The end of Capitalism

[Rafiq]

Fairly decent lecture by Harvey

4whAXuS7iWE

He gets into Keynsianism and all that crap, but just ignore it. He makes some decent points throughout, if you can handle it.

Enjoy

[RGacky3]

I saw this speach a while back, David knows what he's talking about. Raqif, listen carefully to what he's talking about.

[Rafiq]

The basic premises is this: That before, there was always a way out for the Bourgeois classes. Now, in 2011, there is now way out.

But I think I must disagree on that point slightly. There is an alternative for the Bourgeois classes, to start running Chinese-Style capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Its probably the first time I"ll agree with you, there is an alternative for Capitalism, Slavoj Zizek points out that Chinese-Style Capitalism is now more dynamic and productive than liberal capitalism, or even social-democracies.

However I don't think that it is the only option, there is no way to predict what Capitalism can do, people thought in the great depression Capitalism was done for, then came military keynsianism.

The Chinese style capitalism with some major modifications is definately an option, but we have to remember that China is new to Capitalism, countries that are not new to Capitalism won't have the same space to grow as China does, it would require significant creative destruction and restructuring.

But its not the bourgeois classes making decisions, I think thats the wrong way to look at it, its the flow of capitalism and the demands of the market.

However I think David Harvey makes a good point in saying that we are reaching a critical stage, Capitalism as is cannot continue, financialization can only go so far, but what comes next is very unlikely to be socialism or anything like it. I think the unemployment in the west is going to start becoming permanent, and just a factor, the prison industrial complex with grow to deal with it.

[Thirsty Crow]

The basic premises is this: That before, there was always a way out for the Bourgeois classes. Now, in 2011, there is now way out.

But I think I must disagree on that point slightly. There is an alternative for the Bourgeois classes, to start running Chinese-Style capitalism.
Yeah, except that it's not a viable alternative. Consider the mountains of sovereign debt, and that exactly would skyrocket if failing enerprises and financial institutions would be nationalized (even in the "top of the economy" scenario, undoubtedly favoured by Trotskyists of some flavour). While you you're at it, check the pulse of this living corpse we call bourgeois democracy, and you'll have to notice that there is no bourgeois political camp even remotely advocating similar measures, not even considering it (well, except for the left wing of capital masquerading as communists).

I'm afraid that the old, tried out way out of this mess is destruction of value. Or in other words, war.

[Rafiq]

Yeah, except that it's not a viable alternative. Consider the mountains of sovereign debt, and that exactly would skyrocket if failing enerprises and financial institutions would be nationalized (even in the "top of the economy" scenario, undoubtedly favoured by Trotskyists of some flavour). While you you're at it, check the pulse of this living corpse we call bourgeois democracy, and you'll have to notice that there is no bourgeois political camp even remotely advocating similar measures, not even considering it (well, except for the left wing of capital masquerading as communists).

I'm afraid that the old, tried out way out of this mess is destruction of value. Or in other words, war.

Perhaps you are correct, though I do imagine a meaner capitalism in the midst, a more Bourgeois-Authoritarian one, etc. Adopting China's style of capitalism does not just mean nationalizing institution, it would mean forcing those institutions (Big Bourgeoisie forcing smaller bourgeoisie) to cooperate with the bourgeois state. I don't even think a big war is going to get us out of this mess.

Think about it, in today's times, there can not be any more real "wars" between powers, as these would just lead to nuclear wars. Not only that, with more recently developed weapons like the Neutron bomb, I think a real "War" is just going to end in the destruction of human civilization as we know it.

[RGacky3]

Adopting China's style of capitalism does not just mean nationalizing institution, it would mean forcing those institutions (Big Bourgeoisie forcing smaller bourgeoisie) to cooperate with the bourgeois state.

Its a lot more complicated than that, a lot of industry is partially nationalized, but functionally not, some of it is functionally nationalized but partially privitized, it all depends whether or not the state takes a leadership role.

You don't need wars betweel big powers, you need wars between big powers and little states.

The point is don't under estimate creative destruction under capitalism, for examples the whole creative destruction of US manufacturing and the financialization of the US economy.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, except that it's not a viable alternative. Consider the mountains of sovereign debt, and that exactly would skyrocket if failing enerprises and financial institutions would be nationalized (even in the "top of the economy" scenario, undoubtedly favoured by Trotskyists of some flavour). While you you're at it, check the pulse of this living corpse we call bourgeois democracy, and you'll have to notice that there is no bourgeois political camp even remotely advocating similar measures, not even considering it (well, except for the left wing of capital masquerading as communists).


Sovereign debt can be defualted on, that is a real threat out there, if credit ceases to be viable that destroys the financial capitalism but not necessarily capitalism itself.

nationalization can take on many forms, tons of nationalization HAS happened but only the debt, the for-profit private nature of the corporation stayed, you can't just say "nationalize" you have to explain exactly what you mean, AIG was nationalized, as was essencially the british banks, as was the American automobile industry, but theres a HUGE difference between that and the postal service.