly on circumstances and conditions that this life exist. If conditions are hursh conflict forces are dominantan. But what is with our human nature, are conditions of living too hursh so that we can't overcome this conflict processes. It's something about our reasoning capabilities. We over our history of civilisations were in various conditions of living, sometimes bad sometimes good, so we established and acomulated this conditioning within our culture, which is our tendency of reason to establish simbiotic forces in our society, because this culture after all allowed our expansion as species which means that we tend to see ourselves as one organism, which system it self is. But this acomulation of conditioning throughout history rise various conflicts in individual like as in collective awareness, and which are that why irrationaly based. How to overcome this is difficult question, and acquire different approaches and insights from different sides of human awareness or scientific disciplines, and merging this insights for formulating exsact problems and their solutions. This is very difficult task is whole human history in question like as is evolution of life it self, but there is no other way its to be or not to be that is the question of life isn't it?
@Marko Svetlica Study of indigenous peoples shows that personal ownership was often foreign to them. They would regard a certain region as belonging to a tribe as a whole. Aboriginals in Northern NSW fished with nets which had large shells on top of the nets. The clashing of shells together attracted dolphins which chased fish into the net. Some of the fish were given to the dolphins -- then family groups would take as many fish as they felt they needed. If one family group took too many fish and left them uneaten (or wasted them). When they next fished, those who had taken too many would not get any next time. There was a natural sharing of resources, not a personal ownership.
@@dnickaroo3574 they are part of bigger system, which is jungle, through this simbiotic processes, but they rise culture from personal posesions like jewellery, or some kind of unwritten knowledge, which they may share depending on circumstances. Origin of personal ownership is individual characteristics of being, if one is conditioning to want more then need, one will acomulate it depending on circumstances. Because of jungle relative abundance, this conditioning is based on this inner conflicts of simbiotic and expansion forces, and in this case culture which arrives from simbiotic forces mostly prevents conflict. As much conditions are relatively harmonious humans adapt to it, but still rise they own culture, which develops through personal induvidialisation, like establishing new skills making new tools or weapons, which could be part of personal ownership, not just items itself but knowledge of making it itsand upon which ones can establish they status. Personal ownership derived from every caracteristc that manifest the culture as part of it. Language manifest culture, but specific story telling is personal ownership, upon which one make his status or value for cultural preservation or development. Personal ownership is not just something you aquire just for your self, it's also the way that is given you by and that you interact within the culture. You own something by. Is not something in your self, as part of your body, like something inalienable.
Raoul H. Francé described some fundamental relationships between man/mankind and nature and how to integrate into our environment harmoniously. Rene Romain Roth, Raoul H. France and the Doctrine of Life stiftung-france.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=45
It is clear that Marx did mix up the patriarchal powerprinciple with capitalism. He also shows no understanding of the social revolution by Christianity in the Byzantine empire. it is sad to know that all thinkers of the late 19th century were wrong about society...… and this is not different in the 20th century.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”.
~ Frederic Bastiat
oh ... sounds like America 2019
John Foster Dulles explained it to his brother Alan in about 1950.
John Foster said: "The poor envy the rich and want to plunder them. However our policy is that the rich should plunder the poor."
D Nickaroo Dulles is wrong.
bro Bastiat was libertarian wtf
What a fantastic lecture! I am a Shakespearean, and interested in social history of early modern England concerning enclosure of common land. Prof. Harvey's lecture gives me an insightful lens into Shakespearean references to primitive accumulation of capital and its accompanying violence in his plays such as 2 Henry VI, As You Like It, The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, etc.
Anyways impressed by what turns up in Shakespeare
I feel like you could interpret the Tempest as being all about primitive accumulation, like 100% of it!
@@LARPANET_3087 LOL! Prospero is a master capitalist aspiring mindless accumulation through dispossession, and Ariel is his secret agent to exploit surplus value?
Thank you for this Professor Harvey.
Excellent video! I love the topic; I'm studying history in grad school (music history to be precise, not directly related), but as a leftist I was always fascinated by how capitalism got started. Chapters 26 and 27 of Volume 1 are the chapters that give the details; but the Marxist Historian Ellen Meiksins Wood also gave a great understanding of the transition in her book "The Origins of Capitalism: A Longer View" (2002). It is provocative and powerful, and is remarkably orthodox and its application of historical materialist methods. But it also succeeds in revolutionizing even the traditional Marxist understanding of how things came to be. It's a profound book which i recommend.
Continuous growth does seem to be intrinsic to Capitalism. Someone noted that some country was aiming for what appeared to be a modest growth of 3% of an Economy. In practice this would mean a doubling of the size of the Economy every 24 years -- an exponential growth. If there is no 'growth' over a 3 month quarter, people start to talk of a recession. This exponential growth every 24 years makes no sense on a finite Earth. It will come to a shuddering halt when essential resources are gobbled up (or by Climate Disruption).
But maybe someone will invent an app that makes new copper or nuclear fusion or something and saves us in time. Who knows! BTW I’m the *conservative*! You are the *radical*! NEVER STOP THE GROWTH TRAIN
My own study of U.S. economic history brings me to identify not the introduction of new technologies as the main driver but the expansion of rentier landlordism. A continent characterized by a huge territory, rich in natural resources, came under the control of a relatively small number of rent-seeking individual and corporate interests. The process was already substantially established during the colonial period under British, French and Spanish competition for hegemonic domination of the continent. Nearly all of the key colonial figures held sizeable landed estates and were speculators in such enterprises as the Ohio Land Company. A significant portion of the personal fortune of George Washington, as one example, was derived from land speculation. In the early 19th century, land speculation preceded and accompanied the migration of people westward from the Atlantic coastal regions, accelerated by, first, the canal-building period, then by the railroads. Fast forward to the era of the automobile and the profits to be gained from land speculation intensified. After the end of the Second World War came the rapid expansion of the interstate highway system as well as expansion on limited-access roadways through and around every population center. Some cities (Detroit as an important exception) expanded their commuter rail systems to reach further and further out from the urban core, stimulating speculation in suburban and exurban land rapidly developing into edge cities. And, these edge cities brought new public goods and services that enhanced the economic value of even further out land.
Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A.
Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
Stark, sterile space stations floating in emptiness and futuristic bombers validate the pride and imagination of the ego.
But joy, beauty and harmony is what validates the heart.
Loveless, lifeless technology created with numbers by the number thinking counting corpses is completely absent of light, warmth, love, joy, magic, meaning beauty and wisdom.
Really great material, perfectly presented! Thank you!
thank you professor. i always know these things in my heart, i just cannot articulate them, strange.
You mean great thinkers of the past already predicted our current situation?! Why would this information be suppressed? 🤔
Somebody does not want people know about it. You can guess who are these people.
How is it suppressed? lol You literally just accessed it, Its available in any library, any academic environment.
Why is pretty obvious.
thank you for covering this
I'd love to hear a podcast on capitalism and technology.
The idea that a violent origin is what makes society violence is so metaphysical. It’s something you have to learn to argue against as a revolutionary
The violence comes *from* conditions. It’s a response.
If capital was started by flipping switches in everyone’s head that made them all suddenly liberal minded and suddenly transformed society from feudalism to capitalism, and this was all done without a peasant’s house burned down or a king beheaded, it would still be necessary to commit violence to maintain capitalism-or any class society.
Socialism is likewise violent because you either take initiative and fight back, or are crushed. Socialism is violent because the interests of workers are so irreconcilable to those of capital that, even if we pursue them nonviolently, we will meet violence from the state.
There’s a reason social democrats failed to stop the rise of fascism, to bring about a worker-controlled society, or stop imperialism. By refusing to spread revolutionary defeatism against WW1, to support the Bavarian Revolution, and by pursuing only bourgeois parliamentary means, social democracy aided in the deaths of tens of millions of people all across Europe and the world, and contributed to the terrible conditions that forced the USSR to make so many rollbacks on its revolutionary energy, leading to their isolation (“socialism in one country”), and to the biggest demobilization of the Western Left outside of the Palmer Raids, COINTELPRO, and the Red Scare.
Marxists aren’t violent or adventurists. We’re honest materialists who win over the rest of our class by our clearheaded pragmatism and principled analysis. If we don’t advocate the right to self defense, culminating in the revolutionary seizure of power, then our class will only ever know defeat.
Preach !
Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to loose but your chains!
Modern capitalists theft of the cannabis industry from the workers, is an excellent example of primitive accumulation being reproduced in our era. A majority of markets in the USA have already been monopolized by just a handful of companies. Often with the help of retired politicians who previously had thwarted any attempts to legalize cannabis. look up, John Boehner, former speaker of the house.
Could you guys please put the links for the preceding and following episodes in your video descriptions!
Did Marx ever talk about the "Doctrine of Discovery" as an example of this primitive accumulation of capital?
marx; the masses were deprived of the means of production through violent appropriation and reorganization of the social order- its the original sin.
Jacques Derrida any social order, as it comes into being bears the marks of its violent origins, it can never expunge that history.the violence of its origins return continually to haunt us.
EGYPT, GREECE, ROME, CONSTANTINOPLE, AND VENICE, FRANCE SPAIN, ENGLAND AND GERMANY - THEY ALL DIED OF PLUTOCRACY
can anyone help me identify where Luxembourg talks about this?
The Accumulation of Capital (full title: The Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to an Economic Explanation of Imperialism, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals: Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Erklärung des Imperialismus) is the principal book-length work of Rosa Luxemburg, first published in 1913, and the only work Luxemburg published on economics during her lifetime.
i hope its have a transcript.
With hundreds of millions, if not billions of people in Asia and Africa not yet absorbed into the wage-labor market, the room for more primitive accumulation seems to be there, unfortunately. Western banks are foaming at the mouth trying to get into China so that they can lend towards real estate and own the future monetization of work needed to pay the ever increasing prices for land and housing. The rest of the developing world will no doubt follow, and then and only then, will primitive accumulation reach its limit. At least this is how I see it.
'Now, Marx takes both of these stories, and DESTROYS THEM WITH FACTS AND LOGIC!!!!!' - Just want to hear David use that phrase, one time.
That’d mean he’d have to stoop down to the level of the people who do say that kind of bs
A species of primitive accumulation is 'disaster capitalism'?
Was thinking about Naomi Klein too when he mentioned Rosa Luxemburg and the "lawless" fringes of the capitalist system
I believe that mechanism for this original capital acomulation goes much back in human history than just this after feudal redistribution. Actually whole human history of civilisation is based on mechanisms of this primitive acomulation. Its embedded in very nature of living organisms. Expansion of one organism is always on account of other, end this expansion it self is violence as such or origin of it. So we deal here with fundamental forces of living nature. Overcoming this conflict is only possible if we take whole our living world on earth as one organism. Is it this possible is only question. Are we as species are capable of organising whole life on earth, we see that we are capable for destroying it but other way oround its questionable. Only thing that there is no doubt that this is only way, and actually if we look behind this natural conflict processes we see tendention for this simbiotic arrangement of life. Which is visible on our society also. What force will prevail depends mostly on circumstances and conditions that this life exist. If conditions are hursh conflict forces are dominantan. But what is with our human nature, are conditions of living too hursh so that we can't overcome this conflict processes. It's something about our reasoning capabilities. We over our history of civilisations were in various conditions of living, sometimes bad sometimes good, so we established and acomulated this conditioning within our culture, which is our tendency of reason to establish simbiotic forces in our society, because this culture after all allowed our expansion as species which means that we tend to see ourselves as one organism, which system it self is. But this acomulation of conditioning throughout history rise various conflicts in individual like as in collective awareness, and which are that why irrationaly based. How to overcome this is difficult question, and acquire different approaches and insights from different sides of human awareness or scientific disciplines, and merging this insights for formulating exsact problems and their solutions. This is very difficult task is whole human history in question like as is evolution of life it self, but there is no other way its to be or not to be that is the question of life isn't it?
@Marko Svetlica Study of indigenous peoples shows that personal ownership was often foreign to them. They would regard a certain region as belonging to a tribe as a whole. Aboriginals in Northern NSW fished with nets which had large shells on top of the nets. The clashing of shells together attracted dolphins which chased fish into the net. Some of the fish were given to the dolphins -- then family groups would take as many fish as they felt they needed. If one family group took too many fish and left them uneaten (or wasted them). When they next fished, those who had taken too many would not get any next time. There was a natural sharing of resources, not a personal ownership.
@@dnickaroo3574 they are part of bigger system, which is jungle, through this simbiotic processes, but they rise culture from personal posesions like jewellery, or some kind of unwritten knowledge, which they may share depending on circumstances. Origin of personal ownership is individual characteristics of being, if one is conditioning to want more then need, one will acomulate it depending on circumstances. Because of jungle relative abundance, this conditioning is based on this inner conflicts of simbiotic and expansion forces, and in this case culture which arrives from simbiotic forces mostly prevents conflict. As much conditions are relatively harmonious humans adapt to it, but still rise they own culture, which develops through personal induvidialisation, like establishing new skills making new tools or weapons, which could be part of personal ownership, not just items itself but knowledge of making it itsand upon which ones can establish they status. Personal ownership derived from every caracteristc that manifest the culture as part of it. Language manifest culture, but specific story telling is personal ownership, upon which one make his status or value for cultural preservation or development. Personal ownership is not just something you aquire just for your self, it's also the way that is given you by and that you interact within the culture. You own something by. Is not something in your self, as part of your body, like something inalienable.
Welcome, to the machine. Pink Floyd.
Raoul H. Francé described some fundamental relationships between man/mankind and nature
and how to integrate into our environment harmoniously.
Rene Romain Roth, Raoul H. France and the Doctrine of Life
stiftung-france.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=45
It is clear that Marx did mix up the patriarchal powerprinciple with capitalism. He also shows no understanding of the social revolution by Christianity in the Byzantine empire. it is sad to know that all thinkers of the late 19th century were wrong about society...… and this is not different in the 20th century.
SOVEREIGN FUNDS AND STATE CAPITALISM? OR SOMETHING NEW?
No it is because we are all lazy ahhhaah