David Harvey Encapsulates Capitalism

[Conquer or Die]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=player_embedded#!

In my opinion.

Now, why is this unjust?

Exploitation.

What is the solution?

Revolution.

The "Academics" have described the problem, but they haven't proven its merit as a solution or applied it thoughtfully.

To me, that is the issue. Why is exploitation wrong? What makes it bad versus the status quo? Why is revolution the solution? What can replace exploitation that is true. Truth would be freedom, justice, faith and service all initiated towards correctness. Truth is true, so it is necessarily more desirable than anything else on a moral level. Morality should be the basis for the system of the future.

But how? We can't all be winners, we can't all get what we want all the time, we can't completely trust our faith, we can't be completely independent or completely dependent.

[RGacky3]

The solution is easy, the problem is how to attain it, how to get to it. The fact is these Crisis will NEVER stop because as he points out, many people profit from these disasters and especially those in power, some go out some go in, but those left over did very well with the system so why would they want to change it.

What has to happen is a challenge from OUTSIDE and against the system.

[RGacky3]

BTW, I recomend this video, its don't in a really good way.

[Zanthorus]

I don't recall Harvey saying anything about exploitation in that video. He was talking about the inherent contradictions of capital accumulation, the objective barriers that capital runs up against in it's continual quest for expansion.

Maybe you should actually watch things before posting them.

[RGacky3]

Why is exploitation wrong?

If you don't think its wrong thats fine, but thats essnecially one of the basic aspects of human morality that is pretty much universal. Its essencially slavery, if your ok with that then fine, but most people are not.


What makes it bad versus the status quo?

That status quo IS exploitation nitwit.


Why is revolution the solution?

Because the system prevents any other way to change it, how else can you do it? Is there a way to reform a monarchy? Other than to abolish it?


What can replace exploitation that is true. Truth would be freedom, justice, faith and service all initiated towards correctness. Truth is true, so it is necessarily more desirable than anything else on a moral level. Morality should be the basis for the system of the future.


WHAT??? Your very liberal with your definition of truth, your reading too much plato my friend.

Anyway, a moral system? Socialism, in a general sense.


But how? We can't all be winners, we can't all get what we want all the time, we can't completely trust our faith, we can't be completely independent or completely dependent.

I don't know what the hell your talking about.

[Conquer or Die]

I don't recall Harvey saying anything about exploitation in that video. He was talking about the inherent contradictions of capital accumulation, the objective barriers that capital runs up against in it's continual quest for expansion.

Maybe you should actually watch things before posting them.

Wow, you're a snide little ****.

I did watch the video, I agreed with the premise and explanation. At the end of the video he said he doesn't know the solution and I am saying that while the premise is correct, what should be the solution? Essentially, taking the correct Marxist analysis and applying it against the criticisms.

Why should the game, as it stands, be changed?

Think ahead and answer the argument, don't retract into arrogance and the effete cold of self righteous propaganda.

Or just fuck off the thread.

[Conquer or Die]

If you don't think its wrong thats fine, but thats essnecially one of the basic aspects of human morality that is pretty much universal. Its essencially slavery, if your ok with that then fine, but most people are not.

Most people are, actually. That is, if you think capitalism is exploitative and that slavery is present in the world in legal terms, at the very least.


That status quo IS exploitation nitwit.

Once again, the question is why is that wrong. Saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. The Marxist can identify an aspect of the world, but the solution for fixing it didn't seem to work.


Because the system prevents any other way to change it, how else can you do it? Is there a way to reform a monarchy? Other than to abolish it?

Ask the Queen of England that question. Or Brother Kim.


WHAT??? Your very liberal with your definition of truth, your reading too much plato my friend.

I don't like the relativist position on human nature. I think that may be a separate, long argument that people will quit from or not understand. But so long as we can accept 2 + 2 = 4 then we can understand the point of the questioning.


Anyway, a moral system? Socialism, in a general sense.

Not a sufficient answer.


I don't know what the hell your talking about.

Think of the Monopoly board in the video, the cyclical nature and similarities between the solutions and the effects inherent in global capitalism (as it stands with all its features, not just a narrow Free Market viewpoint or the Central Banking edifice).

It's a game being played, so how do we correct the game? Why is changing the nature of the game a good thing?

[Dean]

To me, that is the issue. Why is exploitation wrong? What makes it bad versus the status quo? Why is revolution the solution? What can replace exploitation that is true. Truth would be freedom, justice, faith and service all initiated towards correctness. Truth is true, so it is necessarily more desirable than anything else on a moral level. Morality should be the basis for the system of the future.

But how? We can't all be winners, we can't all get what we want all the time, we can't completely trust our faith, we can't be completely independent or completely dependent.
:rolleyes: What the hell are we supposed to get out of this random set of statements? "Truth would be freedom, justice faith... all initiaed toward correctness." What the hell? Exploitation and evil are true, and they are the correct outcome of our material history. I'm truly happy for you that you want to make things right. But you're flat out wrong if you think economic evils are contrary to "truth" or "correctness"

It'd be nice if you thought things through more before making threads about them.

[Conquer or Die]

:rolleyes: What the hell are we supposed to get out of this random set of statements? "Truth would be freedom, justice faith... all initiaed toward correctness." What the hell? Exploitation and evil are true, and they are the correct outcome of our material history. I'm truly happy for you that you want to make things right. But you're flat out wrong if you think economic evils are contrary to "truth" or "correctness"

It'd be nice if you thought things through more before making threads about them.

What can replace exploitation that is true.

It'd be nice if you didn't waste time being a fake intellectual.

[Dean]

What can replace exploitation that is true.
What does this even mean?? By truth, do you mean viable? Do you mean extant - that is something which exists today but which cna be expanded to replace exploitation?

Don't you see how vagueness like "that is true" as a critical descriptor for your theory will lead to so much confusion?


It'd be nice if you didn't waste time being a fake intellectual.
If you post a vague theory, confuse people and insult them when they express confusion, you are kind of out of place calling them "fake intellectuals."

[Conquer or Die]

What does this even mean?? By truth, do you mean viable? Do you mean extant - that is something which exists today but which cna be expanded to replace exploitation?

Don't you see how vagueness like "that is true" as a critical descriptor for your theory will lead to so much confusion?

Exploitation reflects reality, so what reality can exist without Exploitation.

"Economic Evils" do not exist unless they are proven to be evil. So why is Exploitation an Economic Evil. Simply describing the system (as David Harvey does brilliantly) is not going to do anything besides provide the basis for a new theory or practice of living.

Exploitation: True
Solution to Exploitation: ?



If you post a vague theory, confuse people and insult them when they express confusion, you are kind of out of place calling them "fake intellectuals."

Well, I was probably too kind in suggesting you could be a fake intellectual. I was attacked by a sniveling ****man for "not understanding" the video when I was trying to initiate a discussion on how to arise to a better theory of living post exploitation - exploitation which is precisely what the video describes in the context of finance capitalism. RGacky doesn't get it. You don't get it, and attacked me, and then said that you just didn't understand what I already wrote. Suggesting that what I wrote is confusing is not the same as you or Gacky suggesting I'm wrong.

[Dean]

Exploitation reflects reality, so what reality can exist without Exploitation.

"Economic Evils" do not exist unless they are proven to be evil. So why is Exploitation an Economic Evil. Simply describing the system (as David Harvey does brilliantly) is not going to do anything besides provide the basis for a new theory or practice of living.

Exploitation: True
Solution to Exploitation: ?
Worker control over the means of production.


Well, I was probably too kind in suggesting you could be a fake intellectual. I was attacked by a sniveling ****man for "not understanding" the video when I was trying to initiate a discussion on how to arise to a better theory of living post exploitation - exploitation which is precisely what the video describes in the context of finance capitalism. RGacky doesn't get it. You don't get it, and attacked me, and then said that you just didn't understand what I already wrote. Suggesting that what I wrote is confusing is not the same as you or Gacky suggesting I'm wrong.
How very considerate of you.

But you are wrong. Primarily because your conceptualizations of human society are chiefly based on moral and philosophical ramblings which don't seem to mean anything at all:

To me, that is the issue. Why is exploitation wrong? What makes it bad versus the status quo? Why is revolution the solution? What can replace exploitation that is true. Truth would be freedom, justice, faith and service all initiated towards correctness. Truth is true, so it is necessarily more desirable than anything else on a moral level. Morality should be the basis for the system of the future.

But how? We can't all be winners, we can't all get what we want all the time, we can't completely trust our faith, we can't be completely independent or completely dependent.
There's so much ridiculousness here - "Truth would be freedom, justice..." - what? Why does truth equate to moral values?

"Truth is true, so it is necessarily more desirable than anything else on a moral level" - again, little more than vague morality applied to "truth."

But truth isn't a great story of heroes. There are heroes, but they're largely unsung. The point is that reality is drab and has little, if any, story of moral valor. You won't find the solution to society's ills by trying to equate base reality with some moral imperative. In other words, finding out why exploitation is "bad" won't do anything but confirm what we already know and feel. The point is to study its workings, in the hopes of dismantling it.

[Blackscare]

Does nobody get infracted, etc for throwing around words like '****' on this board anymore?

Conquer or Die, this is a fucking internet forum. Try not to lose your cool so easily when people rightfully call you out for your vague moralizing/pseudo-philosophy. You're really not one to talk about people being fake intellectuals.

[RGacky3]

Most people are, actually. That is, if you think capitalism is exploitative and that slavery is present in the world in legal terms, at the very least.

Actually they are not, they put up with it because they are never presented an alternative, the same way it was for slaves in the 1800s. Most people in the 1800s were not ok with people being deprived their liberty, but there were tons of excuses, blacks arn't people, they were made to be slaves, its good for them, its nessesary, and so on.

Also Its wrong because it deprives people of autonomy (liberty), and it robs people of basic human needs while it ... exploits them, i.e. the same as extortion.


Once again, the question is why is that wrong. Saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. The Marxist can identify an aspect of the world, but the solution for fixing it didn't seem to work.

Its wrong because its slavery for some and starvation for others, and riches and power for a few, if you think that is ok then fine, but I would'nt be going around with words like "truth" or "liberty" because if your ok with that then you obviously have absolutely no basis of morality.

The solution is destroying the power systems and democratising them.


Ask the Queen of England that question. Or Brother Kim.

Ok, If I ask the queen of ENgland it happened over a few civil wars, uprisings and the such. If I aks Kim he would'nt tell me because he's still in power.


I don't like the relativist position on human nature. I think that may be a separate, long argument that people will quit from or not understand. But so long as we can accept 2 + 2 = 4 then we can understand the point of the questioning.

Whats your point? I was pointing out that morality is subjective simply because it cannot be proven to be objective. Second of all, a solution with "truth" is a stupid request because your misusing the word truth. Its like saying "I want you to bring about world peace, but your solution has to include falsehood" your being dumb.


Not a sufficient answer.


Why not?


Think of the Monopoly board in the video, the cyclical nature and similarities between the solutions and the effects inherent in global capitalism (as it stands with all its features, not just a narrow Free Market viewpoint or the Central Banking edifice).

It's a game being played, so how do we correct the game? Why is changing the nature of the game a good thing?

The "solution" he's talking about are not actual solutions but just Capitalists trying to shift around the problems, they have little effect on the working class and they don't solve the power dynamic.

We correct the game by getting rid of the power dynamic and democratizing it, (Btw, the game is just a metaphor, becauese monopoly is associated with capitalism, its actually as much a game as was feautal lords fighting over land and killing peasents on the way was a game).

I'm saying get rid of the game, replace it with democracy.


Exploitation reflects reality, so what reality can exist without Exploitation.

"Economic Evils" do not exist unless they are proven to be evil. So why is Exploitation an Economic Evil. Simply describing the system (as David Harvey does brilliantly) is not going to do anything besides provide the basis for a new theory or practice of living.

Exploitation: True
Solution to Exploitation: ?


I'm sorry your a moron.

If Exploitation reflects realty and what reality can exist without it, NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE EVER, well obviously we see that untrue in history.

Describing the system is the ONLY way to proove something is evil, because thats a subjective thing. How do you prove stake is good? You let people taste and allow them to decide.

The solution is socialism.

Also if were gonna have a discussion you need to stop with the dumb semantics.

[Jazzratt]

Wow, you're a snide little ****.

I did watch the video, I agreed with the premise and explanation. At the end of the video he said he doesn't know the solution and I am saying that while the premise is correct, what should be the solution? Essentially, taking the correct Marxist analysis and applying it against the criticisms.

Why should the game, as it stands, be changed?

Think ahead and answer the argument, don't retract into arrogance and the effete cold of self righteous propaganda.

Or just fuck off the thread.

You're getting a verbal warning for prejuidiced language and flaming.


I was attacked by a sniveling ****man

Very thin ice, man. One more round of flaming or language like that and I will infract you.

[Conquer or Die]

But you are wrong. Primarily because your conceptualizations of human society are chiefly based on moral and philosophical ramblings which don't seem to mean anything at all:

There's so much ridiculousness here - "Truth would be freedom, justice..." - what? Why does truth equate to moral values?

"Truth is true, so it is necessarily more desirable than anything else on a moral level" - again, little more than vague morality applied to "truth."

But truth isn't a great story of heroes. There are heroes, but they're largely unsung. The point is that reality is drab and has little, if any, story of moral valor. You won't find the solution to society's ills by trying to equate base reality with some moral imperative. In other words, finding out why exploitation is "bad" won't do anything but confirm what we already know and feel. The point is to study its workings, in the hopes of dismantling it.

There is no confirmation that exploitation being bad is confirmed by our feelings, and if that were true, then it wouldn't matter what we felt. This is something that does not hold up to scrutiny.

Do you really think that people can't understand the point that David Harvey made? Do you really think it will escape them? The question is not the accuracy of what he said, the question is if the solution is better than the current situation. As it stands, the solution has not been proven better than the current situation.

Why is the game a problem? That is the question that needs to be answered sufficiently. You are incapable of answering, so you blame those who would ask the question. The question needs to be answered in order for Communism to make sense. Proving this on a moral level is what is necessary to be able to convince people that it is right.


RGacky - I simply won't bother with you anymore.

[Conquer or Die]

You're getting a verbal warning for prejuidiced language and flaming.



Very thin ice, man. One more round of flaming or language like that and I will infract you.

Unequal treatment, but whatever.

[RGacky3]

RGacky - I simply won't bother with you anymore.

Why not?

[Stephen Colbert]

"Debt incumbent homeowners don't go on strike."

Quite frankly a fantastic point.