@Thrunabulax Money was created because people wanted a more convenient way to store, account for, divide, and transfer value between each other. Taxation is part of fiscal policy not monetary. And I don't know enough about MMT to comment on it but the idea that debt doesn't matter because noone can make you pay it is certainly, interesting.
@@AlwaysBored123 I think what Thrunabulax is getting at is that modern fiat currency is effectively backed by its assured ability to pay taxes which establishes a societal consensus/protection of value, which is why I would argue use of such money implicitly concedes legitimacy to the government that backs it. I believe the modern origins of taxation, private property, and general conceptions of state authority were built on top of enlightenment social contract theory, specifically iterations of it popularized by Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. That being said, if we're trying to get to some fundamental truth about the concept of money here rather than just argue for a preferred system, I'd say you're both pretty much touching on the same core justifications of consented and trusted value preservation, just through a different focusing of societal priorities. I think Aristotle had a list of "necessary properties" that constitute money, but to me it seems like value trust is the only necessity and any other rationale on top is mostly just to legitimize that trust. Also, David Graeber is awesome.
Modern American Libertarianism is an ideology for and by the rich. That's why it's so hilarious that working class people fall for it. That brings me to the self help industry and phony ass snake oil salespeople like Tony Robbins and even Oprah. They get people thinking that they'll be rich someday, and that the reason they are not already is something to do with themselves and not the system. People who feel like they're "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" are more likely to fall for the libertarian nonsense.
Took me 50 yrs to understand the depravity of capitalism....ploughing through Professor’s explication of Marx’s Grundrisse ... thank you Professor Harvey. Miss Jenny.
We shouldn't redistribute wealth. We should... distribute wealth properly in the first place, so that taxation isn't relevant. We need to not allow people to become billionaires and multiple millionaires in the very first place.
The implication is that wealth is already redistributed, that is, redistributed from its producers to non-producers. The means by which occurs is for the most part legal if unjust. Thus, a just distribution of income and wealth requires changes to our laws and to our methods of raising public revenue. One could look to Marx for direction, but, unfortunately (in my view), Marx did not fully understood the outcome power of a system of taxation that captured rent-derived income flows for public purposes when accompanied by the elimination of taxation of income earned by producing goods and providing services. This would not be a panacea or a silver bullet, but it would certainly get the dominoes falling in the right direction.
@tad562 Mitigation of injustice is not justice. The New Deal helped to calm people who might otherwise have opted for a far more violent solution, but the New Deal was based on pragmatism rather than on principle.
These lectures provide a remarkable public service. I have learned so much from them. I'd studied the history of western philosophy and didn't pay nearly enough attention to Marx. These lectures, and reading books in this tradition, changed all that. Now I'm squarely in the Marxist tradition. Who woulda thunk?!
Netflix point in argument was mangled Any product ever produced has a shelf life regardless of system which created product ie farming is meant to produce a product eaten once within a certain time period or thrown away. Though film production is not as important as farming, it is a legitimate industry. Just one that is entrenched in the arts & open to greater speculation then most industries. Even Soviet state produced films The real problem which Netflix model exposes in calitalism is the reduction in need for workers with a less employing capitalist company out-competing employment rich competitors. Hits on the greater point of Marx's theory of automation being a big danger to the worker. ie 1950s film required a studio full of workers, transportation of film, a cinema built to show film with projectionist, ticket booth operator, a porter to show seating, cleaner, candy store girl, maintenance guy, etc.. With Netflix model film "industry" just requires a studio full of personel plus technicians to build and maintain internet so film can be distributed to homes. Where is the demand for workers (who in turn create demand in economy) jobs? Can a Netflix type model create enough jobs and income in society to combat compound interest growth which drive capitalism? Don't think so.
So I think you're actually hitting on exactly what he was getting at, but I think Harvey was more trying to describe/elaborate the totality of capital, where as what you're observing & pointing out is a more of a comparison of two "moments" (agriculture and streaming video). That being said, you can and definitely are extrapolating the same conclusion, it's just that the conception of totality is also meant to describe how social/commodity interactions transition moving forward and I believe it basically serves as the predictive model for Marx's conception of automation and its implications. The other aspect of what I believe Harvey was getting at with the Netflix thing (the social component flipside to the minimal production/labor cost aspect you've pointed out) is that in order to maximize profit when selling a digital product with the capability for unlimited replicability, "scarcity" must be artificially imposed via gatekeeping mechanisms as opposed to the very real and physical limitation of supply in regards to harvested crops. So in other words, this technological "metamorphoses" of capital guided by that necessity of growth has driven us to _completely manufacture_ socially enforced accessibility barriers solely in order to serve this process, the effect of which transforms the dominant commodity, which then affects our relationships to each other, ad infinitum. The concerning implication here, beyond the whole inevitable collapse through unsustainability thing, is that this totality functions as a machine that imprisons us all as its gears exclusively to fuel an increasingly uncontrollable feedback loop that serves nothing but its own perpetuation through capturing our most basic conception of humanity as autonomous and "free".
Also, I would add that his point in raising the Netflix example was initially about lifestyle changes forced upon us by the shifting needs of Capital to create new avenues of Consumption in order to maintain Compound Growth, basically social alienation from each other and even ourselves for that matter and our relation to our own "free time". Your point though is definitely salient in terms of highlighting the barriers which those contradictions you mention, (between the "moments" of "metamorphosis" of value), are going to start hitting hard in the coming decades.
enjoying these chronicles immensely - if enjoyment is right term for learning how the world is going to end. Seems powerful corporate and political vested interests have now gained such immense power I think this powerful minority has decided to take the road to collective suicide than to give up even a minuscule element of its power.....BUT.....there is hope when proles such as I become better informed of truths and therefore better armed to challenge the system and change it.
These podcasts are an increasingly essential resource for the incipient Left movement's most serious thinkers. Also you are really looking more and more like our boy Karl - a bit more work on the beard...
Harvey's Theory of Surplus Spectacles :) Honestly, I didn't give it a second thought when he did it. He seemed so natural and deliberate. Then, when he didn't take them off right away, I figured he had the optometrist set him up that way so he didn't have to wear bifocals. Wear as many glasses as you need, Sir. Please, just stay as healthy as you can. :)
just a reminder for anyone out there who craves david harvey's wisdom, ..but who would prefer that it came along just a little bit faster.. 1.5 speed is perfect for this video.
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting what Harvey's arguing in regards to the importance of compound growth correctly, and would like to know whether or not I am: as I'm understanding it, Harvey's arguing that compound growth is necessary under capitalism because as the productive forces develop, they become more expensive relative to the older means of production, requiring greater and greater profit margins in order for other businesses to be able to afford those upgrades. Is that a correct understanding of what he's saying?
Absent from this analysis is a key component of human behavior, what Henry George described as our desire to satisfy our desires with the least exertion; and, therefore, our efforts to monopolize natural opportunities wherever possible. What this has meant over the centuries is wars of territorial expansion and resource monopoly. Then, once territories are secured by one or another imperialist state, the use of political machinations to secure private property claims to nature. Landed privilege has repeatedly converted into capital goods and money privilege, circulated back to landed privilege, and on and on and on until the stress on social and economic stability brings on a serious crash. History going back at least two hundred years in the United States reveals a consistent cycle of between 18-21 years (see: "The Secret Life of Real Estate," by Phillip Anderson, 2008).
Great point. I don't recall Harvey rendering anything by Henry George, but the process you describe is thoroughly discussed in his lectures on Marx's three volumes of Capital. The usurpation of what Marx calls "the free gifts of nature" and "free gifts of human nature" are central to his argument. The metabolic relationship between humans and nature, and how it is perverted by capital, is something about which Marx writes very eloquently. You seem like someone who would get a lot out of Harvey's lectures, they can be found on youtube on a separate channel called "Reading Marx's Capital with David Harvey. Here is a link if you are interested ... ruclips.net/channel/UC9qzXVDKmBdbTlID3HLHe9Q
Two thoughts: 1) Is the expanding prison industrial complex, as well as the private detention business, being utilized as a way to create GDP growth? 2) Is any of that $80T (and rising) global GDP due to currency deflation?
It makes no sense to comodify an experience. I guess there are just enough people with enough income to go on vacation still to keep the tourism industry moving but not for long!
I am a committed listener and appreciate Prof Harvey’s remarks so much. However, I do have to say that music makes me cringe every time. Should I stand and salute? Maybe not.
Harvey's thesis concerning the problems of compound growth presumes ever increasing population growth, something that appears probably no longer valid.
I can't see how that follows, perhaps I read this wrong. My read of Harvey's synthesis on compound growth seems to indicate that it is unsustainable even if population growth was to continue to increase. The issue of lessening population growth would only accelerate the timeline toward unsustainability. In rereading your comment I am not sure if you are saying the same thing or the opposite of this.
Basically, infinite growth is impossible in biological systems. Biological systems have limits and will reach carrying capacity. These were never factored into (hell, probably even deliberately ignored) the formulation of economies. Now, I believe we're starting to see the consequences of ignoring a fundamental factor.
i have a philosophical question : should Keynes really be called capitalist ? is a central bank, that when it wants prints how much it wants money, and then gives it to WHATEVER ECONOMIC ACTOR IT WANTS ???!!! a, let's say, capitalist factor or socialist factor ? doesn't sound like free market to me, sounds more like planned economy, with the exception that some use the price fixing facor and other use supplying money after the sell. but still regulation is regulation
@Flightof2Owls good question. I guess i m pretty much thinking in the same context that Wolff always explain, which is the once of power " what to produce where to produce and wha to do with the... " so in that context, the "planning" issue is fundamental doesn't matter if producer X is successfull 1) in a "socialist" state a central government can simply forbid him to exist if it wants 2) in a "pseudo capitalist" Keynesian state a central government is legally allowed to simply print money and subvention his concurrence, then it will have just to wait until X goes bankrupt what's the difference in the context of power ? in both cases a central government has "some means" to eliminate producer X guess it's not a coincidence that the red flag often goes with the black one
It already has... this simple concept reveals why governments have absolutely no intention of "addressing" climate disruption or ecological disintegration... other than human "adaptation" & emotional resignation to loss of the entire natural world. And they know full well, that humans cannot exist in such an environment. I'm sure Ray Kurzweil & the moguls of Silicon Valley are diligently working to upload themselves before the collapse of global industrial civilization & everything ekse along with it. They need their transhuman future asap.
How is it that David Harvey knew about the gravity of the virus (17:45) back in February, but the Capitalists in charge of the U.S.A. weren't taking it seriously? (Rhetorical question.) It seems like if David Harvey were in charge, then perhaps the U.S.A. and other Capitalist countries would have gotten a quicker start at mounting a response, at least. At most, a strategy would have already been planned far in advance, rather than demanded just in time.
@@ECisvotersuppression Socialism does not "require everyone to think and move alike." It is capitalism which insists on reducing all of life to monetary exchange, and as a result of the commodification of all of life we are all of us forced to "think and move alike." By contrast, Marx wrote that "in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." (The German Ideology) www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
Great video! But the closing words... I think some capitalists would prefer the continuation of capitalism (to a possible off-world, or trans-humanist future) rather than ending the system. These people we need to fight!
The presenter shows on a consistent basis that Marx never understood Capitalism and Market economics. To the Marxist, the economy is a static set of circumstances, yet humanity is a study in CREATIVE existence. The economy is in a constant state of flux with both creation and destruction as old products are ended and new ones developed. Capital flows from old to new creation at the speed of Market demand. Today's blockage due to a flu virus is tomorrow's factories making products in Europe and the US and everywhere else so the world going forward is not dependent on slave labor in China. Socialism/Marxism would require long years of deprivation.
To understand how to stop something we first have to understand everything that drives it. Why this compounding effect. What else compounded over the two three centuries. Of course population. Mainly because energy consumption. First because of mini ice age in the middle ages which increased wood consumption. After that coal and after that oil. Capital is actually surpluse of energy not some invented value. Energy can be manifested as means of production as well as labour. We could observe that population growth is decreasing if living standards achieve some levels where life is more or less energy sufficient, of course relatively to system, not globally. We could observe here some natural trends or tendencies. But our impact on environment is now pretty much out of control, so if we want to sustain some relative value of human life, we have to hold on this relative standards of living, and provide energy to everyone. Even it seems that we have wisdom and awareness of conscious beings, we all work on natural laws. As much as is energy out of comprehension of one, the one is less able to control it. In that means the class of capitalists, that we like to call controllers of system are actually the ones less in control like those on opposite side the most poor. If you get caught by big wave you can't do much about. It's on the ones that shape cultural image, only they can grasp some of rational control. But they have to be aware of complexity of reality and natural forces and its impact on human beings trough history and today.
I have heard MMTers defend Compound Growth of Value on these exact terms. Trouble is, how, in a global system, are we going to restrict where Capital attempts to realise itself into only "Virtual" Value?
Fiat currency pretty much solves that problem, so growth is linked to inflation and population growth. If population stops growing, it might just be inflation. So in other words, it does not entail an increase in products anymore, and then as you point out, things like Netflix, based on intellectual property, is an endless source of commodity, just like services. Its only a problem if people's values are inside commodities, just like Marx assumed, but that is where distribution schemes come in, so jobs become optional, not a necessity. Consumers become more important than producers, or just as important. Producers keep the profit motive, and consumers get the goods. So its win-win. If you insist that producers and consumers be the same and in an equal measure, it is where problem will arise in a complex economy. It might work somehow in a subsistence economy, but even then, producers need access to all the means of production and do everything themselves, which is quite inefficient and limited in potential. Its like making you poor for the sake of it. Not that it is a bad thing, but that is another matter altogether.
Blah, blah, blah. Experts confuse everything and in the end we end up so confused that we end up with the short end of the stick. In truth, it's all very simple. To move the things we need in a society we need to negotiate. Some people can be fair, others abuse with their talents. If we allow the people to abuse to continue to do so then they will find ways to accumulate wealth and drive everyone else into poverty. So, what can we do about it? Simple, set up rules that make it difficult for abusive people to accumulate wealth. If we had a tax on wealth where an abusive person had to pay a 100% tax on his wealth after a certain level then the abusive person would find it more practical to pay fair wages, charge fair prices and even protect the health of their employees and to protect the environment. Why should we allow a greedy, vain, egoistical person to take advantage of all of us?
Social democracy Nordic style appears to be the way yo go, but Marxism has one major flaw. Marx's theory of value appears to be flawed. This was proven by Marginalists in the 19th century. Labor is not the only ingredient of value. Consumer demand actually trumps labor in deciding price. This is why a kindergarten teacher makes less money in a year than Bad Bunny makes in one concert. Moreover, the entrepreneurs putting together capital and labor is also providing value. Of course, Inherited wealth plutocrats, landowners and other similar rentiers add no value or actually harm the public.
I'm new to this shit! but I'm a learn as much as I can and vote for what is best for the Human race and the universe. We all need to do this. Goodluck to me, George Khan Kahui. The Greatest Human to ever Live haha, we in!! (I was high when I writ this) Again, I'm coming wolrd... Big Boss dog Gaaancho is coming
That's not Capitalism and you know it. Crony Capitalism is a more apt term and no doubt you know that too but because you have an agenda to bring about a collectivist form of governance, where society is controlled by the political party (b/c in a collectivist system there can be only 1 party) you must pretend like as if Corny Capitalism is actual Capitalism. Crony Capitalism can exist only because we've allowed within America the kind of corruption found in collectivist governances like in communism and socialism, that Crony Capitalism needs like national government restricting/interfering with the free market. You want to blame the problems of society on the welathy and yet it's because we didn't insist on a proper free market but allowed some parts of a collectivist governance to creep in like a virus. Collectivist governance is where the elected few dictate like dictator would, how society works. Citizens may be able to vote but the system ensures there's only 1 party like how the CCP keeps a tight grip ion China. Speaking of which how well has this type of collectivist governance worked for China? Well China was in the brink of collapse like is inevitable with all forms of Collectivist governance. In order to stop that the Chinese government, aka teh CCP, relaxed rules on property rights and wealth, something collectivists governments will not tolerate for in those systems teh government owns everything. They claim it's the people who own everything but that's just a façade; a marketing ploy. True Capitalism is foreign to mist younger people today because they've grown up in a form of corrupted Capitalism and they've received 12+ years of collectivist indoctrination via the public education system with upgrades in college. Real Capitalisms, a true free market is one where government does not intervene in ANY WAY. Pro-Collectivists like the professor here will argue that in that system the welathy will steal from teh rest but what he fails to mention is that in a real free market this is just not possible because of competition and human invention. We have large powerful multi-national corporations only because they've purchased political favor and protections for their business from elected leaders. If collectivist governance is the ideal solution and is the antithesis to welathy corrupt Capitalists then why are so many of those wealthy all on board for resetting society into one that's more like what China has? Are you really foolish enough to believe these billionaires are doing this so they will have less, make less? The most dangerous humans in this world are those like this man who use reasonable sounding arguments to convince people to commit societal suicide. It matters not how many times past attempts at Socialisms, Communism and the like have failed and failed miserably because the excuse is always the same, it wasn't real X-ism, it wasn't done right. Well no shift Sherlock, there's no way to do collectivist governance right if your goal is to raise the quality of life for all. Follow this man and his group into hell because the closets you'll get to teh utopia he and his kind advertise is empty promises, promises that convinced you to foolishly support it to the point where if you should later change your mind too bad, there's nothing you can do about like you can in a real Capitalist system.
Marx's definition of capital is "value in motion?? What the hell does that even mean? Capital is actually defined as "somebody's savings", and whether in motion or standing still, it tends, when properly managed, to be productive in its own right. Marx's bogus "labor surplus" (the productivity of labor which capitalists allegedly steal from the workers), is really the productivity of capital along with the productivity of entrepreneurial and managerial talent.
Utter nonsense. Marx is coming from a Hegelian tradition and applying the laws of dialectical thinking to political economy. That you don't understanding it at first glance does not make it "bogus." I recommend you read some Marx rather than blathering out pro establishment nonsense.
@@heraclitusblacking1293 And haven't you ever wondered why some humans seem to find so much success in controlling other humans? The will to power, by any other name, is a valuable thing.
Every economist, financial consultant & Wall Streeter is familiar with "money velocity" (even Max Keyser)... to say you are unfamiliar with the concept is to admit a serious flaw in understanding markets, money & capital flows. Pretty darn basic. Money velocity is grinding to a halt at present... one of the major indicators there is an obstruction in capital flow & value realization. And an imminent seize-up in the global markets.
Not just value in motion, but also a social relation in which human beings are forced into the service of previously accumulated value to cause it to increase in quantity, comprising both the organic and inorganic components (the plant, seed funds, raw material and technology used to create stuff to sell, and the people working with all that without whom it would all be valueless and would create nothing). That is the opposite of wealth being at the disposal of the community to enable people to flourish. Marx's definition is accurate, yours isn't. The whole point is taking a wholistic approach that sees capital as a process in all its stages of accumulation and recouping, rather than as a static stuff, which capital obviously isn't.
When you set a price on freedom only those who can afford it are free. Supply goes down, demand goes up, suddenly only those with all the wealth have all the freedom. Those with no freedom are called slaves. Only two things can purchase freedom: blood and solidarity; which one is more profitable?
c..There is no such thing as “Capitalism”, not as a primary social characteristic. It is at best an observation on the cultural and economic dynamics of a free open high trust society, where freedom of speech, religion association (including economic associations), property rights, and identity rights are respected (see UDHR 1948). For Cultural Leftists, Marxist , Progressives “Capitalism” is a rhetorical term that at best is so ill defined that it is often used with differentiated, even conflicting meanings by the same speaker in the same paragraph or debate (as good old David here does). Sadly the term “capitalism” is associated with the Cultural Leftist rhetoric that uses the term as a pejorative that justifies a diversity of human rights abuses including theft, in particular “government theft” or coercive taxation as a sacred social virtue. Used as a pejorative ‘capitalism” has been historically used and can be understood today as is intrinsically anti-Semitic and so sadly racist term. In one context the normalization of theft as a “sacred government virtue” is an anti-Semitic violation of Abrahamic Law,(10 commandments) and the values of a wider Judeo-Christian culture. To suggest that “governments” are exempt from such constraints, is to place “governments” as man made constructs (pagan beliefs or religion - see Carlton Hayes) in violation of the first and second commandments. Sadly the term “Capitalism” has a long racist subtext in this kind of discourse. Adam Smith (a real economist) never uses the term “capitalism;” Instead, he uses the term “commercial society,” a phrase that emphasizes his belief that the economic is only one component of the human condition. For Smith, the market is a mechanism of morality and social support based in an adherence to Abrahamic Law, (the 10 Commandments), Natural Law and todays Human Rights norms (see UDHR 1948). The word “Capitalism” was invented as a term of disparagement by the French ( recall the extent of anti-Semitism in 19th century France) socialists Louis Blanc in 1850 to undermine the growing economic and cultural freedoms that that people were enjoying, particularly amongst the Jewish people of Europe. Freedoms that had developed out of a long history of Judeo-Christian cultural development that can be traced back to the 10 Commandments, Abrahamic Law and reflected in todays Human Rights Laws (UDHR 1948). Socialists, Progressives, the Politically Correct, and the Woke, still use the term “Capitalism” to frame a myriad of social, economic, and cultural issues in anti-Semitic narratives, the history of which goes back to the master of such anti-Semitic rhetoric Karl Marx. Sadly such nonsense continues today with the Woke racists endlessly critiquing Israel, be it from established anti-Semites like Jermyn Corbyn of the UK Labour Party or the disproportionate critiques of open free societies based in Abrahamic Law that derives from the Marxism of the Frankfurt School, a critique that veils a racist anti-Semitic (and Christophobic) agenda. It is an agenda that can be most easily and quickly revealed by reference to basic Human Rights law such as the UDHR 1948. As always deconstructing the racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric of the Woke, Progressives, Socialists and Marxists is always fun … here is a nice example…the Racist Karl Marx updating the oldest racism in history ruclips.net/video/rZh01xRO_Qg/видео.html
@@wageslave9951 You simply don't understand the difference between 'labor' and a commodity ; labor should be a legal issue but commodities an economical one.
It's amazing how libertarians argue that taxation is theft (it isn't, definitionally), and yet they'll defend wage labour as a "fair exchange."
They typically have never heard of the Enclosure Movement
Taxation is extortion. And what part of voluntarily selling your labor for an agreed upon price is "unfair?"
@Thrunabulax Money was created because people wanted a more convenient way to store, account for, divide, and transfer value between each other. Taxation is part of fiscal policy not monetary. And I don't know enough about MMT to comment on it but the idea that debt doesn't matter because noone can make you pay it is certainly, interesting.
@@AlwaysBored123 I think what Thrunabulax is getting at is that modern fiat currency is effectively backed by its assured ability to pay taxes which establishes a societal consensus/protection of value, which is why I would argue use of such money implicitly concedes legitimacy to the government that backs it. I believe the modern origins of taxation, private property, and general conceptions of state authority were built on top of enlightenment social contract theory, specifically iterations of it popularized by Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes.
That being said, if we're trying to get to some fundamental truth about the concept of money here rather than just argue for a preferred system, I'd say you're both pretty much touching on the same core justifications of consented and trusted value preservation, just through a different focusing of societal priorities. I think Aristotle had a list of "necessary properties" that constitute money, but to me it seems like value trust is the only necessity and any other rationale on top is mostly just to legitimize that trust.
Also, David Graeber is awesome.
Modern American Libertarianism is an ideology for and by the rich. That's why it's so hilarious that working class people fall for it. That brings me to the self help industry and phony ass snake oil salespeople like Tony Robbins and even Oprah. They get people thinking that they'll be rich someday, and that the reason they are not already is something to do with themselves and not the system. People who feel like they're "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" are more likely to fall for the libertarian nonsense.
Prof. Harvey is a great educator.
Took me 50 yrs to understand the depravity of capitalism....ploughing through Professor’s explication of Marx’s Grundrisse ... thank you Professor Harvey. Miss Jenny.
We shouldn't redistribute wealth. We should... distribute wealth properly in the first place, so that taxation isn't relevant. We need to not allow people to become billionaires and multiple millionaires in the very first place.
The implication is that wealth is already redistributed, that is, redistributed from its producers to non-producers. The means by which occurs is for the most part legal if unjust. Thus, a just distribution of income and wealth requires changes to our laws and to our methods of raising public revenue. One could look to Marx for direction, but, unfortunately (in my view), Marx did not fully understood the outcome power of a system of taxation that captured rent-derived income flows for public purposes when accompanied by the elimination of taxation of income earned by producing goods and providing services. This would not be a panacea or a silver bullet, but it would certainly get the dominoes falling in the right direction.
Jared Greathouse Wouldn’t it be awesome if the leftist ideas worked? They would be the easiest solutions ever😂
juniorgod321 you’re in luck! They do work and have been and are working all around the world and throughout history.
renae willard Really? Which ideas are you talking about? Not allowing people to become rich?
@tad562 Mitigation of injustice is not justice. The New Deal helped to calm people who might otherwise have opted for a far more violent solution, but the New Deal was based on pragmatism rather than on principle.
14:21 Marx obviously disagrees with what you said
opps
Marx: ight imma head out
Well ... he retired after making basic points clear!
Great synopsis! Thank you Prof. Harvey.
Shared with my 88-year-old mother.
These lectures provide a remarkable public service. I have learned so much from them. I'd studied the history of western philosophy and didn't pay nearly enough attention to Marx. These lectures, and reading books in this tradition, changed all that. Now I'm squarely in the Marxist tradition. Who woulda thunk?!
Good video
Netflix point in argument was mangled
Any product ever produced has a shelf life regardless of system which created product ie farming is meant to produce a product eaten once within a certain time period or thrown away.
Though film production is not as important as farming, it is a legitimate industry. Just one that is entrenched in the arts & open to greater speculation then most industries. Even Soviet state produced films
The real problem which Netflix model exposes in calitalism is the reduction in need for workers with a less employing capitalist company out-competing employment rich competitors. Hits on the greater point of Marx's theory of automation being a big danger to the worker. ie 1950s film required a studio full of workers, transportation of film, a cinema built to show film with projectionist, ticket booth operator, a porter to show seating, cleaner, candy store girl, maintenance guy, etc.. With Netflix model film "industry" just requires a studio full of personel plus technicians to build and maintain internet so film can be distributed to homes.
Where is the demand for workers (who in turn create demand in economy) jobs? Can a Netflix type model create enough jobs and income in society to combat compound interest growth which drive capitalism? Don't think so.
So I think you're actually hitting on exactly what he was getting at, but I think Harvey was more trying to describe/elaborate the totality of capital, where as what you're observing & pointing out is a more of a comparison of two "moments" (agriculture and streaming video). That being said, you can and definitely are extrapolating the same conclusion, it's just that the conception of totality is also meant to describe how social/commodity interactions transition moving forward and I believe it basically serves as the predictive model for Marx's conception of automation and its implications.
The other aspect of what I believe Harvey was getting at with the Netflix thing (the social component flipside to the minimal production/labor cost aspect you've pointed out) is that in order to maximize profit when selling a digital product with the capability for unlimited replicability, "scarcity" must be artificially imposed via gatekeeping mechanisms as opposed to the very real and physical limitation of supply in regards to harvested crops. So in other words, this technological "metamorphoses" of capital guided by that necessity of growth has driven us to _completely manufacture_ socially enforced accessibility barriers solely in order to serve this process, the effect of which transforms the dominant commodity, which then affects our relationships to each other, ad infinitum. The concerning implication here, beyond the whole inevitable collapse through unsustainability thing, is that this totality functions as a machine that imprisons us all as its gears exclusively to fuel an increasingly uncontrollable feedback loop that serves nothing but its own perpetuation through capturing our most basic conception of humanity as autonomous and "free".
@@Bisquick well said
Also, I would add that his point in raising the Netflix example was initially about lifestyle changes forced upon us by the shifting needs of Capital to create new avenues of Consumption in order to maintain Compound Growth, basically social alienation from each other and even ourselves for that matter and our relation to our own "free time". Your point though is definitely salient in terms of highlighting the barriers which those contradictions you mention, (between the "moments" of "metamorphosis" of value), are going to start hitting hard in the coming decades.
enjoying these chronicles immensely - if enjoyment is right term for learning how the world is going to end. Seems powerful corporate and political vested interests have now gained such immense power I think this powerful minority has decided to take the road to collective suicide than to give up even a minuscule element of its power.....BUT.....there is hope when proles such as I become better informed of truths and therefore better armed to challenge the system and change it.
14:20 = Marx dies
He spiraled on out of there!
I love what this guy has to say but that was a funny moment
Marx decides to implement direct action!
Man, you guys really made me laugh about this! ;)
These podcasts are an increasingly essential resource for the incipient Left movement's most serious thinkers. Also you are really looking more and more like our boy Karl - a bit more work on the beard...
chinese marx commits suicide at 14:20
Marx isn't dead, he's on the move!
21:15 *puts on two pairs of glasses at same time*
*compounding glasses*
@@Bisquick 👏👏👏 bravo! Well done.
as an individual who wears glasses sometimes you just forget they’re on your face lol
Welcome to old age!
Harvey's Theory of Surplus Spectacles :)
Honestly, I didn't give it a second thought when he did it. He seemed so natural and deliberate. Then, when he didn't take them off right away, I figured he had the optometrist set him up that way so he didn't have to wear bifocals.
Wear as many glasses as you need, Sir.
Please, just stay as healthy as you can. :)
just a reminder for anyone out there who craves david harvey's wisdom, ..but who would prefer that it came along just a little bit faster.. 1.5 speed is perfect for this video.
Thank you Prof. Harvey.
21:05 If anyone has seen the show Mr.Robot, you'll probably recognize this guy.
Richard Price
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting what Harvey's arguing in regards to the importance of compound growth correctly, and would like to know whether or not I am: as I'm understanding it, Harvey's arguing that compound growth is necessary under capitalism because as the productive forces develop, they become more expensive relative to the older means of production, requiring greater and greater profit margins in order for other businesses to be able to afford those upgrades. Is that a correct understanding of what he's saying?
And only less than 10,000 views in this free world. Astonishing!!!
Am I the only one who nods off when Santa's Clause starts talking?
Sharing this with y’all..... he’s marvelous..... love, mom
Absent from this analysis is a key component of human behavior, what Henry George described as our desire to satisfy our desires with the least exertion; and, therefore, our efforts to monopolize natural opportunities wherever possible. What this has meant over the centuries is wars of territorial expansion and resource monopoly. Then, once territories are secured by one or another imperialist state, the use of political machinations to secure private property claims to nature. Landed privilege has repeatedly converted into capital goods and money privilege, circulated back to landed privilege, and on and on and on until the stress on social and economic stability brings on a serious crash. History going back at least two hundred years in the United States reveals a consistent cycle of between 18-21 years (see: "The Secret Life of Real Estate," by Phillip Anderson, 2008).
Great point. I don't recall Harvey rendering anything by Henry George, but the process you describe is thoroughly discussed in his lectures on Marx's three volumes of Capital. The usurpation of what Marx calls "the free gifts of nature" and "free gifts of human nature" are central to his argument. The metabolic relationship between humans and nature, and how it is perverted by capital, is something about which Marx writes very eloquently. You seem like someone who would get a lot out of Harvey's lectures, they can be found on youtube on a separate channel called "Reading Marx's Capital with David Harvey. Here is a link if you are interested ... ruclips.net/channel/UC9qzXVDKmBdbTlID3HLHe9Q
Two thoughts: 1) Is the expanding prison industrial complex, as well as the private detention business, being utilized as a way to create GDP growth? 2) Is any of that $80T (and rising) global GDP due to currency deflation?
It makes no sense to comodify an experience. I guess there are just enough people with enough income to go on vacation still to keep the tourism industry moving but not for long!
I am a committed listener and appreciate Prof Harvey’s remarks so much. However, I do have to say that music makes me cringe every time. Should I stand and salute? Maybe not.
It's just the Internationale
Harvey's thesis concerning the problems of compound growth presumes ever increasing population growth, something that appears probably no longer valid.
I can't see how that follows, perhaps I read this wrong. My read of Harvey's synthesis on compound growth seems to indicate that it is unsustainable even if population growth was to continue to increase. The issue of lessening population growth would only accelerate the timeline toward unsustainability. In rereading your comment I am not sure if you are saying the same thing or the opposite of this.
Basically, infinite growth is impossible in biological systems. Biological systems have limits and will reach carrying capacity. These were never factored into (hell, probably even deliberately ignored) the formulation of economies. Now, I believe we're starting to see the consequences of ignoring a fundamental factor.
@Aermydach you are 100% correct. Bless you for saying that.
i have a philosophical question :
should Keynes really be called capitalist ? is a central bank, that when it wants prints how much it wants money, and then gives it to WHATEVER ECONOMIC ACTOR IT WANTS ???!!! a, let's say, capitalist factor or socialist factor ?
doesn't sound like free market to me, sounds more like planned economy, with the exception that some use the price fixing facor and other use supplying money after the sell. but still regulation is regulation
@Flightof2Owls good question. I guess i m pretty much thinking in the same context that Wolff always explain, which is the once of power " what to produce where to produce and wha to do with the... "
so in that context, the "planning" issue is fundamental
doesn't matter if producer X is successfull
1) in a "socialist" state a central government can simply forbid him to exist if it wants
2) in a "pseudo capitalist" Keynesian state a central government is legally allowed to simply print money and subvention his concurrence, then it will have just to wait until X goes bankrupt
what's the difference in the context of power ?
in both cases a central government has "some means" to eliminate producer X
guess it's not a coincidence that the red flag often goes with the black one
China is an example of centrally planed capitalism or as it is sometimes called state capitalism.
Compound growth will destroy the planet won’t it?
It already has... this simple concept reveals why governments have absolutely no intention of "addressing" climate disruption or ecological disintegration... other than human "adaptation" & emotional resignation to loss of the entire natural world.
And they know full well, that humans cannot exist in such an environment.
I'm sure Ray Kurzweil & the moguls of Silicon Valley are diligently working to upload themselves before the collapse of global industrial civilization & everything ekse along with it.
They need their transhuman future asap.
How is it that David Harvey knew about the gravity of the virus (17:45) back in February, but the Capitalists in charge of the U.S.A. weren't taking it seriously? (Rhetorical question.)
It seems like if David Harvey were in charge, then perhaps the U.S.A. and other Capitalist countries would have gotten a quicker start at mounting a response, at least.
At most, a strategy would have already been planned far in advance, rather than demanded just in time.
14:22
Marx: I am tired of politic economy I am out
So what are we supposed to do to fix this?
Socialism
@@bfloralboy9127 everyone's not the same socialism requires everyone to think and move alike so that's impossible.
@@bfloralboy9127 Lol workers aren't exploited dum dum. Ya boi Marx would have known that if he had ever held a job.
@@ECisvotersuppression Socialism does not "require everyone to think and move alike." It is capitalism which insists on reducing all of life to monetary exchange, and as a result of the commodification of all of life we are all of us forced to "think and move alike."
By contrast, Marx wrote that "in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." (The German Ideology)
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
@@heraclitusblacking1293 Marx truly was a indolent half-wit bum. A jack of all trades is a master of none.
AMAZING!!!!
Great video!
But the closing words... I think some capitalists would prefer the continuation of capitalism (to a possible off-world, or trans-humanist future) rather than ending the system. These people we need to fight!
Truth is the opinion of the wealthy
& The manipulation of the masses
It's always a spiral. It's the only real shape there is.
Totality = sum of moments
Capital is money that is used to make more money
Capital buys commodities. The value of capital is reflected in the value of the commodities.
Labor power and means of production (tools, equip, material) = a commodity
Labor process reproduces initial value of means of production, their own value, and a surplus value.
Money value after labor process is worth more than capital investment.
Marx falls @14:22
14:20 lmao, seems about right.
Capitalism, it all starts at the money moment. That is, it all started when someone came up with the idea of trade/tokens/money .
thanks
The presenter shows on a consistent basis that Marx never understood Capitalism and Market economics. To the Marxist, the economy is a static set of circumstances, yet humanity is a study in CREATIVE existence. The economy is in a constant state of flux with both creation and destruction as old products are ended and new ones developed. Capital flows from old to new creation at the speed of Market demand. Today's blockage due to a flu virus is tomorrow's factories making products in Europe and the US and everywhere else so the world going forward is not dependent on slave labor in China. Socialism/Marxism would require long years of deprivation.
To understand how to stop something we first have to understand everything that drives it. Why this compounding effect. What else compounded over the two three centuries. Of course population. Mainly because energy consumption. First because of mini ice age in the middle ages which increased wood consumption. After that coal and after that oil. Capital is actually surpluse of energy not some invented value. Energy can be manifested as means of production as well as labour. We could observe that population growth is decreasing if living standards achieve some levels where life is more or less energy sufficient, of course relatively to system, not globally. We could observe here some natural trends or tendencies. But our impact on environment is now pretty much out of control, so if we want to sustain some relative value of human life, we have to hold on this relative standards of living, and provide energy to everyone. Even it seems that we have wisdom and awareness of conscious beings, we all work on natural laws. As much as is energy out of comprehension of one, the one is less able to control it. In that means the class of capitalists, that we like to call controllers of system are actually the ones less in control like those on opposite side the most poor. If you get caught by big wave you can't do much about. It's on the ones that shape cultural image, only they can grasp some of rational control. But they have to be aware of complexity of reality and natural forces and its impact on human beings trough history and today.
Absolutely enlightening talk, it seems more and more like capitalism is a system designed to prey on our humanity.
How about promoting "virtual" status symbols, instead of status symbols that use real resources.
I have heard MMTers defend Compound Growth of Value on these exact terms. Trouble is, how, in a global system, are we going to restrict where Capital attempts to realise itself into only "Virtual" Value?
14:22 LOL!
Fiat currency pretty much solves that problem, so growth is linked to inflation and population growth. If population stops growing, it might just be inflation. So in other words, it does not entail an increase in products anymore, and then as you point out, things like Netflix, based on intellectual property, is an endless source of commodity, just like services. Its only a problem if people's values are inside commodities, just like Marx assumed, but that is where distribution schemes come in, so jobs become optional, not a necessity. Consumers become more important than producers, or just as important. Producers keep the profit motive, and consumers get the goods. So its win-win.
If you insist that producers and consumers be the same and in an equal measure, it is where problem will arise in a complex economy. It might work somehow in a subsistence economy, but even then, producers need access to all the means of production and do everything themselves, which is quite inefficient and limited in potential. Its like making you poor for the sake of it. Not that it is a bad thing, but that is another matter altogether.
I now remember the movie " In Time" with Justin timberlake.... where we are...time as a commodity, yikes
Blah, blah, blah. Experts confuse everything and in the end we end up so confused that we end up with the short end of the stick.
In truth, it's all very simple. To move the things we need in a society we need to negotiate. Some people can be fair, others abuse with their talents. If we allow the people to abuse to continue to do so then they will find ways to accumulate wealth and drive everyone else into poverty.
So, what can we do about it? Simple, set up rules that make it difficult for abusive people to accumulate wealth. If we had a tax on wealth where an abusive person had to pay a 100% tax on his wealth after a certain level then the abusive person would find it more practical to pay fair wages, charge fair prices and even protect the health of their employees and to protect the environment.
Why should we allow a greedy, vain, egoistical person to take advantage of all of us?
Social democracy Nordic style appears to be the way yo go, but Marxism has one major flaw. Marx's theory of value appears to be flawed. This was proven by Marginalists in the 19th century. Labor is not the only ingredient of value. Consumer demand actually trumps labor in deciding price. This is why a kindergarten teacher makes less money in a year than Bad Bunny makes in one concert. Moreover, the entrepreneurs putting together capital and labor is also providing value. Of course, Inherited wealth plutocrats, landowners and other similar rentiers add no value or actually harm the public.
I'm new to this shit! but I'm a learn as much as I can and vote for what is best for the Human race and the universe. We all need to do this. Goodluck to me, George Khan Kahui. The Greatest Human to ever Live haha, we in!! (I was high when I writ this) Again, I'm coming wolrd... Big Boss dog Gaaancho is coming
Do you believe capitalism corrupted the Jewish religion? Also do you support Vladimir Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler?
绿水青山，就是金山银山
Democracy.is blocked by its ideology .😂😂😂❤o.k.
Fuck Capitalism!!!!
👏 👏 👏
That's not Capitalism and you know it. Crony Capitalism is a more apt term and no doubt you know that too but because you have an agenda to bring about a collectivist form of governance, where society is controlled by the political party (b/c in a collectivist system there can be only 1 party) you must pretend like as if Corny Capitalism is actual Capitalism. Crony Capitalism can exist only because we've allowed within America the kind of corruption found in collectivist governances like in communism and socialism, that Crony Capitalism needs like national government restricting/interfering with the free market. You want to blame the problems of society on the welathy and yet it's because we didn't insist on a proper free market but allowed some parts of a collectivist governance to creep in like a virus.
Collectivist governance is where the elected few dictate like dictator would, how society works. Citizens may be able to vote but the system ensures there's only 1 party like how the CCP keeps a tight grip ion China. Speaking of which how well has this type of collectivist governance worked for China? Well China was in the brink of collapse like is inevitable with all forms of Collectivist governance. In order to stop that the Chinese government, aka teh CCP, relaxed rules on property rights and wealth, something collectivists governments will not tolerate for in those systems teh government owns everything. They claim it's the people who own everything but that's just a façade; a marketing ploy.
True Capitalism is foreign to mist younger people today because they've grown up in a form of corrupted Capitalism and they've received 12+ years of collectivist indoctrination via the public education system with upgrades in college. Real Capitalisms, a true free market is one where government does not intervene in ANY WAY. Pro-Collectivists like the professor here will argue that in that system the welathy will steal from teh rest but what he fails to mention is that in a real free market this is just not possible because of competition and human invention. We have large powerful multi-national corporations only because they've purchased political favor and protections for their business from elected leaders. If collectivist governance is the ideal solution and is the antithesis to welathy corrupt Capitalists then why are so many of those wealthy all on board for resetting society into one that's more like what China has? Are you really foolish enough to believe these billionaires are doing this so they will have less, make less?
The most dangerous humans in this world are those like this man who use reasonable sounding arguments to convince people to commit societal suicide. It matters not how many times past attempts at Socialisms, Communism and the like have failed and failed miserably because the excuse is always the same, it wasn't real X-ism, it wasn't done right. Well no shift Sherlock, there's no way to do collectivist governance right if your goal is to raise the quality of life for all. Follow this man and his group into hell because the closets you'll get to teh utopia he and his kind advertise is empty promises, promises that convinced you to foolishly support it to the point where if you should later change your mind too bad, there's nothing you can do about like you can in a real Capitalist system.
♥️ 🇲🇹☘♥️ XIXXA
Marx's definition of capital is "value in motion?? What the hell does that even mean? Capital is actually defined as "somebody's savings", and whether in motion or standing still, it tends, when properly managed, to be productive in its own right. Marx's bogus "labor surplus" (the productivity of labor which capitalists allegedly steal from the workers), is really the productivity of capital along with the productivity of entrepreneurial and managerial talent.
Utter nonsense. Marx is coming from a Hegelian tradition and applying the laws of dialectical thinking to political economy. That you don't understanding it at first glance does not make it "bogus." I recommend you read some Marx rather than blathering out pro establishment nonsense.
"managerial talent"
That's a euphemism for domination of humans by other humans.
@@heraclitusblacking1293 And haven't you ever wondered why some humans seem to find so much success in controlling other humans? The will to power, by any other name, is a valuable thing.
Every economist, financial consultant & Wall Streeter is familiar with "money velocity" (even Max Keyser)... to say you are unfamiliar with the concept is to admit a serious flaw in understanding markets, money & capital flows. Pretty darn basic.
Money velocity is grinding to a halt at present... one of the major indicators there is an obstruction in capital flow & value realization. And an imminent seize-up in the global markets.
Not just value in motion, but also a social relation in which human beings are forced into the service of previously accumulated value to cause it to increase in quantity, comprising both the organic and inorganic components (the plant, seed funds, raw material and technology used to create stuff to sell, and the people working with all that without whom it would all be valueless and would create nothing). That is the opposite of wealth being at the disposal of the community to enable people to flourish. Marx's definition is accurate, yours isn't. The whole point is taking a wholistic approach that sees capital as a process in all its stages of accumulation and recouping, rather than as a static stuff, which capital obviously isn't.
The price of freedom is paying your own way.
When you set a price on freedom only those who can afford it are free. Supply goes down, demand goes up, suddenly only those with all the wealth have all the freedom. Those with no freedom are called slaves. Only two things can purchase freedom: blood and solidarity; which one is more profitable?
c..There is no such thing as “Capitalism”, not as a primary social characteristic.
It is at best an observation on the cultural and economic dynamics of a free open high trust society, where freedom of speech, religion association (including economic associations), property rights, and identity rights are respected (see UDHR 1948).
For Cultural Leftists, Marxist , Progressives “Capitalism” is a rhetorical term that at best is so ill defined that it is often used with differentiated, even conflicting meanings by the same speaker in the same paragraph or debate (as good old David here does).
Sadly the term “capitalism” is associated with the Cultural Leftist rhetoric that uses the term as a pejorative that justifies a diversity of human rights abuses including theft, in particular “government theft” or coercive taxation as a sacred social virtue. Used as a pejorative ‘capitalism” has been historically used and can be understood today as is intrinsically anti-Semitic and so sadly racist term. In one context the normalization of theft as a “sacred government virtue” is an anti-Semitic violation of Abrahamic Law,(10 commandments) and the values of a wider Judeo-Christian culture. To suggest that “governments” are exempt from such constraints, is to place “governments” as man made constructs (pagan beliefs or religion - see Carlton Hayes) in violation of the first and second commandments.
Sadly the term “Capitalism” has a long racist subtext in this kind of discourse.
Adam Smith (a real economist) never uses the term “capitalism;” Instead, he uses the term “commercial society,” a phrase that emphasizes his belief that the economic is only one component of the human condition. For Smith, the market is a mechanism of morality and social support based in an adherence to Abrahamic Law, (the 10 Commandments), Natural Law and todays Human Rights norms (see UDHR 1948).
The word “Capitalism” was invented as a term of disparagement by the French ( recall the extent of anti-Semitism in 19th century France) socialists Louis Blanc in 1850 to undermine the growing economic and cultural freedoms that that people were enjoying, particularly amongst the Jewish people of Europe. Freedoms that had developed out of a long history of Judeo-Christian cultural development that can be traced back to the 10 Commandments, Abrahamic Law and reflected in todays Human Rights Laws (UDHR 1948).
Socialists, Progressives, the Politically Correct, and the Woke, still use the term “Capitalism” to frame a myriad of social, economic, and cultural issues in anti-Semitic narratives, the history of which goes back to the master of such anti-Semitic rhetoric Karl Marx. Sadly such nonsense continues today with the Woke racists endlessly critiquing Israel, be it from established anti-Semites like Jermyn Corbyn of the UK Labour Party or the disproportionate critiques of open free societies based in Abrahamic Law that derives from the Marxism of the Frankfurt School, a critique that veils a racist anti-Semitic (and Christophobic) agenda. It is an agenda that can be most easily and quickly revealed by reference to basic Human Rights law such as the UDHR 1948. As always deconstructing the racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric of the Woke, Progressives, Socialists and Marxists is always fun … here is a nice example…the Racist Karl Marx updating the oldest racism in history ruclips.net/video/rZh01xRO_Qg/видео.html
Labor IS NOT a commodity ! ! ! ! ! Only the goods produced by labor are commodities ! Please get real !
Ok where do the raw materials come from to make production possible?
I use my labor power as commodity every week. That's how I live. If it can be bought it's a commodity.
A few more exclamations and a little less orthodox spacing might have convinced me of the superiority of your definitions.
@@ECisvotersuppression Those are commodities too like finished goods. Nothing mysterious about that.
@@wageslave9951 You simply don't understand the difference between 'labor' and a commodity ; labor should be a legal issue but commodities an economical one.