Anti-Capitalist Chronicles: Accumulation by Dispossession 

It's always nice when you wake up and the first thing you see is a AcC podcast.

Heard a commercial today for subscribing to your furniture. `Free yourself from the burden of ownership`

Michael Hudson has some great writings and interviews on this very subject. He points out that to a large extent, interest from consumer loans-often taken on out of desperation or in the face of an emergency-is pure rent-seeking, i.e. pretty similar to the dispossession you describe. And of course, when the consumer defaults, straight-up dispossession takes place.

This is precisely what is the current strong framework of capital in Brazi. It's the era of the non-productive capital, meaning that monopolies are very strong in the main economic areas, gentrification is in full operation in the big cities, unemployment is at its highest level ever in Brazil and banks are at their best moment each year. It seems contradictory but is exactly the product of this deeply concentration of capital in the hands of a few powerful families.

Normally I'll watch RU-vid in the morning, watch Patreon and read newsletters in the evening and do some book reading in between the two (it's a complicated arrangement) but weather weirding has my schedule in flux. This video was available to me on Patreon several days ago but I just got a chance to view it. You, Dr.Wolff and Dr. Fraad are my preferred Troika for understanding Marx; a sort of organic dialectical historical materialism trying to make sense of the madness. Right now I'm metabolizing the Human laws of motion relating to rate and mass of value. Lecture's #7 and 8 of the RU-vid 12 part Marx volume #1 series has helped in this process and so did this video. I believe Capital's demise will come when value has no motion due to the mass of the Energy, Environmental and Economic crises we're in.

Thank you Professor Harvey. Insightful and informative as always.

Totally correct analysis. What would happen to the US health care system if people refused to buy health care insurance? Chaos or coping? What if students ceased all paying student debt or credit card holders refused en-mass to pay their credit card debt or auto loans? Chaos or coping?

The airports idea is so brillant. I hope we can make it one day Mr Harvey! And I hope you will be alive to see it!

I'll be coming back to hear this again for sure

Excellent.

Bernie Sanders Medicare For All has the potential to improve the health care system. People would not be dependent on company wealth for good health care. The talk points out that 2 areas of dispossession are related to pensions and health care.

David Harvey was kind of prophetic - talking about all the airports in the world shutting down - it happened during COVID yet the 1% still managed to accumulate by dispossession - tripling their wealth and assets. Would like more strategies/suggestions on how we protest this type of accumulation.

Great video

financialization is the new extractive industry- not mining or forest stripping

Airports, railways, ports...

Inflation is the major contributor to detrimental economic cycles and the focus of the rich on accumulation. It also contributes to the loss of saved dollar value for regular people.

This is what going on in India..Here big industries are being gobbled by some people giant Industries ,closer to the Government.

Dr. Wolff you had an over one hour talk on huawei and relating to that the analysis of china's growth and usa's decline. I wanted to show it to someone but couldnt find it anywhere. As far as i remember it was an economic update talk but on stage in manhattan i guess. Where did it go? love and respect from india.

I wanna see him react to cyberpunk or bladerunner so bad!

Let me get this straight here...if all airline workers in the US cease their work and demand a Medicare for All system be implemented immediately in the US in exchange for their return to work...Medicare4All would happen??? If yes, What are we waiting for???

another word for dispossession is theft

The consequences of a terrorist nuclear attack A small and primitive 1-kiloton fission bomb (with a yield of about one-fifteenth of the one dropped on Hiroshima, and certainly much less sophisticated; detonated in any large capital city of the developed world, would cause an unprecedented catastrophic scenario. An estimate of direct effects in the attack’s location includes a death toll of 7,300-to-23,000 people and 12,600-to-57,000 people injured, depending on the target’s geography and population density. Total physical destruction of the city’s infrastructure, due to the blast (shock wave) and thermal radiation, would cover a radius of about 500 meters from the point of detonation (also known as ground zero), while ionizing radiation greater than 5 Sieverts - compatible with the deadly acute radiation syndrome - would expand within an 850-meter radius. From the environmental point of view, such an area would be unusable for years. In addition, radioactive fallout would expand in an area of about 300 square kilometers, depending on meteorological conditions. But the consequences would go far beyond the effects in the target country, however, and promptly propagate worldwide. Global and national security, economy and finance, international governance and its framework, national political systems, and the behavior of governments and individuals would all be put under severe trial. The severity of the effects at a national level, however, would depend on the countries’ level of development, geopolitical location, and resilience. Global security and regional/national defense schemes would be strongly affected. An increase in global distrust would spark rising tensions among countries and blocs, that could even lead to the brink of nuclear weapons use by states (if, for instance, a sponsor country is identified). The consequences of such a shocking scenario would include a decrease in states’ self-control, an escalation of present conflicts and the emergence of new ones, accompanied by an increase in military unilateralism and military expenditures. Regarding the economic and financial impacts, a severe global economic depression would rise from the attack, likely lasting for years. Its duration would be strongly dependent on the course of the crisis. The main results of such a crisis would include a 2 percent fall of growth in global Gross Domestic Product, and a 4 percent decline of international trade in the two years following the attack. In the case of developing and less-developed countries, the economic impacts would also include a shortage of high-technology products such as medicines, as well as a fall in foreign direct investment and a severe decline of international humanitarian aid toward low-income countries. We expect an increase of unemployment and poverty in all countries. Global poverty would raise about 4 percent after the attack, which implies that at least 30 million more people would be living in extreme poverty, in addition to the current estimated 767 million. In the area of international relations, we would expect a breakdown of key doctrines involving politics, security, and relations among states. These international tensions could lead to a collapse of the nuclear order as we know it today, with a consequent setback of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation commitments. In other words, the whole system based on the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty would be put under severe trial. After the attack, there would be a re-assessment of existing security doctrines, and a deep review of concepts such as nuclear deterrence, no-first-use, proportionality, and negative security assurances. Finally, the behavior of governments and individuals would also change radically. Internal chaos fueled by the media and social networks would threaten governance at all levels, with greater impact on those countries with weak institutional frameworks. Social turbulence would emerge in most countries, with consequent attempts by governments to impose restrictions on personal freedoms to preserve order - possibly by declaring a state of siege or state of emergency - and legislation would surely become tougher on human rights. There would also be a significant increase in social fragmentation - with a deepening of antagonistic views, mistrust, and intolerance, both within countries and towards others - and a resurgence of large-scale social movements fostered by ideological interests and easily mobilized through social media. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Q4LejOtYiyw.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8bfQBBctSXM.html

Only the workers can control capitalism. The people massively involved with capitalism have no control over it , infact, they prefer uncontrolled capitalism. Workers have three advantages:they do the actual work, they are major consumerz of capitalism, and they can hit the street in massive numbers.

why is this video privatized and therefore unsaveable?

capitalist state/state capitalist

40k is hard to live on? Social security disability pays 1300 a month... we make less than 20k a year.. not that it's right to lose pensions, I'm more saying that good lord I'd love to live in a country that considered 40k to be a baseline. America is a 3rd world country, a military dictatorship owned by the corporations.

But...they have robots now...

The vast majority of "homeowners" who were "removed by disposession" in the 2008 sub-prime mortgage collapse, lost little or nothing, because they had made no down payment, and indeed had often been living for extended periods without even making any monthly payments. Their only "loss" was the inconvenience of having to move.

Google featured twice in this episode, the first time as an example of centralization through mergers and "the big fish swallowing the smaller ones". I'd like to point out that this is not just a general capitalist mechanism at work, it is in this particular example tremendously amplified through "network effects": clearly, since Google is an interNET corporation, it is affected by such effects. In a nutshell a network gets better if there are viewer in the extreme only a single provider of some services. Take the electric grid: A single large supplier can balance network load a lot more efficiently, since he has a larger network at his disposal, compared to several small ones, where a certain company might experience overproduction of power and does not know where to put it, while another has currently a hard time supplying enough power to its part of the system. So network effects give rise to "natural monopolies" where it's better to have less of "free market competition". Thus, in part, it's not Google's (malicious) capitalist fault that it acquired lots of smaller companies, it's to some extent due to networks favoring natural monopolies. Is it therefore OK or a good thing, that private companies rule network monopolies (or quasi-monopolies)? Of course not! Experience has time and again demonstrated that such monopolies (as any other "nonnatural" ones) lead to neglect of infrastructure, being prone to massively negative effects if the provided service defaults, very expensive charges compared to production costs, etc. The consequence should be that such branches of economy should not be run privately, but in a common way. In today's western world that mostly means that such network service, that have become essentially indisposable for modern society, should be run by the state. In my opinion this includes telecommunication infrastructure, but also search engines, common exchange platforms called "social media", public transportation (buses, inter city railways, ...), (waste) water supply, electricity, providence of identity cards and a democratic vote system on state power to name a view. I would not like to see media in general being state run, mind you, because that opens up the door for state propaganda, but the infrastructure on which media are run. So: Networks favor monopolies, but private monopolies are bad in the long run, therefore associated services should be state run (in a future utopia where states are no longer needed they should be commonly organized in some other way). If you want a "good example" on how NOT to deal with a networked service look into the details of the British railway system during the last 40 years. I hope the internet will not provide another such example of how to not do it.

Dispossessioning is what china does right now :-)

There's a massive amount of rambling nonsense in this piece, even by Harvey standards!

Nothing new. Marx is saying the same with respect to crisis. Cheaper prices and accumulation. Engels spoke of the pushing out the the homeless for the landlords. This nonsense about the Accumulation of the dispossesion is only a measure of the size of businesses. The Accumulation has increased because only the 1 percent can afford to accumulate it. Stop pretending to find something new.

He is silent about the dispossession of the affluent classes by welfare and race quotas.