A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 1/5

[sfjeff1089]

I disagree with some other posters here. The solution is not revolution, but education. We need to have more people out there that see the big picture and can explain it, and the Internet will be a major enabling tool for this.

[palindrome234]

Hey where was this speech given does anyone know?

[Dracullia]

Socialism is crap... I live in Denmark, and there's nothing i loathe more than the fact that when im done my education, i will make what what a carpenter makes after tax, much much less if you consider the money he earned while i was in school and the money he earns without paying tax for... I will obviously leave, and pay less tax somewhere else - this makes Denmark less well off... eventually it will only have workers left... socialism in a nutshell...

[7264124]

@Dracullia why is a person entitled to more money simply because they went to school?

The entire world is jealous of the living standards of your country, but you take it for granted and cast judgment on people that may work harder or sacrifice more in their workday than you. Something tells me you aren't Danish :D, your English is too good.

[Dracullia]

@7264124 I know i am fortunate not being born in a poor country, but that doesn't change the fact that what fuels my motivation, is the fact that i believe i am smarter and brighter than my fellow Danes, and thus i feel i should be awarded more than they, nothing more demoralizing than getting just as much as the stupid retard who dropped out of school cause he did drugs. You can call me what you want, but i believe it's part of human nature to want to feel superior. thx for the compliment :D

[honkdalonk]

@Dracullia Whole Europe have the Neoliberalism - Denmark too. You don't have socialism.

[Melonemelo]

@honkdalonk

So wrong... all European countries have mixed economies.

Unregulated markets (or "neoliberal") markets are only or almost only to be found in hongkong, taiwan etc.

[honkdalonk]

@Melonemelo No, Unregulated markets are in Europe too. The biggest european country with a neoliberal system is Great Britain. Margaret Thatcher made it in Europe and export it to germany. Schröder and Fischer wanted a big financial location in germany and they made it. But we can see what happened. CDU/ CSU said in 2005 they want the neoliberalism in Germany and they build it too. Today the biggest european neoliberalism countries are Great Britian and Germany.

[Melonemelo]

@honkdalonk

That's still wrong. In Germany, we have a very centralised wage bargaining system, minimum wages in many sectors, goverment intervention and regulation in many markets. The state interfers in markets, but it is not always obvious. We have health security subsidized by government and social security.

The labour market reforms were neccessary and do now contribute towards more employment. Before these reforms, everyone was able to drop out of school an get social security.

[Melonemelo]

When it comes to Great Britain, i know that there was an era of deregulation there during the Thatcher years. I have no idea what it looks like today. But according to several rankings switzerland, ireland, denmark, estonia, luxembourg and netherlands are more liberal than great britain

[Dracullia]

@honkdalonk There is an enormous difference between the European countries, and Denmark may be a country with liberal market, but our ideals and policies are nonetheless very much influenced by socialism, and those are exactly what i dislike about Denmark, making me leave along with other educated people - and in the end i can draw the same conclusion i did in my earlier post, Denmark will be left with only workers. Socialism does not work! Besides Socialism and marxism aren't the same...

[honkdalonk]

@Dracullia The old totalitarian Socialism and Communism don't work. But an modern socialism work - see Norway.

[Dracullia]

@honkdalonk Hahaha... You say Denmark isn't an evidence of socialism, and you pull up NorwaY?? haha really? - Do you have any idea how unrealistic the Norwegian economy actually is? It is fuelled by an abnormally high production of oil per capita - ANYONE and i seriously mean ANYONE could make a socialist state work with that much oil...

[honkdalonk]

@Dracullia Social market economy worked in germany. To 2005 or better 1998, after the Bundeskanzler Schröder came and made an neoliberalism system here. A Social market economy war the best thing in Germany after the War. And that work in Norway today too. That have nothing to do with oil. Germany have no oil, gas or something. So come on. Social market economy is a modern socialism and capatilism in one.

[Dracullia]

@honkdalonk I have nothing against a social market economy, which Denmark very much is. I have a problem when the social"ist" part becomes too vast. And besides that, i have a problem with anyone who uses Norway as an example of anything, but a beautiful country - because it really is unrealistic, not cause they have a social market economy, but because they have the money and guaranteed income do it. Like they don't have to tax anyone but the oil companies, and they can afford all their welfare

[Dracullia]

@honkdalonk The oil companies won't leave cause then they have no oil - easy fix. Whereas Denmark as an example has to find a balance between taxation AND competition with other countries. The Danish state is despite it's previous alledgedly "liberal" government, expanding and expanding - and sadly now it has become too big, the socialist solution, is raising taxes from rich people, this will GUARANTEED cost some jobs, no one thinks about changing the ineffective enormous redistribution maze!

[mocatz187]

I am sooo looking forward to socialists being killed by communists. I want to see you guys spill eachothers blood accross America. To hell you go for saying conservatives were violent haters. You socialists are gonna pay BIG TIME! and if you don't believe me check out the rivalries in europe prior to WW2.

You are soooooo dead. And I'm not going to let you seek refuge with me, you dirty little fucks. Though I would like to hand out guns so you guys can kill eachother more thoroughly.

[TH3Producer]

@mocatz187 & you've got some good karma coming to you, mocat?... sarcasm.. bc you obviously have pretty serious tunnel vision to the world around you haha

[mocatz187]

@TH3Producer Nope, your wrong. The Buddhists say that once the fix is in, the karma has already been dealt. And really, I guess that's what I meant in my original post is that this is YOUR karma. when I stated the demise is already taking place, that was the "fix" and it's already in play and the Karma has been dealt. Yeah, I like that. And I can like it all I want and I'm immune from karma. HAHA sucka's. I dodged it!

[mocatz187]

Francis Fox Piven has announced at the Wall Street protests that the neoliberal cancer has been holding the communists back. Shame, shame some of you lefties for not being full out communists. The demise of the US is already in motion and I can't do anything about that but it sure is going to be fun watching the violent communists begin to revolt against the socialists. One fight you don't want to get between is when the bolsheviks and the trotskies start fighting, thats gonna be a nasty one

[1HiddenSecret]

Strange how neoliberals are renowned for hyper capitalism but act so strangely like communists.... the biggest transfer of wealth to the very few whilst buying up everything around them and using war to break down sovereign nations. They are living the communists wet dream.

[duganrushes]

I'm about 1/3 of the way through "A Brief History of Neoliberalism." From what I'm learning through reading his book and through articles I've read on the history of how corporations have moved over time to take over governments worldwide, I have come to believe the only way to remove corporatists, aka fascists, is to overthrow them. Elites are placing us in a position that if they continue as they are, people eventually will rise up in revolution. It's already happening in the ME and Africa.

[truevoice08]

@duganrushes There's no such thing as corporations. There are only people. The personnel plus shareholders who serve consumers. Neoliberalism is just a smear that can connote anything negative the Left attaches to it. Go read some von Mises and get on with your life.

[bapyou]

@truevoice08 "There's no such thing as corporations. There are only people. The personnel plus shareholders who serve consumers."

I will rewrite your comment so that it reads as a proper and correct neoliberal manifesto. Here:

There's no such thing as "the people," there are only corporations. Consumers serve the [corporate] personnel plus shareholders.

Now THAT is a proper neoliberal sentiment. Be proud of your fascist tendencies; don't shrink from them. The better that we can identify you.

[truevoice08]

@bapyou There was no mincing of words in my statement. Corporations are made up of individuals (i.e. people) in the same way as forests are made up of trees. Cheap appeals to 'the people' will only convince the gullible. I haven't met a leftist who can make a proper argument. Can you?

[bapyou]

@truevoice08 "Corporations are made up of individuals (i.e. people) in the same way as forests are made up of trees."

The law states that a corporation is a person, a statement which differs entirely from "Corporations are made up of individuals".

C'mon, Smug Argument Man, come back at me. I'll bury you in the next volley.

Check.

[truevoice08]

@bapyou Legal personhood is a unique quality of a corporation but that does not subtract from the POINT that corporations are run by people and serve people. Behind that corporate personhood are still people. Your comment is a classic example of a red herring fallacy. Stop pretending to be more intelligent than you are.

[bapyou]

@truevoice08 "Legal personhood is a unique quality of a corporation"

Assume I'm from Mars and we've met half-way in between our respective planets. Describe the elements and qualities -- in simple, direct and unflowery terms -- which define a human being.

As for your comment about me personally, stop pretending as if you actually know what you are talking about, you smug, snide assshole.

[truevoice08]

@bapyou "stop pretending as if you actually know what you are talking about, you smug, snide assshole." LOL this is how most debates with leftists end up, with them (leftists) bellying up to logic and evidence. You can't even spell correctly :))

[bapyou]

@truevoice08 <--- This asshole concedes the argument. He is incapable of engaging in Socratic dialogue, therefore, by default, he has lost the argument.

You remain the smug, snide asshole which you've always been.

[scintillaanimae2]

@truevoice08

fuck you KKK

[truevoice08]

@scintillaanimae2 LOL you can't argue if your life depended on it so you insult. Typical leftist! haha

[jmpurser]

@truevoice08 by your argument there's no such thing as nations, armies, and families.

[truevoice08]

@jmpurser In the sense in which I refuted you're inane view of corporations as faceless monoliths, then yes. Nations, armies and families are just composed of individuals. Assigning mythical properties to groups is one of the hallmarks of leftist propaganda.

[jmpurser]

@truevoice08 refute v 1: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments" [syn: rebut] 2: prove to be false or incorrect

You seemed to be completely unfamiliar with the word.

[truevoice08]

@jmpurser Definition of corporation: " a group of PEOPLE acting as a single entity". Refute that.

[RoboSlater]

@truevoice08 Your definition does not distinguish it from any other group with an agenda, like a lynch mob or a group of smelly liberal protesters who show up for the drugs and later an STD.

[truevoice08]

@RoboSlater True, but that is irrelevant in the context of the argument it was used for. That definition, albeit as you say incomplete, is still true of corporations. My whole point was that corporations are not 'faceless monstrosities' as leftists paint them to be to elicit an emotional reaction from the gullible. If they were, you wouldn't go shopping.

[MsJony1234]

burn the left, the most obnoxious dangerous and wrapped scum on earth

[porilloto]

FUCK the Neoliberalism.

[Dracullia]

@porilloto Why only poor people are socialists...

[saiwan12]

as a iraqi kurd my comment for this brief nothing new said , but I say when US occupied iraq in 2003 , it was a big mistake for them . the us tried to avoid iran ,and to put ther base close to the iran border ,also to control oil field , and persuade gulf states to buy a new weapon ,,,etc ,,,, but for kurds ,,would a big gate open to dream to create a state .

[MsJony1234]

Neoliberalism is as dangerous as any regime - feck the lot of them..

[sirellyn]

Ok he has two completely different things characterized. One, going into a country and "opening it up" for foreign ownership before anyone there even knows what or how that works. (Or after a war) Thats pure exploitation.

The second is promoting willing exchange between groups, promoting small business, entrepreneur-ism etc. Lower taxes etc. The latter is all good.

It reminds me of racism. Saying it's bad to be German. No.. if you mean it's bad to be a Nazi, then yes. One isn't the other.

[ipwnorcs]

@sirellyn He is saying neoliberalism is a cause behind military intervention. Go in and smash things up in the name of free markets and democracy then enforce free trade. It really isn't that complicated....

[sirellyn]

@ipwnorcs And I'm saying yes it is complicated because you are applying one word "neolibertalism" to something that means a lot of different things.

You say it means smashing things up in the name of free markets and enforcing free trade.

Well free markets are good. Demonstratively so. Free trade the general populace with cheaper prices. Or would you like 10x walmart prices to buy things for the same US salary at home?

And "forcing" anyone usually isn't good. So yes it IS complicated.

[ipwnorcs]

@sirellyn I am all for free trade, but the capitalists skew and distort it. So we get cheap things here in the U.S. But what do you think will happen when the workers of the third world are finally brought up to a level where they successfully fight for higher wages? What then? The return on investment will be lower, capital will have to find another route to increase return, which probably means here comes the stick of repression as it has meant in the thrid world countries. US n Rus-made stick

[sirellyn]

@ipwnorcs You have no idea what you are asking for. A tribe who have lived in a tribal fashion in india for thousands of years now appear dirt poor. They haven't changed how they've lived for thousands of years though. To them this is the ultimate of normal.

So now with a snap of your fingers you'll put them in apartments with school and medical care and good housing?

Without enslaving others to provide resources, what do you think this transition looks like?

[ipwnorcs]

@sirellyn If they decide they want to continue to live tribal they can keep doing that. If the younger generation wishes to come and work and use their surpluses with the rest of us so be it, more social good for everyone. What does capital do in this situation? It sees cheap labor there waiting to be exploited. Conditions of near slavery are imposed to extract the surpluses. The beggar on the street will also kill of his own free will if he is hungry enough.

[sirellyn]

@ipwnorcs So you think the life of a farmer or tribesman is easy? It's grueling, and people die frequently. But again this is normal for them. So you offer them a chance to have food provided for them, work less hours a day and less days in a week and nearly negate the chance of dying before 30?

To us it's exploitation, but to someone in that situation it's a miracle. That doesn't mean life can't be better. China has had 300 million people go from africa-poor to middle class in 20 years.

[danielheye]

@sirellyn I don't care to look in on the entirety of this (seemingly petty/caught up in semantics) debate, but what you've said in this last argument has absolutely nothing to do with ipwnorcs' last. ip(etc) never said farm/tribe life was easy. they May have implied it's outdated, but one sees across the globe in tribes introduced to the capitalist way of life that the younger generations are less accepting of the roles they are expected to take. classes (middle included) are not the answer!

[sirellyn]

@danielheye My point is you have no idea how arbitrary you use terms like exploitation. Work this out in your head.

What happens when a new civilization is discovered? People (not capitalists) will be excited. Say you decided that they aren't ready yet. Could you seal them back off? Sorry no, pandora's box is open, and people will go over there no matter how many resources you devote. See poaching.

They would have to adapt to something new just as we would. What do you think would happen

[1michelemichele1]

@ipwnorcs that's how I thought things would play out there, too -- China, for instance. But, apparently, parts of China are already experiencing a rust-belt decline: it doesn't look as if they're going to have a labour movement comparable with what we had, so, barring a minor miracle, their conditions won't change, and neither will ours.

[MultiSmartass1]

@ipwnorcs They don't want workers in the Third world to have decent wages.

That's why you have a third world to exploit in the first place.

The first world needs a surplus population to produce the bulk of goods for low prices so that corporations can reap huge profits.

In the US, we have wages depressed since the 1970's and going down, down.

So when economic recessions like our last occurs, the averge worker has to sacrifice not elites.

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn Free markets are good for Europeans and American whites who have acess to capital, start businesses and corporations and are executives in Fortune 500 corporations.

Free markets are bad for blacks and brown people because they are largely poor and forced to work at low wage jobs producing the bulk of goods for Western nations-whites.

So yes, Free markets are good in a color coded way. As long as you are white, you will benefit.

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmartass1 What do you think is happening to China? They were ALL poor nearly 20 years ago. Now theres 300 million middle class, more billionaires than anywhere else, and they are STILL growing.

How do you think countries become rich? They flip a switch? Dirt poor to filthy rich? The US was the largest producer for Europe in the 1890's. People had low wage jobs and they made things for Europe.

People save and invest.

Although the Federal Reserve has made this a loaded system.

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn Chinese are not black or brown so that's not relevant to my point.

Your post is utterly worthless.

My post was about a racist economic system that deliberately keeps people of color weighted down not merely by low-wage jobs but by low living conditions.

A poor non-white population ensures the survival and sustenance of a rich white population.

Its 21stcentury slavery except is wage slavery because its solely economic.

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmartass1 The point you are trying to make hurts the result you want. If you are trying to say the economic laws and rules we have try to maintain the status quo, I'd have to answer "Sort of."

But even if the answer was "yes" and I assume you want as much equity as possible for everyone, I suspect the fix you have is actually destructive to what you want.

But I should find out first. How would you change things to get maximum equity for everyone?

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn Iam not answering that question because your post has ignored the point of my comment and has not fully addressed the topic.

Capitalism is as colorcoded as anything else in this world.

Capitalists-who are largely by nature caucasian/european-do not address this point because they ideally need a non-white population to exploit economically.

The Third world provides this.

Capitalism thrives partly due to racism and white supremacy.

The biggest bigots have always been businessmen.

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmartass1 Capitalism does not equal this current monetary system.

Back in the days of Persian Sumerians they practiced capitalism, Germanic people were cavemen or slaves. Egypt had an empire, China had an empire, even Africa had vast tribal kingdoms, and all practiced capitalism in one form or another. All were supreme for their time.

Capitalism is simply two parties WILLING and FREELY exchanging products of their labor. (Capital)

Thats it.

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn First of all, your post has nothing to do with my point.

However, I will address it.

Capitalism is an 18th century invention.

It was never practiced in China, Africa and what would today be called the middle east and Germany.

Capitalism requires the formation of joint-stock corporations, stocks themselves and other types of investment packages, management theories, distribution-I could go on.

None of these things were reality prior to the 19th century.

Capitalism is European.

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmartass1 Capitalism requires corporations? Sorry no, not in the slightest. The root of the word is capital. Can you have capital without corporations? Of course you can. Just as you can have racism without people. Are humans required for race? No. Other animals have race as well.

The "concept" of capital is 18th century about yes. What capital IS, is timeless. Did the Mars only exist when we thought of it as a planet and called it Mars?

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn Corporations are part of definition of capitalism.

Capitalism didn't exist until you had the formation of corporations like the East India Company and the setting up of exchanges for stocks as well as capital and investment.

However, there have always been markets-markets for goods and literal markets. Those have existed for hundreds of years.

If you dont understand that racism is a human concept that impacts human beings, then noone can help you.

Go get your GED and get a life.

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn First of all, your post has nothing to do with my point.

However, I will address it.

Capitalism is an 18th century invention.

It was never practiced in China, Africa and what would today be called the middle east and Germany.

Capitalism requires the formation of joint-stock corporations, stocks themselves and other types of investment packages, management theories, distribution-I could go on.

None of these things were reality prior to the 19th century.

Capitalism is European.

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmartass1 I should add it assumes you keep what you spent you time to produce, and only trade it willingly. So theft is not capitalism.

Capitalism isn't a government. Governments can PROMOTE capitalism more or less than others, but simply to exist a government can't be capitalist.

Asking NOT to have capitalism is to ask people aren't free to willingly trade with one another. Someone else decides. And that can be VERY racist.

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn Again this has nothing to with my intial points which were that capitalism is color coded racism.

People dont benefit from capitalism in the third world since they often dont have labor unions that can look out for their welfare or stable,livable wages.

This has nothing to with governments or the public sector so your point is nonsense.

There has been plenty of racism under capitalism.

Black slavery was a capitalist institution.

By the way, someone always decides under CP-theCEO

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmartass1 Your original point was "capitalism" keeps colored people repressed.

I keep trying to clarify terms because the statement is both extreme in generalization & distortion.

And solutions derived tend to ineffectual counterproductive & wrong.

If I said something ignorant like blacks are the cause of most crime. That suggests an answer of getting rid of or locking up all blacks to fix "most crime."

Which would be both wrong and inflate the problem.

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn Colored people is a thoughtless, offensive remark that indicates your racism.

The only thing extreme about the remark is the extreme racism and oppressione experienced by blacks and other brown people throughout the world.

If you examine countries like Brazil which has the largest black population outside Africa, the vest majoirty of black peopleare poor and in slums.

That fact is Capitalism has not alleviated racism in the US or throughout the world. It adds to it.

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmartass1 "Colored people is a thoughtless, offensive remark that indicates your racism."

You make so many assumptions in all your statements. You have no idea what race I am, or who I'm married to, or who makes up my family. Actually I've been cordial, polite and informative and only been met with:

"Your post is utterly worthless."

"get a life."

And now this.

Are you trying to be mean and abusive? Because it doesn't seem like you are trying to exemplify better human behavior.

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn Well, you used the term "Colored People" not I. Its an archaic and pejorative phrase.

I made no assumptions but criticized you based on your statements.

You're correct-I don't know what race you are or who are married to or who your family members are.

If I discussed your family and not your statements, you have a point but I didn't and you dont.

My point is that racism is a part of capitalism and that capitalism helps oppress people of color around the world.

Address that.

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmart I'll address specific problems that the current monetary system does to ensure to keep those in power (most of which who happen to be caucasian) to remain in power. I can discuss the Federal Reserve, and role the US dollar plays as the world reserve currency promotes and sustains delinquency of all sorts (including racism) at all levels, especially to countries that are given foreign aid.

But no I don't believe racism is a part of capitalism any more than aids is a part of Africa.

[RipTheJackR]

@sirellyn

Well, aids is a part of africa actually.

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmartass1 But if I were to clarify and find out "Nearly all blacks in my neighborhood (and I know of) are in a gang. They are lead by this one guy, and he rules through fear, I think most of the rest of them are young kids who don't know any better."

That suggests a PRODUCTIVE solution.

The first statement suggests get rid of or lock up all blacks

The second suggests go after this ONE gang leader

THATS why I'm drilling down on your statement.

[MultiSmartass1]

@sirellyn Your so-called analysis is way off the mark.

What I have stated is based on verifiable facts: whites control the means of production in this country and beyond, blacks do not. Hispanic peoples do not.

Capitalism in the 21st century requires a surplus non-white population to do make goods for paltry wages.

That's the reality and that's a fact.

Go to India-see any blonde haired, blue eyed children working in factories? I think not.

[sirellyn]

@MultiSmartass1 This is exactly what I mean. "Whites control the means of production in this country and beyond"

You know how many CEOs the country has that happen to be black? McDonalds, American Express, Aliant Energy, Wachovia, Sears, Merrill Lynch & Co, CNBC, Time Warner, Fannie Mae, Xerox etc.

We have a black president in the white house, and the most powerful and influential woman was voted Oprah.

By trying to get more specific I'd say I'm pretty on the mark.

[Doooku]

Deng Xiaoping, a criminal, a butcher,

[goPistons06]

@Doooku still, a baby compared to mao

[Doooku]

@goPistons06

well said. You 22 years old? good!

[daledheyalef]

Is there a transcript of this speech I can read somewhere?

[futsal1958]

The book is a real tour de force. Don't miss it!

[68generation]

The political parties are just a number of bourgeois doing the interest of the big corporations... Marx was so amazingly sharp and predictive with this statement!!

[Kettyqi]

Was this at The University of Chicago?

[bapyou]

Where and when was this talk given?

[archdeaconj]

It was indeed Arendt who noted that imperial ventures abroad go hand in hand with tyranny at home. The government knows that more and more wars like Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be fought over dwindling resources. The threat of popular dissent must therefore be dealt with and the way to do this is by means of increased surveillance and suppression.

[elprincipitooooo]

You've effectively simplified the situation, which is mostly understood around the world but is largely ignored by the United States populace itself.

[archdeaconj]

Alas, it's not their fault. The populace has imbibed a mythology which makes such 'conspiracy' unthinkable - thx to state propaganda and a compliant media. There are those who are unwilling to disseminate bullshit, but they don't get the job. It goes deeper than media indoctrination,even. State ideology (and I use the term to include values, attitudes and so on) is enshrined in all our institutions and conveyed in insidious ways by language itelf. What then are we to do? I don't know.

[vicentenas]

In matter of terrorism, the USA are the masters. State Terrorism.

[marsCubed]

@mojochessclassics

I think you will find that fascism was wholly funded by corps. Hitler deregulated to allow slavery so private corps could turn a profit. He smashed worker's organizations and even demolished a model town for workers as one of his first acts in power.

German munitions had corp logos.

A better way to think of it is that Nazis were thugs employed by corps to smash any and all resistance to the capitalist class's profit agenda.

It is why USA and others invested there so heavily.

[goPistons06]

@marsCubed the nazis were against any kind of free market, they blamed the depression on capitalism, and the state pretty much ran the economy. what u said about deregulation was nonsense. read the road to serfdom by Von Hayek

[marsCubed]

@goPistons06 It is ludicrous to suggest the hyper conservatism & fierce competition of the NAZIS was not the free market lunacy..

After the '29 crash, partly caused by Ford motors 'winning', leading to staggering investments lost all over the world & mass unemployment.

Hitler smashed unions & deregulated to use slaves; To make Germany competitive, no welfare, the weak killed not to 'burden' the strong.

It's why VW beetle, steel, USA investors; hyper competitive, free-market.capitalism gone mad.

[marxian00]

@goPistons06

@marsCubed

Since when are we supposed to believe what Hitler says? I could post anti-socialist and pro-capitalist quotes from Nazi leaders all day if I wanted to. The only two consistent things that ever came out of Hitler's mouth were his crazy rants on antisemitism and Aryan dominance.

[marxian00]

@goPistons06

Nazi Germany was without doubt capitalist to the mode of production. Labour took the form of wage labour, products where produced to be sold (commodity production), and the process of money circulation looked like:

Money-Commodity-Money'. In other words Nazi Germany shared the distinctive features associated with the capitalist mode of production.

[goPistons06]

@marxian00 maybe it had certain aspects of a capitalist economy, and some degree of private initiative. but were the massive price controls, and welfare? the government had the final say on everything made, so in practice it wasn´t private. this economic system is usually called corporatism, a non marxian socialism.

[ipwnorcs]

@goPistons06 Hayek is a fool, sorry to burst your bubble.

[goPistons06]

@ipwnorcs how exactly is hayek a fool? i'd be glad if you could explain it to me please. he doesn't seem to be very much of a fool, he made major contributions to macroeconomics, as well as being the father of information economics. he's also recognized as a great psychologist, and is considered to be one of the most important philosophers of science. maybe what you don't like about him is his political philosophy, which is in the classical liberal tradition.id be delighted if u could explain

[ipwnorcs]

@goPistons06 Planning automatically leads to totalitarianism? He has contributed in other ways but in that theory of "the road to serfdom" he is just another free market shill.

[goPistons06]

@ipwnorcs it's not just planning, it's central planning, meaning the government has total control over society. there hasn't been a case where a government with that much power has been free. and it's not a "free market shill", it's scientific work, recognized by leading economists like herbert simon and vernon smith

[tv0r]

@vicentenas

its the media we have here and the ignorant faith the masses have in it.

[bkinnett3]

Wow. This guy knew that the weapons of mass destruction argument was a hoax before the Iraq invasion, when our CIA and the British intelligence services were counseling Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and subsequently Bush and Congress that the reason Saddam ejected the U.N. weapons inspectors in '98 was because he planned to resume production of WMD.

Is this dude more connected than the CIA?

His argument starts with a basis that's a joke.

He is discredited.

[rhabdoviridae]

Poor you!

It must be so hard to breathe with your head so far up your rectum!

[Marly61]

The Center For Economic Policy and Research reported that Neoliberalism, as in the theft of bank bail-out money, is allowing elites to redistribute wealth to themselves resutling in a sharp increase in inequality, as measured by the Gini index in the US from 1980-2005. The Gini index for the United States went from 40.3 to 46.92, a period in which there was a large (upward) redistribution of income.

[DengarRoth]

I've had to read excerpts of this or other works of Harvey's every semester for four years straight now.

it's nice to have an audio clip on youtube

[jsgdk]

neoliberalism quickly turns to fascism.. too much personal freedom makes people harder to control.. much better cattle if fearful of the authorities.. and neoliberalism is all about cattle. On a side note: nothing Al-qaeda had done can rival the terror in south america perpetrated/supported by the Goverment since the 70s and forward.

[OperationNorthwoods]

it is that already.....since before 1913

[marcelo602]

American interventions in, not only in South America, but all over Latin America has begun very very long before the 1970's.

[xcookiemonster88]

The first two Latin countries united States intervene were Cuba and Mexico. Why do you think we celebrate cinco de mayo in the U.S

[marcelo602]

I don't know what's celebrated on May 5th. Mexico invasion?

Do you agree that the first US imperialistic war was against the South?

[rolpho]

It was "manifest destiny" something we usually don't talk about because of the brutality similiar in rhetoric and action to lebensraum

[kenhoyt]

@marcelo602 the US has been imperialist since day one.

[ZapatismoUSA]

@xcookiemonster88

uhm, lets not forget US "intervention" in Haiti in the 1800s. thank you.

[barbacoa2021]

deng xiaoping?

[nizhinsky]

I'm not sure I can take anyone seriously who puts Deng Xiaoping on the cover of a book about neoliberalism with Reagan, Pinochet and Thatcher. It makes no sense. Yes, Deng steered China towards a more market orientated society, but that's still a million miles away from neoliberalism (or classical liberalism as we would call it). Liberalism isn't just about economics, it's also about reducing government interference/domination in peoples' lives through the rule of law. Not much of that in China!

[quixotic115]

That's what it's SUPPOSED to be (non interference) but in reality they do interfere with people's lives. Harvey points this out as one of the contradictions; because the wealthy elites need to keep their advantageous position in society, they end up violating that rule by not respecting individual rights (think about Patriot Act).

[nizhinsky]

Yes you are right but you have to understand that the Republicans aren't classical liberals. They can't even follow their own advice. George Bush presented himself as a tax-cutting, government-repealing, free trade liberal but has since expanded the state, raised taxes, enforced protectionism and inflated the deficit. The fact is neocons and neoliberals are two very different creatures -it's really not as simple as left and right. There in fact much criticism of the Patriot Act from the 'right'.

[quixotic115]

yeah that's true; that's what he means by theoretical and pragmatic neoliberalism.

[mofi500]

But the theory of 'less state' is not entirely true either. The state becomes just as involved as, maybe not in terms of ownership of services but definitely in terms of issues such as homeland security, surveillance etc. In Britain our government might have privatised pretty much all it can but it still lets us know its there.

[Franco187]

You're right except that Bush did cut taxes by some 1300 billions, most of it for the wealthy. The same can be said of free market hero Ronald Reagan. "Less government" and "free market" are just slogans used to destroy social services, government interventions are considered just fine as long as they are serving corporate profit.

[danieleriskay]

""Less government" and "free market" are just slogans used to destroy social services"

The social services of the 1960s and 1970s were worthy of being destroyed.

[Marly61]

Please give examples.

[slainemacroth]

"liberalism isn't just about economics" But therein lies the rub. The economics of liberalism, (or today's authoritarian neoliberalism), equates in practice to an economy of perverse undemocratic and (of course) authoritarian incentives and motives. Not to mind being unjust an highly illiberal in its remuneration according to luck or inheritance and increase of inequality. Increasing democracy is intrinsically inimical to neoliberalism.

[nizhinsky]

To set the record straight I'd like to point out that on the whole 'neo' liberals like myself are as critical of the current state of affairs as socialists tend to be. It's the old paradox of liberals complaining that the American media has a right-wing bias as conservatives complain that is has a left-wing bias...

[nizhinsky]

...In Britain too, socialists hate Labour for being 'neo' liberal, while liberals themselves hate them for being socialist! The fact is that everyone has their own idea of what works best and pretty much no-one outside of government is happy with the way things are! :)

[pilkingtonphil]

To be honest I think its a little to easy, especially given the current state of affairs to shrug your shoulders and say "well, if only they followed the right path" be that socialist or neo-liberal. I think that Harvey makes quite a point of refuting this sort of dreamy idealism. The fact is is that there are extremely serious economic problems which seem to be structurally inherent within the general gameplan of neo-liberalism itself. Harvey's argument, and its really one that while...

[pilkingtonphil]

...being, on the whole, quite obvious, for, what I would argue are ideological reasons, is never sounded today and its simply that the neo-liberal plan is one that facilitates the rise of a class power, that the framework of this type of policymaking proves to be inherently intertwined with certain class interests. Coming back to China, this is what allows Harvey to argue that what's going on there is neo-liberalism as any attempt to use that word in a different, arguably ideological...

[pilkingtonphil]

...manner comes across as relatively weak and vaguely defined, in fact it really seems to resemble those that try to support dubious regimes of a bygone era by claiming "Well, that's not what Stalin/Mao/Castro intended". The irony about Harvey is that, although his argument is definetly more radical and more clear-cut than almost anyone else today, he's essentially coming from a center-left position and arguing for fairly basic Kautskyesque social-democratic change, it's all radically pragmatic!

[pilkingtonphil]

One other point, for those who point to China not being neo-liberal due to it's oppressive, anti-rule of law form of legal contract, one of the very first things that Harvey points out is that THE VERY FIRST ATTEMPT AT NEO-LIBERALISM WAS TRIED IN PINOCHET'S CHILE!!! Of course this is far from the first time where liberalism has used an anti-democratic authoritarian system, or elements thereof, to promote free-trade, see in this regard post-war Japan and Germany...

[OperationNorthwoods]

New labor in uK is actually right wing party says John Pilger.

labor is old name in old party...but path of party like many others like that have changed like incomes

[MarxBakuninMe]

"pretty much no-one outside of government is happy with the way things are! :)"

I think Wall Street is pretty ecstatic.

[cooljules19]

@MarxBakuninMe Wall street are not outside the government, they OWN the government. It is not so much as a revolving door as an archway between business and government

[ipwnorcs]

@MarxBakuninMe They are government:)

[marquee989]

@MarxBakuninMe Like he said. "No-one outside of government" :)

[truevoice08]

@MarxBakuninMe Wall Street is part of government. The modern banking system is fractional reserve banking, meaning it's outstanding liabilities are greater than its outstanding assets. This means fraud. Theft and fraud are a violation of property rights, which is the basis for a free market. Read Rothbard on money, its origins, and how government monopolized its production.

[nickglais]

What's good about David Harvey is that he provides in New Imperialism a series of tools to analyse imperialism independently.

I have found it very useful book to persue my independent thought on the questrion of Imperialism.

[shitfacemcstevens]

Hes coming out with a new book, I was part of his manuscript reading group, its going to be about geographic knowledge as a propeduetic for all knowledge. Good shit, should be dropping soon. he takes his conceptions of space to new level adding in lefebrves triumvariate. I think there might be an intro to this argument in the new imperialism

[nickglais]

What the new book brother - I want to buy it.

[william884]

this guys a goof...read Niklas Luhmann its not about america its about neoliberalism..and it is neoliberalism, not the US, that is the global superpower..

[tarnopol]

This guy is a serious scholar, a geographer and social scientist. He's published a ton of books, including the one pictured above, in which he explains the rise and nature and geographical variety of neoliberalism. No, it's not all about the US (or UK), as that book clearly explains. To say nothing about this lecture.

[tarnopol]

Try reading _The Condition of Postmodernity_, too, and watch this interview to learn more: google "David Harvey" and choose a video search; watch the first thing that comes up ("conversations from history," a great series, btw).

[Chappuisat]

Very true, very important facts. Neoliberals = neoimperialists and warmongers.

[deathinthewilderness]

I just wanted to make sure no one who posted thus far thinks that Mr. Harvey is a conservative (or liberal, or whatever, they're both the same). I'm right in assuming this, correct?

[ryan1812P]

David Harvey is a marxist.

[t0nt01982]

wow no comments from youtube liberals? big surprise

[KingCook85]

You are an idiot if you think the conservatives are that much better same shit other wrapper

[t0nt01982]

hmm did i say they were better. im readin my comment right now, nope! dont see me stating that! i stated that because every right wing video callin the liberals out on youtube hardly ever has any comments from the liberal viewers.

[bapyou]

Three cheers for anticonsumer's efforts! Here's to his return to YouTube. Thanks for the re-post of this talk PFS.