I'm entirely on board with the professor in his impatience with those intent on adjectivizing and euphemizing capitalism. I cringe every time someone is clearly talking about capitalism but are at pains to misdirect our brains with terms like "corporate greed" - it's a subtle but effective means of keeping our eyes off the ball.
Most left wing politicians do that for strategic reasons. You gotta take into consideration that the overwhelming majority of people in western democraties have 0 political education and are brainwashed from a very young age to associate criticism of capitalism with gulags.
great point. wonder what you make of the sudden proliferation of the term 'elites'? i've noticed its appearance in essays and articles by populists of all denominations, and it has a certain utility, but i'm wary of creating more euphemisms for 'ruling class,' 'capitalist class,' etc.
@@massgeneral9873 I agree. The term elite is vague and not inconsistent with extreme reactionary ideologies not the least of which is anti-semitism. I guess if you want to hedge your bets and not betray yourself as a class traitor it helps to keep your enemies amorphous.
@@massgeneral9873 Terrible word, terrible concept. "Elites" belongs to fascists. The proof is in the fact that it contains nothing pertaining to relations of productions. It's an abstract idea used to mobilize masses. Historically was used to describe the supposed sexual depravity of "the elites", or the people in the world of culture supposedly corrupting the youth. Not surprising that you hear this word a lot in conspiracy theorists circles Edit: just realised you weren't talking to me, whatever
'corporate greed' and 'crony capitalism' etc is exactly what those on the left (louis Blanc etc) meant when using the word 'capitalism' mid 19th century onwards until Von Mises and i imagine others aimed at reclaiming the word as a positive to pretty much mean free enterprise and 'market liberalism'. All around the time of the Bolshevik Communism 'system' being propagandised through the US cultural exports as the complete opposite and antithesis of the 'western capitalism' system
00:02 David Harvey became a Marxist through studying urban planning and economics 02:30 Using Marx's Capital to analyze urban studies 07:08 Importance of Marx's work and reading in influencing your views 09:40 David Harvey's Marxism is drawn from practical experience in urban settings. 14:40 David Harvey's immersion in Marxism was associated with his experience in the United States. 17:01 David Harvey found Corbin's influence on the democratized left very hopeful. 21:28 David Harvey's early interest in geography and the influence of his mother's expectations. 23:42 Raymond Williams found it difficult to articulate certain ideas except in novel form. 28:08 Harvey discusses the interrelation between place, space, and environment. 30:29 Marx's Theory incorporates the idea of a rising mass in the context of climate change and its relationship with capital. 34:45 David Harvey reflects on the significance of settling scores with post-modernism and post-structuralism 36:49 Postmodernism and flexible accumulation from a Marxist perspective. 40:29 Revival of debate on anti-capitalist strategies 42:27 Understanding the concept of capital active today is important for future actions. 46:35 Challenges in achieving socialist revolution 48:47 Concentration of wealth and power needs to be addressed for the stability of capitalism. 52:54 Geography should be open to various critical perspectives. 55:11 The need to understand and look at the ideas of mutual aid and the actions of the Kurdish movement 59:46 Rural revitalization in China has effectively doubled rural incomes. 1:01:44 David Harvey got frustrated with misrepresentations of Marx and aimed to make Marx more comprehensible. 1:06:06 David Harvey discusses his approach to covering Marx's texts 1:08:15 David Harvey is working on integrating the state into the political economy. 1:12:17 The Grundrisse has a unique status in the history of Marxism. 1:14:28 Marx's approach to understanding capital as an underground structure and how it shapes his research. 1:18:33 Understanding Capital as an organic totality, in motion and expanding. 1:20:33 Marx discusses contradictory relations in the economy 1:24:26 Marx discusses the influence of machine technology on the general intellect. 1:26:36 Technology evolves from servant to leader in capitalism 1:30:31 Marx's ideas are rooted in socialized technology and value theory. 1:32:32 Marx emphasizes the unique nature of land rent and credit under capitalism. 1:36:50 David Harvey discusses controversies around labor theory of value and role as a Marxist 1:38:58 Marx discusses the rising mass and falling rate 1:43:00 Capital is political and there is a fusion of state and capital. 1:45:23 Value cannot be discussed without discussing its negation 1:49:38 David Harvey discusses the revival of interest in trade unionism and dismisses the idea of a proletarian movement waiting to overthrow socialism. 1:51:51 Emphasizing the analysis of capitalism and challenges in developing a revolutionary pedagogy. 1:56:13 Revival of Marxist theory and organizational weakness 1:58:19 Understanding capital theory is essential for becoming a Marxist
What a fantastic interview! I've watched it several times and saved its script. I am currently working on a book about Professor David Harvey. I believe that Professor Harvey's ideas deserve to be as famous as those of Marx, which is why I am dedicating my efforts to this project. I am eager to interview him, and if anyone knows how to contact Professor Harvey, please let me know. Your assistance is greatly appreciated, as I am in great need of this information.
Capital’s idea of a future Utopia with the benefits of Artificial Intelligence does not mean a Utopia of Humanity for Humanity's sake, "It means a future Utopia of Capital for Capital’s sake."
@1:16:19 to @1:23:55 = absolute brilliance: Dr. Harvey's explanation of circulatory processes, of Capital and labour, contradictory unities, via human bodily processes... beautiful clarity, moving.
At 35:00, the suggestion by the interviewer that The Condition of Postmodernity "was" important at one time but is now dated ... i.e. because in Europe apparently they are "rediscovering" postmodernism, or some other unspecified reason, is a somewhat backhanded question to put to the author of a book that is more, or just as, relevant now than it was in 1989, despite the plethora of accusations of "flexible sexism" and the like that were lobbed at "reductionist" Marxist theorists in the 1990s. This "rediscovery" has been going on since the 1980s and was only interrupted by the renewed interest in macropolitics and the focus on the problem of economic inequality between c.2005 and 2012. One should not overlook the importance of Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek in the shift away from postmodernism, though Hardt & Negri also played an ambivalent role in this. After OWS, the shift to BLM, MeToo, Anthropocene, post-human new materialisms, privilege theory, intersectionality and decoloniality, etc, are all part of this so-called rediscovery of postmodernism, which reinforces the influence of discourse theory, difference politics and post-structuralism in the academy and in activist circles. The focus on identity in corporate and government DEI policies now reinforces what Nancy Fraser refers to as "progressive neoliberalism." Overall, the postmodern left has allowed the political right to posture as the defenders of universality and enlightenment. This undermines a genuine left project. I agree with Harvey that it's unfortunate that we don't have more Marxist intellectuals like Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton today, rather than so many pseudo-Gramscian postmodernists. There are similar issues with the overestimation of Italian workerism. Many of the problems of today's socialist left come into focus when you consider the rise to hegemonic status of (the ideology of) the petty bourgeoisie in the postwar era. With regard to "orthodoxy," what is needed is real questions and real answers rather than obsession with trends and paradigm shifts.
Astutely put!👏🏻 To which I would add, the wide-scale embrace of identity politics (allow me to use the term ‘wokeism’) by corporations should sound the alarm bells of a dialectically-aware Left. What may on one hand be viewed as a progressive step toward a kind of liberation (e.g. having one’s identity affirmed by one’s employer) should also be understood as, perhaps, a Pyrrhic victory whereby what is diffused is a much more radical and subversive structural critique.
@@EyeByBrian Thanks. There's a growing literature on this but a few items that may interest is Mike Macnair's critique of Crenshaw's famous article on intersectionality in legal cases ( where the interests of the employer is of foremost concern, ignored by Crenshaw ) and Lee Fang's article in The Intercept on the uses of Diversity policy in union-busting.
9:30ish On 'practical marxism,' What a breath of fresh air. I'm enthused for the meat & potatoes of the talk. The sectarianism among marxist tendencies plaguing the left (primarily in the west, I think) can make it extremely difficult to study and learn efficiently. Everybody kind of has a different entry point for discovering marxian analysis, be it tenant organizing, social movements & activism, intellectual radicalization, or some mix, and so on. At least in my experience, coming from an initial intellectual radicalization, continuing my studies after undergrad, there's a bit of a process to that study; One goes thru the thoughts of one or another thinker, and then they attempt to further grasp the historical context, and then they say, "well, where did THAT come from?" Or "where did this LEAD, what came next?" And down the road you go. But this fervent, rabid sectarianism among the MLs, the Trotskyists, the Maoists, the myriad iterations and distortions of these various tendencies seem more interested in chasing sectarian legitimacy and consequently roadblocking the development of staunch allies in our various struggles. The prolific anti-communist ideology permeating our institutions, theories, and very modes of thought make it HARD ENOUGH. Yet the anarchists and the 1,001 marxist iterations seem more concerned with ideological purity than with building actual alliances, coalitions, united fronts, and the like. As if we already have an ascendant global movement of explicitly socialist revolution! I think they wear the ideology like a brand. Just my op. Consumerist marxism lol. "Putting on the costumes of the past," playing toy bolsheviks while ruling interests play their 5d chess or whatever. It's intensely frustrating to watch chronically online debate-bros fume over historical inconsistencies and ideological splits while real people are suffering deprivation, torture, and mass murder, be it by gunpoint or by economic strangulation, even in our own nations, neighborhoods, etc. So. I've adopted a lot of taglines to virtue signal my ideological purity over the years, but no more. I don't think I ever will again. Just consider me heterodox and ask me my take on XYZ. I'm more concerned with actually getting to the point where we CAN do something concrete, rather than incessantly debate the purely hypothetical. I dont care what tendency you have. Will you join the protest? Commit resources? Play a role in struggling for real, immediate material gains? Yeah, I'll argue with you when it comes time to build a party or support/decry a specific movement or nation, but outside of those circumstances, we have to be united, in principle, on: anti-imperialism -capitalism -colonialism -racism -sexism -transphobia -islamophobia and so on.. That's where we start, that's what matters. We can work the rest out. But we have to be active and do work in the real world lol. mwwwwah, love yall
Well. All that being said. I do still think it is of vital importance TO study the works related to these different tendencies. It's all part of the effort to understand what ACTUALLY happened, what ACTUALLY worked, or did not, in this or that circumstance, and WHY. You can't very well understand the history of the development of the USSR without incorporating Chinese observations and interactions with marxism at the time, for instance. And then analyze the Chinese experience, and see what others have observed about THAT, and so on, and so on, and so on. But to get bogged down in sectarian insistence on ONE interpretation. ONE way to do revolution. ONE definition of "pure" socialism. This is all metaphysical. Anti-dialectical; Thus, not marxist. 2 cents, Slapped on the table
I much admire Prof. Harvey's work, both the various books he's written and his online work here with TH-cam, including the Democracy at Work organization. And here I will note how appropos it is the Prof. Harvey is wearing a red shirt.
replayed the beginning (around 4:59) like 12 fucking times, he's saying "the Gundrisse", the '73 penguin books edition of marx's Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy for anyone else curious.
Thank you so much --- I only wish we could notice our destabilizing global climates -- and how we will continually need to revise and update political language to navigate the future.
1:45:00 I don’t get why Roberts and Harvey are so enraged with each other, when the former talks about production and company investment as the drive of capitalism movement and contradiction/crisis, and then Harvey talks about the fixated capital which is at the heart of the circulatory process of capital. I mean, they are talking about the fuckin same thing and they are arguing among each other. Fair enough Roberts wants to carry on with the orthodox view that class struggle is located in production and Harvey wants to move away from that (failed) perspective to find class struggle in other circulatory movements as in distribution and so on. But at the end of the day they are saying the same thing, that the core of the class struggle is in companies investment (Roberts) and in fix capital ( Harvey) which is the fucking same the machines! They way the capitalist class has to produce more and cheaper.
take over the banks and then what then?!! mmt for the people with massive social investments to improve people's lives rather than organize around profit for the few, that's what we do!!
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm entirely on board with the professor in his impatience with those intent on adjectivizing and euphemizing capitalism. I cringe every time someone is clearly talking about capitalism but are at pains to misdirect our brains with terms like "corporate greed" - it's a subtle but effective means of keeping our eyes off the ball.
Most left wing politicians do that for strategic reasons. You gotta take into consideration that the overwhelming majority of people in western democraties have 0 political education and are brainwashed from a very young age to associate criticism of capitalism with gulags.
great point. wonder what you make of the sudden proliferation of the term 'elites'? i've noticed its appearance in essays and articles by populists of all denominations, and it has a certain utility, but i'm wary of creating more euphemisms for 'ruling class,' 'capitalist class,' etc.
@@massgeneral9873 I agree. The term elite is vague and not inconsistent with extreme reactionary ideologies not the least of which is anti-semitism. I guess if you want to hedge your bets and not betray yourself as a class traitor it helps to keep your enemies amorphous.
@@massgeneral9873 Terrible word, terrible concept. "Elites" belongs to fascists. The proof is in the fact that it contains nothing pertaining to relations of productions.
It's an abstract idea used to mobilize masses. Historically was used to describe the supposed sexual depravity of "the elites", or the people in the world of culture supposedly corrupting the youth. Not surprising that you hear this word a lot in conspiracy theorists circles
Edit: just realised you weren't talking to me, whatever
'corporate greed' and 'crony capitalism' etc is exactly what those on the left (louis Blanc etc) meant when using the word 'capitalism' mid 19th century onwards until Von Mises and i imagine others aimed at reclaiming the word as a positive to pretty much mean free enterprise and 'market liberalism'.
All around the time of the Bolshevik Communism 'system' being propagandised through the US cultural exports as the complete opposite and antithesis of the 'western capitalism' system
00:02 David Harvey became a Marxist through studying urban planning and economics
02:30 Using Marx's Capital to analyze urban studies
07:08 Importance of Marx's work and reading in influencing your views
09:40 David Harvey's Marxism is drawn from practical experience in urban settings.
14:40 David Harvey's immersion in Marxism was associated with his experience in the United States.
17:01 David Harvey found Corbin's influence on the democratized left very hopeful.
21:28 David Harvey's early interest in geography and the influence of his mother's expectations.
23:42 Raymond Williams found it difficult to articulate certain ideas except in novel form.
28:08 Harvey discusses the interrelation between place, space, and environment.
30:29 Marx's Theory incorporates the idea of a rising mass in the context of climate change and its relationship with capital.
34:45 David Harvey reflects on the significance of settling scores with post-modernism and post-structuralism
36:49 Postmodernism and flexible accumulation from a Marxist perspective.
40:29 Revival of debate on anti-capitalist strategies
42:27 Understanding the concept of capital active today is important for future actions.
46:35 Challenges in achieving socialist revolution
48:47 Concentration of wealth and power needs to be addressed for the stability of capitalism.
52:54 Geography should be open to various critical perspectives.
55:11 The need to understand and look at the ideas of mutual aid and the actions of the Kurdish movement
59:46 Rural revitalization in China has effectively doubled rural incomes.
1:01:44 David Harvey got frustrated with misrepresentations of Marx and aimed to make Marx more comprehensible.
1:06:06 David Harvey discusses his approach to covering Marx's texts
1:08:15 David Harvey is working on integrating the state into the political economy.
1:12:17 The Grundrisse has a unique status in the history of Marxism.
1:14:28 Marx's approach to understanding capital as an underground structure and how it shapes his research.
1:18:33 Understanding Capital as an organic totality, in motion and expanding.
1:20:33 Marx discusses contradictory relations in the economy
1:24:26 Marx discusses the influence of machine technology on the general intellect.
1:26:36 Technology evolves from servant to leader in capitalism
1:30:31 Marx's ideas are rooted in socialized technology and value theory.
1:32:32 Marx emphasizes the unique nature of land rent and credit under capitalism.
1:36:50 David Harvey discusses controversies around labor theory of value and role as a Marxist
1:38:58 Marx discusses the rising mass and falling rate
1:43:00 Capital is political and there is a fusion of state and capital.
1:45:23 Value cannot be discussed without discussing its negation
1:49:38 David Harvey discusses the revival of interest in trade unionism and dismisses the idea of a proletarian movement waiting to overthrow socialism.
1:51:51 Emphasizing the analysis of capitalism and challenges in developing a revolutionary pedagogy.
1:56:13 Revival of Marxist theory and organizational weakness
1:58:19 Understanding capital theory is essential for becoming a Marxist
thanks
What a fantastic interview! I've watched it several times and saved its script. I am currently working on a book about Professor David Harvey. I believe that Professor Harvey's ideas deserve to be as famous as those of Marx, which is why I am dedicating my efforts to this project. I am eager to interview him, and if anyone knows how to contact Professor Harvey, please let me know. Your assistance is greatly appreciated, as I am in great need of this information.
Capital’s idea of a future Utopia with the benefits of Artificial Intelligence
does not mean a Utopia of Humanity for Humanity's sake, "It means a future Utopia of Capital for Capital’s sake."
Prof. Harvey continues to blow my mind.
@1:16:19 to @1:23:55 = absolute brilliance: Dr. Harvey's explanation of circulatory processes, of Capital and labour, contradictory unities, via human bodily processes... beautiful clarity, moving.
Thank you so much for making this available
👂My ears are delighted to hear David Harvey again, and my brain is having an ecstatic party .🎆
At 35:00, the suggestion by the interviewer that The Condition of Postmodernity "was" important at one time but is now dated ... i.e. because in Europe apparently they are "rediscovering" postmodernism, or some other unspecified reason, is a somewhat backhanded question to put to the author of a book that is more, or just as, relevant now than it was in 1989, despite the plethora of accusations of "flexible sexism" and the like that were lobbed at "reductionist" Marxist theorists in the 1990s. This "rediscovery" has been going on since the 1980s and was only interrupted by the renewed interest in macropolitics and the focus on the problem of economic inequality between c.2005 and 2012. One should not overlook the importance of Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek in the shift away from postmodernism, though Hardt & Negri also played an ambivalent role in this. After OWS, the shift to BLM, MeToo, Anthropocene, post-human new materialisms, privilege theory, intersectionality and decoloniality, etc, are all part of this so-called rediscovery of postmodernism, which reinforces the influence of discourse theory, difference politics and post-structuralism in the academy and in activist circles. The focus on identity in corporate and government DEI policies now reinforces what Nancy Fraser refers to as "progressive neoliberalism." Overall, the postmodern left has allowed the political right to posture as the defenders of universality and enlightenment. This undermines a genuine left project. I agree with Harvey that it's unfortunate that we don't have more Marxist intellectuals like Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton today, rather than so many pseudo-Gramscian postmodernists. There are similar issues with the overestimation of Italian workerism. Many of the problems of today's socialist left come into focus when you consider the rise to hegemonic status of (the ideology of) the petty bourgeoisie in the postwar era. With regard to "orthodoxy," what is needed is real questions and real answers rather than obsession with trends and paradigm shifts.
Astutely put!👏🏻 To which I would add, the wide-scale embrace of identity politics (allow me to use the term ‘wokeism’) by corporations should sound the alarm bells of a dialectically-aware Left. What may on one hand be viewed as a progressive step toward a kind of liberation (e.g. having one’s identity affirmed by one’s employer) should also be understood as, perhaps, a Pyrrhic victory whereby what is diffused is a much more radical and subversive structural critique.
@@EyeByBrian Thanks. There's a growing literature on this but a few items that may interest is Mike Macnair's critique of Crenshaw's famous article on intersectionality in legal cases ( where the interests of the employer is of foremost concern, ignored by Crenshaw ) and Lee Fang's article in The Intercept on the uses of Diversity policy in union-busting.
@@mjlegerThanks for those references.
But isn't postmodernism all about critiicising hegemonies?
Maybe it's just a misapplication, not endemic.
A great social warrior thanks David !!!
David Harvey is pure genius!
you must be very stupid to admire David Harvey
Harvey often talks about that report he wrote about housing in Baltimore. Does anybody know where to find it?
Please let me know as well, if you are informed.
9:30ish
On 'practical marxism,'
What a breath of fresh air.
I'm enthused for the meat & potatoes of the talk.
The sectarianism among marxist tendencies plaguing the left (primarily in the west, I think) can make it extremely difficult to study and learn efficiently.
Everybody kind of has a different entry point for discovering marxian analysis, be it tenant organizing, social movements & activism, intellectual radicalization, or some mix, and so on.
At least in my experience, coming from an initial intellectual radicalization, continuing my studies after undergrad, there's a bit of a process to that study;
One goes thru the thoughts of one or another thinker, and then they attempt to further grasp the historical context, and then they say, "well, where did THAT come from?" Or "where did this LEAD, what came next?"
And down the road you go.
But this fervent, rabid sectarianism among the MLs, the Trotskyists, the Maoists, the myriad iterations and distortions of these various tendencies seem more interested in chasing sectarian legitimacy and consequently roadblocking the development of staunch allies in our various struggles.
The prolific anti-communist ideology permeating our institutions, theories, and very modes of thought make it HARD ENOUGH.
Yet the anarchists and the 1,001 marxist iterations seem more concerned with ideological purity than with building actual alliances, coalitions, united fronts, and the like.
As if we already have an ascendant global movement of explicitly socialist revolution!
I think they wear the ideology like a brand. Just my op.
Consumerist marxism lol.
"Putting on the costumes of the past," playing toy bolsheviks while ruling interests play their 5d chess or whatever.
It's intensely frustrating to watch chronically online debate-bros fume over historical inconsistencies and ideological splits while real people are suffering deprivation, torture, and mass murder, be it by gunpoint or by economic strangulation, even in our own nations, neighborhoods, etc.
So. I've adopted a lot of taglines to virtue signal my ideological purity over the years, but no more.
I don't think I ever will again.
Just consider me heterodox and ask me my take on XYZ.
I'm more concerned with actually getting to the point where we CAN do something concrete, rather than incessantly debate the purely hypothetical.
I dont care what tendency you have.
Will you join the protest?
Commit resources?
Play a role in struggling for real, immediate material gains?
Yeah, I'll argue with you when it comes time to build a party or support/decry a specific movement or nation, but outside of those circumstances, we have to be united, in principle, on:
anti-imperialism
-capitalism
-colonialism
-racism
-sexism
-transphobia
-islamophobia
and so on..
That's where we start, that's what matters.
We can work the rest out.
But we have to be active and do work in the real world lol.
mwwwwah, love yall
Well.
All that being said.
I do still think it is of vital importance TO study the works related to these different tendencies.
It's all part of the effort to understand what ACTUALLY happened, what ACTUALLY worked, or did not, in this or that circumstance, and WHY.
You can't very well understand the history of the development of the USSR without incorporating Chinese observations and interactions with marxism at the time, for instance.
And then analyze the Chinese experience, and see what others have observed about THAT, and so on, and so on, and so on.
But to get bogged down in sectarian insistence on ONE interpretation.
ONE way to do revolution.
ONE definition of "pure" socialism.
This is all metaphysical.
Anti-dialectical;
Thus, not marxist.
2 cents,
Slapped on the table
I much admire Prof. Harvey's work, both the various books he's written and his online work here with TH-cam, including the Democracy at Work organization. And here I will note how appropos it is the Prof. Harvey is wearing a red shirt.
replayed the beginning (around 4:59) like 12 fucking times, he's saying "the Gundrisse", the '73 penguin books edition of marx's Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy for anyone else curious.
What book by Foster about three cities referencing at around 1:35?
Bilbao, San Marino and Athens - he has a foundation now - Norman Foster maybe?
loved this! thank you
He's great
Thank you so much --- I only wish we could notice our destabilizing global climates -- and how we will continually need to revise and update political language to navigate the future.
Kudos to the interviewer! He asked great questions!
Robinson Cynthia Perez Brenda Miller Thomas
1:45:00 I don’t get why Roberts and Harvey are so enraged with each other, when the former talks about production and company investment as the drive of capitalism movement and contradiction/crisis, and then Harvey talks about the fixated capital which is at the heart of the circulatory process of capital. I mean, they are talking about the fuckin same thing and they are arguing among each other. Fair enough Roberts wants to carry on with the orthodox view that class struggle is located in production and Harvey wants to move away from that (failed) perspective to find class struggle in other circulatory movements as in distribution and so on. But at the end of the day they are saying the same thing, that the core of the class struggle is in companies investment (Roberts) and in fix capital ( Harvey) which is the fucking same the machines! They way the capitalist class has to produce more and cheaper.
Elon Tusk
Thompson Carol Smith Betty White Jennifer
take over the banks and then what then?!! mmt for the people with massive social investments to improve people's lives rather than organize around profit for the few, that's what we do!!