@@carlosescudero9845 be careful where you plant it, though. (And preferably avoid planting it outdoors at all.) Where I live, it's a highly noxious invasive, and I have to dedicate loads of my gardening efforts to maniacally hunting down the bulbs of this plant, countless thousands of which are now littered around my garden, lest it spread like wildfire and choke out everything in its path!
🌹🌹👍👍❤️❤️I ’m not able to say how much I love U,Richard Harvey,because not only ,I learn about the base of our world problems but also ,Learn about Ur kindens and the spritual personality ofcurse!! I from 40 years ago as Iranian activist student in U.S. been familare to Marxisem and I am now member of sweden communist party,but nerver could understand things about Marxisem ,the way now ,I see and listen to Ur youtub videos! I wish U a long live for teaching us ! By the way ,I hane the same buterfly flower on Ur left in my room and love it.Good luck to U!🌹🌸🌺🥀👍
Always a buzz to see a new upload in this excellent series. Liked & shared. Having read (large parts of) The Grundrisse with Prof Harvey's able guidance & aid references to any of the many jewels buried within that text are always welcome - these were good ones. All that is solid...
I'll have to buy the Grundrisse and add it to my reading list. I've read "The Communist Manifesto," "Wages, Price and Profit," and "Critique of the Gotha Programme," thus far, but I find reading Marx sometimes difficult. He wrote in that dry 19th Century style that we see with writers like James Fenimore Cooper, Herman Melville and others. It's essential for Marxist-Leninists to read other works, especially Lenin, who brought the theories of Marx into the 20th Century and beyond. "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism," "State and Revolution," and "What Is To Be Done?" are all necessary texts, and Stalin's writings are also quite illuminating. There's so much to read. From one comrade to another: if you haven't read William Z. Foster yet, I would suggest you read him. "Toward Soviet America," which I just finished, is a very powerful read, although a bit dated (1932), and you can tell, in reading it, that he didn't foresee the McCarthyist Era nor the creation of a widely revisionist "Synthetic Left" in the US.
@@itzenormous Some general advice to those daunted by Marx's texts. Give it time - it's such a large body of work; I've taken it in by a process of osmosis & lots of online reading groups (real-life ones better but a thing of the past) along with bursts of intense reading when I get time with paper books. But I'm in my 60s now so there's that! (Been on the left for 40+ years) Just saying, take it in at your own pace & talk to other Marxists/Leftists. Prof Harvey's courses on Capital are excellent. There's always so much reading to do - your recommendations noted. Greetings comrade.
I've read all 3 Capital volumes, and as Big G Haywood says anything written by Marx is a slog. While Marx opened my eyes and helped me to articulate the condition of working people, his writing is also repetitive, verbose, sentences running 12 lines or so and paragraphs running 1.5 pages straight. Throughout his works are walls of text. But I did it. Took me 2.5 years to get through it but I did it. I like Marx a lot but I don't think I can go through another one of his works. If I did I'd probably go through Theories of Surplus Value, which is considered Volume 4 by Marx/Engels themselves in v1, but it's as long as the first two volumes combined. Sorry, can't do it. Before reading Marx I didn't need reading glasses. Red Tide is right, if anyone undertakes Marx please give yourself plenty of time. If you can only get through 5 pages at a time as I had to, then so be it. Because his subject matter is a must-read for those trying to make some sense out of what all's going on today. I wish there were reading groups dedicated to Marx where I live, but I live in the South so good luck finding those people.
Nice flower! Socialism or Barbarism! As another poster has put it so eloquently, David Harvey, you have nurtured it from mere existence to fulfillment of its essence!
13:50 those "minimal pleasures" can get old, quickly. also, of course, all those "inventions/innovations" almost always had taxpayer investment, and the taxpayer was cut out of the deal so someone could privatize that shit and pretend capitalism is real.
I don't understand why the professor is trying to politically correct marx. This is a critique of capitalism. It states what capitalism is. No need for apologetics. Vicious anthropocentrism is capitalism. How our inevitable anthropocentrism will transform when capital is overcome will be what that overcoming is about. Marx always scorned prescriptive descriptions of communist society. We are creatures of our age. A new age will be truly new or nothing new. Revolution defined is revolution denied.
Just think about the world of wonders that these productive forces could be utilized to create under a Socialist system. So much more human creativity could be unleashed, and the limits of technology would no longer be artificially constrained by competitive and self-preserving interests. So many more people could be educated and unshackled to contribute to our developing world, rather than being constrained to meaningless service sector jobs enriching a class of people who do not work. "Socialism with American Characteristics" could create the greatest society that the world has ever seen; but if we continue on the current path, restrained by Capitalism, this bourgeois class is going to bring about environmental destruction, or they are going to steer the people of this country into an apocalyptic world war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. We have to stop them. It is time to truly unleash the greatness of our country, its people, and create peaceful cooperation around the world.
A Cactus Rose; the Geist is strong within you Mate. I noticed you have another plant blooming; the ability to nurture organism's from existence to essence is a part of that which is most Divine. This episode was so refreshing because the Grundrisse is one of my favorite writings by Marx. I bought the book last year, started reading the introduction, I planned to do an audio book reading along with your People's Forum NYC lecture ( I did something similar with your Capital Volume One series) and then the final battle began. I'd like to say I'm a poet and scholar in the tradition of the Ancients but in reality I'm a Soldier. And just like a medieval Knight I've been tasked to fight in the name of my Mother and Father's House. This battle is almost over now; the best analogy I've heard to describe where we are in this battle is the analogy of the last 20 minutes of the Titanic sinking. This is the last "3" minutes for this sinking ship and after the war ends I hope to return to my poetry and complete the Grundrisse audio book reading. I'm a soldier though and as with all battles there is the understanding there will be losses but I don't fight because I believe every battle is winnable. I fight because the very arc of my becoming depends on the dialectic of the "from death there will be rebirth." As all "Growers" of organic life understand there has to be an unfolding as Geist becomes Sovereign; existence dying and essence once again born anew.
I got the impression you are not taking the gravitas of our existential climate crisis nearly serious enough. Theories, and the interpolations and extrapolations thereof, are quite engrossing. But not to the point of losing sight of the climate change calamity coming our way. BTW, it's already here.
Yet humans are a product of nature, so you can imagine the dilemma of dominating it as opposed to stewardship. Those are fundamentally opposed concepts.
Dominate nature. This is the point when you must ask what that means. It means control. And as Marx is always asking us to what ends we should have control over anything. What are we going to do with it? This is what it ultimately comes down to. Are we developing our society for the betterment of mankind or for monetary gains? Why do we invent so many things that saves us time, only to have that turned over into profits? Would it not be to give us more time to actually live, to be creative and develop our societies? In the environmental aspect it's pure madness to take fish out of the Atlantic. ship it to the other side of the world, have it processed in a low wage country and then shipped back to be sold where it first was caught. Using lots of resources doing that. In capitalism it makes perfect sense if you make 5 cents extra per fish. The same goes for the enormous use of plastics. It is used extensively even when it's not needed and other materials are suitable. Because you can make 1 cent extra.
I think Marx gives too much credit to Capitalism for technological revolutions. The evolution of human knowledge and techniques of production should be considered separately from the mode of production in certain ways. Put it this way, if there’s intelligent alien civilisations out there with advanced technologies, it is not a necessary historical condition that they passed through a Capitalist mode of production to get there. However, it would be a necessary historical condition that these aliens would have discovered the same natural scientific laws and industrial technologies as us.
i think capitalism, through the valorization of profit, just accelerated the technological development but isn't a necessary condition for technology to thrive
(This is not a dig on David Harvey, just a random thought; supplement to your news/education) Anyone who reads this who would like a community of sane, like-minded people (REAL progressive, socialist and other leftwing people) and a comedian turned journalist (out of necessity because our media is so horrible) check out the Jimmy Dore show on RU-vid.
try Thought Slime, Mexie, Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints, Non-compete, Vaush, Hbomberguy, Three Arrows, Shaun, Innuendo Studios, Big Joel, Angie Speaks (I think that's what it's called)
Indeed, I don't think both descriptions are mutually exclusive, but it's especially heartbreaking to see how we cannot transcend the 2nd description in particular to universally share in the realized potential of the 1st. The old is dying and the new cannot be born.
The discussion of Marx's idea of the domination of nature leaves out the point that human beings are interwoven with nature and have a nature as a species. I don't pretend to be a Marx expert, hence my interest in this discussion, but I take it that in making his remarks, Marx was buying into the radical distinction between the human animal and the rest of nature. That's too bad in a way, since his description of capitalism's domination of nature also applies to human nature. On the other hand, it's notoriously difficult to distinguish the elements of humanity that are produced by nature from the elements that are produced by culture. But by failing to weave humanity into his vision of what nature is, Marx may be slanting our consideration of what creates our alienation from nature in an unproductive way.
Efficiency of business or state can lead to marginalization. When the marginalization becomes evident as now, the costs rise as the system becomes more humane. A separate thing is the problematic nature of business products (including cars) that purport to make your life 'easier'. The human body is meant to be used. It seems to me that the way society is structured creates problems and these problems are both lucrative and a source of innovation. Cities are great if you have enough money, if not they suck. The move to cities was inspired by economic and social reasons, then the cities became the mechanism generating misery for those incapable of fitting themselves into a restrained system. Like the school system, some do better than others...reminds me of plant breeding and selecting for certain traits. So the business product that purports to make your life easier resembles the city that promised fun and money and the society that sprang from the freedom of efficiency of acquiring resources, and safety for the group, that's turned into the opposite unless you conform.
try Thought Slime, Mexie, Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints, Non-compete, Vaush, Hbomberguy, Three Arrows, Shaun, Innuendo Studios, Big Joel, Angie Speaks (I think that's what it's called), etc.
When you listen to this kind of stuff, you begin to wonder whether Marx (and Harvey) really understand what the hell capital is? Capital is NOT esoteric, capital is NOT mysterious, capital is NOT greedy nor evil , capital is just SOMEBODY'S SAVINGS, for gawdsake!
