8 ms·

David Harvey: Crises of Capitalism (RSA Animate)

20 points by alecco 16y ago

MarkPNeyer 16y ago
Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astrologers.
- exit 16y ago
  > Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astronomers. what about people who confuse astrology and astronomy?
  - MarkPNeyer 16y ago
    nice catch
- forkandwait 16y ago
  "Marx was completely wrong" is quite a statement -- you must have read all 2000 or so pages to be able to say this? The labor theory of value is, indeed, rather silly. Marx did say a lot of other stuff, however. He was a crappy economist, but a great (IMHO) sociologist and philosopher. One of his many points was that (market and non market) economies are socially embedded and created, generally to support power grabs by certain classes. Market economies have the extra advantage that they allow class structure (the relation between groups of people who are powerful and groups who are screwed-over) to appear scientifically necessary, as inevitable as the orbit of the planets once we know the differential equations and the initial conditions. But really, the economies mask a power struggle that was out in the open during feudal times (e.g. when the Norman lord showed up and said you will farm for us and give up your weapons, or we will kill you now). When a person can't see this social context for markets, Marx would say such a person was blinded by "commodity fetishism" and a misguided belief in powers of commodity relations (and that such a belief is no more rational than the belief that a blessed doll can inflict misery on your enemies.)
  - MaysonL 16y ago
    Peter Drucker thought Marx was important, not for his answers, but because he was asking the right important questions.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  That's a pretty bold statement. How do you know for certain that the labor theory of value is flawed? Has it every actually been seriously tried? Further, you're implicitly saying that the "free market" view is the correct one. How can you possibly know this? Because it manages to work? Of course it does! Any programmer should know that when you're livelihood depends on it you can make any old garbage hang together long enough to get your next meal. I'm not saying "free market" hypothesis are "any old garbage", but rather that something simply not catastrophically failing doesn't mean it's the best answer or even a good one. You hold pretty strong beliefs for something that can't possibly be proven one way or the other.
tomlin 16y ago
Yes, yes! That we should look at other methodologies of our economic structure. An excellent viewpoint and debate starter. The Anti-Capitalism ideology isn't Socialism or Marxism or Communism. Capitalism isn't working the way society sees it. Capitalism is beneath us as a society.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  I'd be interested to hear what other economic structures you think are better. I haven't heard a better argument than capitalism. Also, you should note that in America we don't have a capitalist economy - we have a mixed economy.
  - tomlin 16y ago
    > I'd be interested to hear what other economic structures you think are better. I never indicated I knew if there were better economic structures; perhaps it is yet to be invented, instead of impossible to fathom. An open-mind which considers a new approach is a first step. I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology (as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct to something more mature and more stable. Isn't that a fair thing to say?
    - tkahn6 16y ago
      I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology (as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct to something more mature and more stable. At what point did I 'protect' capitalism? You said it's beneath us as a society and I said that what we have isn't capitalism. The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.
      - tomlin 16y ago
        > At what point did I 'protect' capitalism? You didn't make a sign or wave a $ symbol flag. When you say you "haven't heard a better argument", I read "won't hear a better argument". Perhaps you don't mean it that way, in which case, apologies first. Perhaps your studies and intellectual investment would be of less worth if someone were to dare point out any alternative possibilities. When there is talk about a resource-based economy or singularity government, would-be opposers jump in quickly to shoot an idea down rather than see value. > The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance. You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless to evolve. We see millions suffer across the world as our "best" economical structure fuels its fire on the backs of the uncountable. If everyone were to embrace Capitalism as most modern nations have, Capitalism would have no "grease bin", so to speak. I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than you. Are they wrong?
chwahoo 16y ago
While parts of his story resonate and it fun to to hear people explain phenomena based on different ideologies, I've never heard an alternative to capitalism that sounded credible at a large scale. (Most any system could work at a small scale.)
- forkandwait 16y ago
  All the successful large scale nations (the US, the UK, China, Germany, Japan, etc) are some mix of socialist and capitalist organization, and probably pretty close to 60%/40% in one direction or the other. In a socialist nation, there are usually at least small local produce markets etc; in a "capitalist" nation like the US there are a huge amount of services and regulations that are socialist (the cops, some welfare, etc, etc). In a middle country like Japan or Germany, the government works very closely with the firms to try to effect non-market driven policy and outcomes that have society-wide benefits as their rationale. And... every society is an immensely complex machine, and probably can't be boiled down to an ideology (something Marx never understood, hence his inability to actually propose an alternative besides a utopian vision, and his inability to be a very effective political actor.)
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    And notice that that the US, UK, Germany, and Japan are all in dire economic straits right now. Also, the police force not a socialist institution. To sustain a free market requires the state-sanctioned protection of life and property. The police force is a very 'capitalist' institution.
    - chwahoo 16y ago
      Regarding the police, I know that there is a least a subset of libertarian capitalists that would disagree with you. They seem to dislike the police and strongly prefer gun rights for protection of self and property.
      - ovi256 16y ago
johnohara 16y ago
In 2007, before the financial crisis and before becoming Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel investigating the Troubled Assets Relief Program, Dr. Elizabeth Warren gave a very interesting talk at UC Berkeley titled "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A At the time I thought it was a little alarmist, but in view of recent developments I recommend watching it (58 minutes, sorry). It speaks directly to the point about wages and how middle class households employ revolving credit to make up the the difference. The graphs and data are interesting.
kiba 16y ago
Oh greed! The inhumanity! More regulations. Less free markets! Markets are inefficient! Oh please, every inefficient market is an entrepreneur dream. That what HN entrepreneur types want to exploit. Get the damn monopolies out of the way and let entrepreneurs eliminate the inefficiency. Or rather, don't expect efficient market everywhere. There will alway be some inefficiency. For example, the browser market was stagnant for a while. However, it didn't take a government to remedy it. It took a non-profit enterprise, who against all odd, brought firefox to the masses. Anybody who believes in the efficient market hypothesis did not realize the functions of entrepreneurship and the uncertainty inherent in market. In other words, it's a strawman designed to make free marketeers look like naive believer in the magic of capitalism. Regulations? Heard of regulatory capture, much? There are good regulations and then there are bad regulations. It's not about regulators being asleep at the wheel, it's about regulators sleeping with bankers. When that happens, the regulations will be modified to fit what the bankers like, not whether it is healthy for the economy. Don't give me the bollocks about how the world should be more humane, responsible, and just. Everybody wants the world to be more humane, responsible, and just. Discuss or debate with the strongest supporters of capitalism and come back, then wow me with your socialist insight instead of attacking the weakest version of capitalism. As it stand, the youtube video is pathetically weak. Free marketeers will pick apart the video like no tomorrow.
gibsonf1 16y ago
The great irony is that the crisis is one of Statism, not Capitalism. And to "solve" the crisis with more Statism will only make life radically worse. But it looks like that's where things are headed. It's always hard to watch governments repeating the same mistakes from the last century - sigh.
- exit 16y ago
  have you given up on the idea of convincing people who disagree with you?

20 points by alecco 16y ago

Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astrologers.

exit 16y ago
> Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astronomers. what about people who confuse astrology and astronomy?
- MarkPNeyer 16y ago
  nice catch
forkandwait 16y ago
"Marx was completely wrong" is quite a statement -- you must have read all 2000 or so pages to be able to say this? The labor theory of value is, indeed, rather silly. Marx did say a lot of other stuff, however. He was a crappy economist, but a great (IMHO) sociologist and philosopher. One of his many points was that (market and non market) economies are socially embedded and created, generally to support power grabs by certain classes. Market economies have the extra advantage that they allow class structure (the relation between groups of people who are powerful and groups who are screwed-over) to appear scientifically necessary, as inevitable as the orbit of the planets once we know the differential equations and the initial conditions. But really, the economies mask a power struggle that was out in the open during feudal times (e.g. when the Norman lord showed up and said you will farm for us and give up your weapons, or we will kill you now). When a person can't see this social context for markets, Marx would say such a person was blinded by "commodity fetishism" and a misguided belief in powers of commodity relations (and that such a belief is no more rational than the belief that a blessed doll can inflict misery on your enemies.)
- MaysonL 16y ago
  Peter Drucker thought Marx was important, not for his answers, but because he was asking the right important questions.
loewenskind 16y ago
That's a pretty bold statement. How do you know for certain that the labor theory of value is flawed? Has it every actually been seriously tried? Further, you're implicitly saying that the "free market" view is the correct one. How can you possibly know this? Because it manages to work? Of course it does! Any programmer should know that when you're livelihood depends on it you can make any old garbage hang together long enough to get your next meal. I'm not saying "free market" hypothesis are "any old garbage", but rather that something simply not catastrophically failing doesn't mean it's the best answer or even a good one. You hold pretty strong beliefs for something that can't possibly be proven one way or the other.

tomlin 16y ago

Yes, yes! That we should look at other methodologies of our economic structure. An excellent viewpoint and debate starter. The Anti-Capitalism ideology isn't Socialism or Marxism or Communism. Capitalism isn't working the way society sees it. Capitalism is beneath us as a society.

tkahn6 16y ago
I'd be interested to hear what other economic structures you think are better. I haven't heard a better argument than capitalism. Also, you should note that in America we don't have a capitalist economy - we have a mixed economy.
- tomlin 16y ago
  > I'd be interested to hear what other economic structures you think are better. I never indicated I knew if there were better economic structures; perhaps it is yet to be invented, instead of impossible to fathom. An open-mind which considers a new approach is a first step. I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology (as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct to something more mature and more stable. Isn't that a fair thing to say?
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    I think it is better that we don't attempt to "protect" Capitalism ideology (as you have just done), rather, attempt to refine and always course-correct to something more mature and more stable. At what point did I 'protect' capitalism? You said it's beneath us as a society and I said that what we have isn't capitalism. The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance.
    - tomlin 16y ago
      > At what point did I 'protect' capitalism? You didn't make a sign or wave a $ symbol flag. When you say you "haven't heard a better argument", I read "won't hear a better argument". Perhaps you don't mean it that way, in which case, apologies first. Perhaps your studies and intellectual investment would be of less worth if someone were to dare point out any alternative possibilities. When there is talk about a resource-based economy or singularity government, would-be opposers jump in quickly to shoot an idea down rather than see value. > The problem is that I don't think you've actually studied capitalism as a moral/economic philosophy (but I could be wrong) so saying "we need to find something more mature and stable" doesn't really have any significance. You are right. I have not studied Capitalism or any other type of economic framework. But would it matter? If you've committed to the idea of our "finest form" of economy, than like any religious person, your opinions are hopeless to evolve. We see millions suffer across the world as our "best" economical structure fuels its fire on the backs of the uncountable. If everyone were to embrace Capitalism as most modern nations have, Capitalism would have no "grease bin", so to speak. I am sure the people of developing countries share a different opinion than you. Are they wrong?

chwahoo 16y ago

While parts of his story resonate and it fun to to hear people explain phenomena based on different ideologies, I've never heard an alternative to capitalism that sounded credible at a large scale. (Most any system could work at a small scale.)

forkandwait 16y ago
All the successful large scale nations (the US, the UK, China, Germany, Japan, etc) are some mix of socialist and capitalist organization, and probably pretty close to 60%/40% in one direction or the other. In a socialist nation, there are usually at least small local produce markets etc; in a "capitalist" nation like the US there are a huge amount of services and regulations that are socialist (the cops, some welfare, etc, etc). In a middle country like Japan or Germany, the government works very closely with the firms to try to effect non-market driven policy and outcomes that have society-wide benefits as their rationale. And... every society is an immensely complex machine, and probably can't be boiled down to an ideology (something Marx never understood, hence his inability to actually propose an alternative besides a utopian vision, and his inability to be a very effective political actor.)
- tkahn6 16y ago
  And notice that that the US, UK, Germany, and Japan are all in dire economic straits right now. Also, the police force not a socialist institution. To sustain a free market requires the state-sanctioned protection of life and property. The police force is a very 'capitalist' institution.
  - chwahoo 16y ago
    Regarding the police, I know that there is a least a subset of libertarian capitalists that would disagree with you. They seem to dislike the police and strongly prefer gun rights for protection of self and property.
    - ovi256 16y ago

johnohara 16y ago

In 2007, before the financial crisis and before becoming Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel investigating the Troubled Assets Relief Program, Dr. Elizabeth Warren gave a very interesting talk at UC Berkeley titled "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A At the time I thought it was a little alarmist, but in view of recent developments I recommend watching it (58 minutes, sorry). It speaks directly to the point about wages and how middle class households employ revolving credit to make up the the difference. The graphs and data are interesting.

kiba 16y ago

Oh greed! The inhumanity! More regulations. Less free markets! Markets are inefficient! Oh please, every inefficient market is an entrepreneur dream. That what HN entrepreneur types want to exploit. Get the damn monopolies out of the way and let entrepreneurs eliminate the inefficiency. Or rather, don't expect efficient market everywhere. There will alway be some inefficiency. For example, the browser market was stagnant for a while. However, it didn't take a government to remedy it. It took a non-profit enterprise, who against all odd, brought firefox to the masses. Anybody who believes in the efficient market hypothesis did not realize the functions of entrepreneurship and the uncertainty inherent in market. In other words, it's a strawman designed to make free marketeers look like naive believer in the magic of capitalism. Regulations? Heard of regulatory capture, much? There are good regulations and then there are bad regulations. It's not about regulators being asleep at the wheel, it's about regulators sleeping with bankers. When that happens, the regulations will be modified to fit what the bankers like, not whether it is healthy for the economy. Don't give me the bollocks about how the world should be more humane, responsible, and just. Everybody wants the world to be more humane, responsible, and just. Discuss or debate with the strongest supporters of capitalism and come back, then wow me with your socialist insight instead of attacking the weakest version of capitalism. As it stand, the youtube video is pathetically weak. Free marketeers will pick apart the video like no tomorrow.

gibsonf1 16y ago

The great irony is that the crisis is one of Statism, not Capitalism. And to "solve" the crisis with more Statism will only make life radically worse. But it looks like that's where things are headed. It's always hard to watch governments repeating the same mistakes from the last century - sigh.

exit 16y ago
have you given up on the idea of convincing people who disagree with you?