I remember the Professor mentioning this story in other interviews/episodes earlier. Funny to hear how ideologised officials and businesspeople in the US can turn away from facts once they learn the analysis is coming from Marx/Engels. My dad told me the other day he met Prof. Harvey in the 1970s when he and other Western geographers arrived for a conference hosted in Soviet Georgia. Was nice to know they had been in touch through their profession, even if for a brief period.
I'm about halfway through the Grundrisse, and it is an interesting book for sure. Small nuggets of absolute gems hiding out between pages and pages of attempted mathematical abstractions. A highly abridged, accessible summary would be a wonderful thing to have in the literature, and David Harvey is the right man for the job! I look forward to picking up a copy!
Always a pleasure. It was always fairly easy to understand, but the arguments against it were always going to be used to their maximum, after all, they have capital to defend.
I love the story of the housing people being so taken with use value. Don't tell him! Don't tell him! ( said with enthusiasm like children listening to Aesops fables).
❤️ Very interesting told and described. Dr.Harvey possesses the ability-the art- to capture the audience to what he wants to convey, in a brilliant way.
An Indian historian friend of mine, late Prof. Diptendra Banerjee was a great scholar on Marx and wrote a bit on Marx and the Asiatic mode of production. Marx did not live long enough to expand on the subject although he wrote some notes on it. Prof. Diptendra Banerjee did organise an all India seminar on this in his university in West Bengal back in the 1980s. I just wonder if you have any views on this topic?
On property taxes, it's not that we pay taxes on things we own per se. If you still have a mortgage or a car lien, which means you don't own these properties, you still pay property taxes anyway. So you're paying taxes on that which you do not own. That's rather antithetical to what a tax is (allegedly) supposed to mean.
It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. Communist manifesto Wish David Harvey good times with struggle
Can somebody please tweet this video to Ro Khanna?? Khanna just signed the ‘Horrors of Socialism’ resolution - tho he claims to support fair housing! If you could, maybe clip out the part starting from Baltimore thru the convo with the banker This effort would be brilliant 👏😃🐦
Pq Marx is right about many things. He was wrong about surplus value. Marginalists took care of showing that the markets value commodities based on all the inputs to manufacture them and consumer demand. Market uPrice is the measure of exchange value
Is labor not the most foundational input? I wonder what happens when labor is done away with, without the automated apparatus in existence to replace it?
@@loganlowe3731 You must also wonder what would happen without consumer demand, raw materials or without the initiative of the capitalist entrepreneur. These factors are as important as labor. Thus it is impossible to tell whether labor is not being justly compensated and/or by how much because of the presence of other variables. We SUSPECT that some nonunion labor is not justly paid because of the lesser bargaining power of laborers but that is as far as it goes. Moreover, I wonder what will happen to the surplus concept when robots substitute humans in most commodity production?
@@manuelmanuel9248 The labor-theory of value (and Marx’s extrapolation of it) aims to do just that. As Marx said, labor is the sole value-creator or value that begets more value. Without labor and its collective capacity, nothing happens. It’s not just another input alongside the means of production (which, means of production is former realized labor or materialized labor). Using supply and demand relations to get at the source of value (classical political economy) is exactly what Marx scoffed at, because when in equilibrium they cease to explain anything other than something’s natural price. But then it follows: where does natural price and its inherent value determination derive from? Hence the use of the LTV.
@@loganlowe3731 you have not accounted for sources of value that I enumerated. Ignoring those variables that are independent co-causes of value along with labor will not do much for your argument. It only adds conclusory statements. Value is also derived from those co-causes whether you realize it or not. To calculate surplus,like Marx, you have to ignore those variables. Marginalist theory of value came during and after Marx’s life. Marx never responded to it. In fact, having no counter argument might have been the reason why Marx did not publish the last two volumes of Capital
@@manuelmanuel9248 There is value inherent in the means of production. Labor is involved in producing the means of production. Marginalist theory predominated after Marx’s death. That is presumably why Marx never addressed it. Does marginalist theory account for entrepreneurial risk; and for that matter laborer risk? Anyway, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on economics in general, but it doesn’t negate the fact that classical political economy and its offspring are rife with contradictions (which lead to periodical crises) and virtually imaginary/symbolically representative concepts, that don’t penetrate fundamental truths, in a system devised by mankind. And maybe that’s an issue.
Congratulations! Dr. Harvey on a great career and a crowning moment.
Did they petition or wave signs at F Darth Vader? NO. Grow up.
I remember the Professor mentioning this story in other interviews/episodes earlier. Funny to hear how ideologised officials and businesspeople in the US can turn away from facts once they learn the analysis is coming from Marx/Engels.
My dad told me the other day he met Prof. Harvey in the 1970s when he and other Western geographers arrived for a conference hosted in Soviet Georgia. Was nice to know they had been in touch through their profession, even if for a brief period.
I'm about halfway through the Grundrisse, and it is an interesting book for sure. Small nuggets of absolute gems hiding out between pages and pages of attempted mathematical abstractions. A highly abridged, accessible summary would be a wonderful thing to have in the literature, and David Harvey is the right man for the job! I look forward to picking up a copy!
There's a playlist of Dr Harvey reading through The Grundrisse with students. Super helpful
Always a pleasure.
It was always fairly easy to understand, but the arguments against it were always going to be used to their maximum, after all, they have capital to defend.
That report must have been a traumatic read for The Landlords...
I love the story of the housing people being so taken with use value. Don't tell him! Don't tell him! ( said with enthusiasm like children listening to Aesops fables).
This is the best I heard in a long time, and I have been spending a lot of time listening.
❤️ Very interesting told and described. Dr.Harvey possesses the ability-the art- to capture the audience to what he wants to convey, in a brilliant way.
Thank you for making these videos
An Indian historian friend of mine, late Prof. Diptendra Banerjee was a great scholar on Marx and wrote a bit on Marx and the Asiatic mode of production. Marx did not live long enough to expand on the subject although he wrote some notes on it.
Prof. Diptendra Banerjee did organise an all India seminar on this in his university in West Bengal back in the 1980s.
I just wonder if you have any views on this topic?
On property taxes, it's not that we pay taxes on things we own per se. If you still have a mortgage or a car lien, which means you don't own these properties, you still pay property taxes anyway. So you're paying taxes on that which you do not own. That's rather antithetical to what a tax is (allegedly) supposed to mean.
Wait debts don't subtract from your 'property' in the USA?
It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly.
Communist manifesto
Wish David Harvey good times with struggle
If the population would at the very least realize capitalism is a system. That there is no free market.
Dr. Harvey says he has two books that are most important, he states the Limit of Capital as one but doesn't name the other?
Earlier, it is the first book he introduced.
Limits of capital, 17 contradictions, and probably brief history of neoliberalism
Can somebody please tweet this video to Ro Khanna?? Khanna just signed the ‘Horrors of Socialism’ resolution - tho he claims to support fair housing!
If you could, maybe clip out the part starting from Baltimore thru the convo with the banker
This effort would be brilliant 👏😃🐦
I hope you all are enjoying your wealth accumulation!
What wealth?
Did they petition or wave signs at F Darth Vader? NO. Grow up.
Pq Marx is right about many things. He was wrong about surplus value. Marginalists took care of showing that the markets value commodities based on all the inputs to manufacture them and consumer demand. Market uPrice is the measure of exchange value
Is labor not the most foundational input? I wonder what happens when labor is done away with, without the automated apparatus in existence to replace it?
@@loganlowe3731 You must also wonder what would happen without consumer demand, raw materials or without the initiative of the capitalist entrepreneur. These factors are as important as labor. Thus it is impossible to tell whether labor is not being justly compensated and/or by how much because of the presence of other variables. We SUSPECT that some nonunion labor is not justly paid because of the lesser bargaining power of laborers but that is as far as it goes. Moreover, I wonder what will happen to the surplus concept when robots substitute humans in most commodity production?
@@manuelmanuel9248 The labor-theory of value (and Marx’s extrapolation of it) aims to do just that. As Marx said, labor is the sole value-creator or value that begets more value. Without labor and its collective capacity, nothing happens.
It’s not just another input alongside the means of production (which, means of production is former realized labor or materialized labor).
Using supply and demand relations to get at the source of value (classical political economy) is exactly what Marx scoffed at, because when in equilibrium they cease to explain anything other than something’s natural price. But then it follows: where does natural price and its inherent value determination derive from?
Hence the use of the LTV.
@@loganlowe3731 you have not accounted for sources of value that I enumerated. Ignoring those variables that are independent co-causes of value along with labor will not do much for your argument. It only adds conclusory statements. Value is also derived from those co-causes whether you realize it or not.
To calculate surplus,like Marx, you have to ignore those variables. Marginalist theory of value came during and after Marx’s life. Marx never responded to it. In fact, having no counter argument might have been the reason why Marx did not publish the last two volumes of Capital
@@manuelmanuel9248 There is value inherent in the means of production. Labor is involved in producing the means of production.
Marginalist theory predominated after Marx’s death. That is presumably why Marx never addressed it.
Does marginalist theory account for entrepreneurial risk; and for that matter laborer risk?
Anyway, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on economics in general, but it doesn’t negate the fact that classical political economy and its offspring are rife with contradictions (which lead to periodical crises) and virtually imaginary/symbolically representative concepts, that don’t penetrate fundamental truths, in a system devised by mankind.
And maybe that’s an issue.