Thank you for the education given on this channel. There are times I feel like I am the only person in the working class that watches and listens to these ideas.
The term working class has been mystified to a great extent. I would consider myself working class even though I work at a white collar job and have some supervisory powers, I’m still under the control of a boss and work for wages. Some people wouldn’t consider it working class. Class consciousness is much harder nowadays because of the switch from labour intensive to capital intensive economies and the financialization we went through in the latter part of the 20th century.
I'm a member of the working class and I happily listen to (and believe in) these ideas, and in addition, I've been pleasantly surprised by just how keen working class people are on the idea of economic democracy once the possibility and what that would look like is raised. I've talked to a number of coworkers (some of whom were rather apolitical) about the idea of direct worker ownership of the workplace and they all liked the idea. It's just a matter of getting the ideas out there. I've used the question "what do you think about all of the actual workers including us owning this place and operating it, then sharing the profits between us? Don't you think we could do a better job? And wouldn't it be far more fair instead of being paid not much more than minimum wage?" They always say that sounds awesome. And I then explain that this is what socialists are asking for, nothing more, nothing less (depending on your particular socialist tendency, and personally I would like a slightly different system than this but it seems to be most easily grasped by the average worker) and then socialism seems like the obvious thing. And as these people know that I'm a "socialist" (Marxist when I'm being extra honest) beforehand, I just put reasonable ideas to this maligned term, helping to override the propaganda of the capitalist media (or at least create doubt in whether they are telling the truth when combined with specific criticisms of the media, as I always do).
University education has treated Henry George about the same as they have treated Karl Marx. Marx largely dismissed Henry George as an apologist for capitalism, which is unfortunate. As David Harvey may be aware, during the last few decades of the nineteenth century and even during the early twentieth century, Henry George's analysis of political economy attracted far broader support than did that of Marx. This did not last, of course. As liberals (including a young Winston Churchill) pressed for an updated valuation of the nation's land in preparation for the imposition of an annual taxation of lands' rental value, the landed aristocracy did all they could to prevent this from happening. British historian Roy Douglas provided the details in his 1976 book, "Land, People and Politics: A History of the Land Question in the UK, 1878-1952." Essentially, land interests have continue to prevail in the UK (and almost everywhere else).
Bonaparte was not the "imperial president (lol!)" of Paris but the emperor of France. It might sound trivial but it reflects the (not-so-clever) distortions of some of the historical facts by D. Harvey in order to push his theories about cities, which I do not dispute per se, but which are weakened by misinterpretation of historical facts. For those who speak French and are interested in the history of the Paris Commune, I suggest the works of Mathilde Larrère and Ludivine Bantigny among many great French historians.
Is he distorting facts? I interpreted him saying that in a way to show how he leveraged his original position as some sort of president to become emperor with a good amount of public support. So he could claim he was a peoples president when in actuality he was the sole ruler of an empire
@@adamknott7830 In my view, the most fundamental, common theme in most of history is that whenever the majority of a populace cannot think any deeper than a mud puddle, the ruling elites can easily lead them around by the nose, make them think all will be well, while at the same time acquiring more and more ill-gotten wealth and power.
Scientific view of sociopolitical facts allow many to use the stereotypes of the capitalism first ways of domination. One of those stereotypes was the Bonaparte's way of political management of the French government of those days. We even define some regimes as bonapartist. Mexico is one such case. A "sui generis" bonapartism. I won't explain it but is close to real objective comparison. It doesn't have to be an empire.
@@adamknott7830 Yes since Bonaparte's main support was not in Paris as it si suggest but in the countryside (the small land-owning paysants), while the cities were rather places of building proletariat organisations (hence the Haussmann wors to open up boulevards for large security interventions).
Thank you for the education given on this channel. There are times I feel like I am the only person in the working class that watches and listens to these ideas.
Me too.. but then I see a post here and there confirming at least a few thinkers. Not sure how happy about how few I see though
The term working class has been mystified to a great extent. I would consider myself working class even though I work at a white collar job and have some supervisory powers, I’m still under the control of a boss and work for wages. Some people wouldn’t consider it working class. Class consciousness is much harder nowadays because of the switch from labour intensive to capital intensive economies and the financialization we went through in the latter part of the 20th century.
Don't despair, we are in numbers that worries the capitalists.
I'm a member of the working class and I happily listen to (and believe in) these ideas, and in addition, I've been pleasantly surprised by just how keen working class people are on the idea of economic democracy once the possibility and what that would look like is raised. I've talked to a number of coworkers (some of whom were rather apolitical) about the idea of direct worker ownership of the workplace and they all liked the idea. It's just a matter of getting the ideas out there. I've used the question "what do you think about all of the actual workers including us owning this place and operating it, then sharing the profits between us? Don't you think we could do a better job? And wouldn't it be far more fair instead of being paid not much more than minimum wage?" They always say that sounds awesome. And I then explain that this is what socialists are asking for, nothing more, nothing less (depending on your particular socialist tendency, and personally I would like a slightly different system than this but it seems to be most easily grasped by the average worker) and then socialism seems like the obvious thing. And as these people know that I'm a "socialist" (Marxist when I'm being extra honest) beforehand, I just put reasonable ideas to this maligned term, helping to override the propaganda of the capitalist media (or at least create doubt in whether they are telling the truth when combined with specific criticisms of the media, as I always do).
I feel the same way, maybe even more so considering I’m a college student
Great to hear that part of Harvey's personal experience and his difficulties when studying marxism.
Top notch episode as always David. Thank you!
Huge. Postwar “scientizing” in the social sciences, AND I would add, psychology. Huge historical import for the field.
Love your Grandmother Prof. Harvey. Thank-you.
Hahah I was wondering what this comment was about until he mentioned his grandma 🤣🤣
Brilliant.....Keep up the good work.
Thank you very much Prof Harvey.
Layin' it down, old school. Good one.
Outstanding lectures I learned a lot of things.
Fascinating! Thank you.
Thank you David
Hey I think I saw you on Bad Faith Podcast!(?)
- and all the rest of IT. ❤
University education has treated Henry George about the same as they have treated Karl Marx. Marx largely dismissed Henry George as an apologist for capitalism, which is unfortunate. As David Harvey may be aware, during the last few decades of the nineteenth century and even during the early twentieth century, Henry George's analysis of political economy attracted far broader support than did that of Marx. This did not last, of course. As liberals (including a young Winston Churchill) pressed for an updated valuation of the nation's land in preparation for the imposition of an annual taxation of lands' rental value, the landed aristocracy did all they could to prevent this from happening. British historian Roy Douglas provided the details in his 1976 book, "Land, People and Politics: A History of the Land Question in the UK, 1878-1952." Essentially, land interests have continue to prevail in the UK (and almost everywhere else).
Read your book and I loved it. Happy to know how bad thacher and reagon are.
I hope David Harvey is fine
Bonaparte was not the "imperial president (lol!)" of Paris but the emperor of France. It might sound trivial but it reflects the (not-so-clever) distortions of some of the historical facts by D. Harvey in order to push his theories about cities, which I do not dispute per se, but which are weakened by misinterpretation of historical facts. For those who speak French and are interested in the history of the Paris Commune, I suggest the works of Mathilde Larrère and Ludivine Bantigny among many great French historians.
Is he distorting facts? I interpreted him saying that in a way to show how he leveraged his original position as some sort of president to become emperor with a good amount of public support. So he could claim he was a peoples president when in actuality he was the sole ruler of an empire
@@adamknott7830 In my view, the most fundamental, common theme in most of history is that whenever the majority of a populace cannot think any deeper than a mud puddle, the ruling elites can easily lead them around by the nose, make them think all will be well, while at the same time acquiring more and more ill-gotten wealth and power.
@@RussCR5187 seems like a reasonable and accurate view
Scientific view of sociopolitical facts allow many to use the stereotypes of the capitalism first ways of domination. One of those stereotypes was the Bonaparte's way of political management of the French government of those days. We even define some regimes as bonapartist. Mexico is one such case. A "sui generis" bonapartism. I won't explain it but is close to real objective comparison. It doesn't have to be an empire.
@@adamknott7830 Yes since Bonaparte's main support was not in Paris as it si suggest but in the countryside (the small land-owning paysants), while the cities were rather places of building proletariat organisations (hence the Haussmann wors to open up boulevards for large security interventions).
Investing in crypto is the only big chance of making money
@Luis David Yeah
My first investment with Mr blain reinkensmeyer earned me profit of over $25,530 US dollars
ever since then he has been delivering
@Williams Jones he's obviously the best invested 2000USD with him and 9 I made a profit of 9101USD
He,s stories are everywhere 😱
Trading crypto with Expert blain reinkensmeyer has being a game changer for me
How do I contact Mr blain reinkensmeyer
Incredibly bad sound......