Most illuminating even as I still grapple with Marx, Ricardo, and Smith. I'm a mathematician from the quant side of things and have a hard time reconciling the equations. For example, modern econometrics doesn't have anything about profit. In fact the entire profession is adverse to talking about profit. They're also adverse to history of economics. Didn't realize the profession had so many taboo subjects. It is not an honest branch of academia, like say, one would find in, math, where truth and logic are rigorous pursuits.
It certainly isn't, I reached the same conclusion from a philosophy of science and logic, it seems to be a think-tank creation when you start looking at it from a history of ideas approach.
It would have been nice if there was a title on his lecture. I drafted it as 'Capitalist growth, crisis, and urbanisation' but if anyone knows that there was an actual title pls let us know.
When answering the following question (1:35): “What are some possibilities to organize a society and economy around good infinities rather than bad infinities?” it’s interesting to see how Harvey is struggling to overcome his inner Trotsky and list those possibilities (“formats we can look at,” as he puts it) that are being played out right now, in real time, but still manages to put down the “bad person’s” anarchists’ ideas as not reliable. And shortly before that, he actually states that all such movements (bottom up, assembly-based) are “unfortunate reconstructions of the existing order rather than a transformation of political consciousness of people. . .” [btw, I adore Harvey, have most of his books, plus lived thru his online das Kapital course.] But he just cannot bring himself to admit out loud that, perhaps, we *can* transform people’s consciousness and the society-at any scale-without the top-down central party management. Even the actual historical reality of the 3-year long awe inspiring Rojava experiment cannot allow him to let go of his inner Trotsky. He also fails to mention Abdullah Öcalan (one of those Bookchinesque folks) and Kurdish feminism-the driving force of the events there. haha. Long live the brilliant prof. David Harvey!
It is funny how all the narrative against Marx has made Marx so much more relevant... at least Marxist explanations of events does not include moral justifications such as: greed is responsible for all the ills, or personal laziness is why some people are poor, etc etc
“Greed” remains a more salient explanation for most people, but within the context of “it’s human nature what you gonna do.” Ironically as capitalism keeps entering more and more dramatic crisis the scapegoat for the ills of the world changes from “human nature” to “some cabal.” The latter is “the socialism of fools” and actually further from the truth, in a way, than the false vision of human nature. Only a historical, materialist description of capitalism can explain why it’s the economic system and not the nature of the people running it, which keeps creating crisis. Hence the need to demonize the only people willing to tell the masses how deeply fuckd they truly are…
@@eccentricaste3232 That's the opposite of what it would do? Regardless, if you EQ, deess, then gate that problem is solved. From four years in the past.
There is no population problem. Economists and sociologists from both sides of the fence and all over the political map in fact, have pointed out, with endless evidence, there is no issue with 'Over population' and in fact the Human population is and has been shrinking and the wealthier people are and the more birth control options there are, the more educated people are becoming and the drop in infant mortality rates, along with life expectancy going up also, are all things contributing to the fact there's a shrinking population that is a global phenomenon also. It is true that in a lot of countries these facts have also lead to more older people than younger people knocking about but, for all kinds of reasons this is not an issue that is at all producing negative effects for anyone. Especially since when it comes to problems such as pollution, climate change, rising sea levels, the 'poorer areas', that are being accused of over populating the planet are t6he victims of these effects that are caused, by a considerable amount, in large by the people in New York and California who are using their private jets to tour the world preaching this crap in the first place! People have also been pointing out that not only were academics, like Thomas Malthus, wrong, they were actually very, very wrong within their own life span. Such trends were already moving in the exact opposite direction. Even if there was a population problem the big question then becomes one of Eugenics. What should we do about it exactly? What gives 'Us' or any one person or group of human beings the right to even start thinking about suggesting that 'What we need is some more social engineering. The 20th century just wasn't full of enough Nobel peace prize winners who were the first to join the Nazi Party and then leap straight over to Communism after the liberation of Auschwitz had been caught on film ..... Yep, we need some more of that, How big is my IQ I am just so educated. Don't forget, he who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it, or is the saying 'He who does not understand a single thing about human beings, politics and history is condemned to repeat it.'? I always get those two sayings mixed up. So if you are just a half decent human being, and not a psycho-manic-socio-pathic horror show for a person, it should very much be a mute point anyway. We could get as evangelical as the Catholics about it I suppose. Where ever they send missionaries to tell indigenous peoples that 'despite Aids, poverty and other social issues contraception and abortion is a sin.' Why not send in these over anxious, socially awkward, tweed jacket wearing, pipe smoking, anti-human, 'Radicals' to talk passionately about their violent revolutionary fantasies. The 'Revolution' that they can't and won't be fighting in themselves because someone has to strategize and write pamphlets for goodness sake. There's work to be done ... by someone else. There's people to blame ... for my own crimes! Here we go again! I can feel it coming on, this time around we'll get to see 21st century violence on our iPods. It'll be great!!
@Winston Churchill Ha, Fair play. If you live in a more densely populated town or country and it's pretty shoulder to shoulder I'm sure there's all kinds of problems that could do with addressing. Including pollution no doubt. I was thinking more over all, a retort for all those people who talk of "Surplus" population and then weigh up how much is being consumed versus output in human productivity. Truly Anti-Human. It troubles me when some talk of people like they're inanimate objects that can be moved around or reorganised by bureaucrats to suite some master plan. Like "Forced Collectivisation" and "Social Engineering". I didn't mean to suggest the world population doesn't come with any problems at all, I just kind of meant "Leave people alone". There should never be some group or person who gets to decide how many people is too many people.
How can I give two thumbs up?
watched all the way. thanks prof harvey!
amazing energy of thought. astonished....bravo...
Most illuminating even as I still grapple with Marx, Ricardo, and Smith. I'm a mathematician from the quant side of things and have a hard time reconciling the equations. For example, modern econometrics doesn't have anything about profit. In fact the entire profession is adverse to talking about profit. They're also adverse to history of economics. Didn't realize the profession had so many taboo subjects. It is not an honest branch of academia, like say, one would find in, math, where truth and logic are rigorous pursuits.
It certainly isn't, I reached the same conclusion from a philosophy of science and logic, it seems to be a think-tank creation when you start looking at it from a history of ideas approach.
Thank you for posting this, it is fantastic!
It would have been nice if there was a title on his lecture. I drafted it as 'Capitalist growth, crisis, and urbanisation' but if anyone knows that there was an actual title pls let us know.
When answering the following question (1:35): “What are some possibilities to organize a society and economy around good infinities rather than bad infinities?” it’s interesting to see how Harvey is struggling to overcome his inner Trotsky and list those possibilities (“formats we can look at,” as he puts it) that are being played out right now, in real time, but still manages to put down the “bad person’s” anarchists’ ideas as not reliable. And shortly before that, he actually states that all such movements (bottom up, assembly-based) are “unfortunate reconstructions of the existing order rather than a transformation of political consciousness of people. . .” [btw, I adore Harvey, have most of his books, plus lived thru his online das Kapital course.] But he just cannot bring himself to admit out loud that, perhaps, we *can* transform people’s consciousness and the society-at any scale-without the top-down central party management. Even the actual historical reality of the 3-year long awe inspiring Rojava experiment cannot allow him to let go of his inner Trotsky. He also fails to mention Abdullah Öcalan (one of those Bookchinesque folks) and Kurdish feminism-the driving force of the events there. haha. Long live the brilliant prof. David Harvey!
Thanks for sharing this by David Harvey. His book is hard to understand. I hope I could learn a little bit faster through this.
Well you were a Professor at Oxford!
Would capital realization equate to defining public utility?
It is funny how all the narrative against Marx has made Marx so much more relevant... at least Marxist explanations of events does not include moral justifications such as: greed is responsible for all the ills, or personal laziness is why some people are poor, etc etc
“Greed” remains a more salient explanation for most people, but within the context of “it’s human nature what you gonna do.”
Ironically as capitalism keeps entering more and more dramatic crisis the scapegoat for the ills of the world changes from “human nature” to “some cabal.”
The latter is “the socialism of fools” and actually further from the truth, in a way, than the false vision of human nature.
Only a historical, materialist description of capitalism can explain why it’s the economic system and not the nature of the people running it, which keeps creating crisis.
Hence the need to demonize the only people willing to tell the masses how deeply fuckd they truly are…
Real economics
I love his jab at Harvard. Zion of privilege and bourgeoisdom.
I wish they had put a pop filter on Mr. Harvey or at least ran his audio through a de-esser.
De-esser will accentuate the high ends and the sentences with S(sh) sound. It won't sound good without a headset.
@@eccentricaste3232 That's the opposite of what it would do? Regardless, if you EQ, deess, then gate that problem is solved. From four years in the past.
If 'Higher' education requires socialism then "Why not?". Well, because it is socialism. THat's why not.
The charming distribution consequentially preserve because fifth suprisingly occur since a imaginary chime. slim, strange vulture
Ramblings of a madman, can't believe I have to read this guy twice a week for my human geography essays
Sorry to revive this comment, but I just wanted to ask: where do you disagree with Harvey?
You'd have a point...if you HAD a point. (that's in response to Lush Llama, not you, Communisation).
to answer the question "Where do you put your money?" How about putting it in Bitcoin. He forgot that option.
Because it's only an option for the foolish and the mentally ill.
There is no population problem. Economists and sociologists from both sides of the fence and all over the political map in fact, have pointed out, with endless evidence, there is no issue with 'Over population' and in fact the Human population is and has been shrinking and the wealthier people are and the more birth control options there are, the more educated people are becoming and the drop in infant mortality rates, along with life expectancy going up also, are all things contributing to the fact there's a shrinking population that is a global phenomenon also. It is true that in a lot of countries these facts have also lead to more older people than younger people knocking about but, for all kinds of reasons this is not an issue that is at all producing negative effects for anyone. Especially since when it comes to problems such as pollution, climate change, rising sea levels, the 'poorer areas', that are being accused of over populating the planet are t6he victims of these effects that are caused, by a considerable amount, in large by the people in New York and California who are using their private jets to tour the world preaching this crap in the first place! People have also been pointing out that not only were academics, like Thomas Malthus, wrong, they were actually very, very wrong within their own life span. Such trends were already moving in the exact opposite direction. Even if there was a population problem the big question then becomes one of Eugenics. What should we do about it exactly? What gives 'Us' or any one person or group of human beings the right to even start thinking about suggesting that 'What we need is some more social engineering. The 20th century just wasn't full of enough Nobel peace prize winners who were the first to join the Nazi Party and then leap straight over to Communism after the liberation of Auschwitz had been caught on film ..... Yep, we need some more of that, How big is my IQ I am just so educated. Don't forget, he who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it, or is the saying 'He who does not understand a single thing about human beings, politics and history is condemned to repeat it.'? I always get those two sayings mixed up. So if you are just a half decent human being, and not a psycho-manic-socio-pathic horror show for a person, it should very much be a mute point anyway. We could get as evangelical as the Catholics about it I suppose. Where ever they send missionaries to tell indigenous peoples that 'despite Aids, poverty and other social issues contraception and abortion is a sin.' Why not send in these over anxious, socially awkward, tweed jacket wearing, pipe smoking, anti-human, 'Radicals' to talk passionately about their violent revolutionary fantasies. The 'Revolution' that they can't and won't be fighting in themselves because someone has to strategize and write pamphlets for goodness sake. There's work to be done ... by someone else. There's people to blame ... for my own crimes! Here we go again! I can feel it coming on, this time around we'll get to see 21st century violence on our iPods. It'll be great!!
@Winston Churchill Ha, Fair play. If you live in a more densely populated town or country and it's pretty shoulder to shoulder I'm sure there's all kinds of problems that could do with addressing. Including pollution no doubt. I was thinking more over all, a retort for all those people who talk of "Surplus" population and then weigh up how much is being consumed versus output in human productivity. Truly Anti-Human. It troubles me when some talk of people like they're inanimate objects that can be moved around or reorganised by bureaucrats to suite some master plan. Like "Forced Collectivisation" and "Social Engineering". I didn't mean to suggest the world population doesn't come with any problems at all, I just kind of meant "Leave people alone". There should never be some group or person who gets to decide how many people is too many people.
Copying american way of work