That's the contradiction explained in Poverty Amidst Plenty. At no point do people want to be homeless, they just can't afford their homes. it's not a problem of supply or demand of houses , it's a problem of the supply and demand of money. Is there a lack of trees or carpenters or land to develop in the United States? absolutely not. Do people want to live in the street? absolutely not. The US is the largest, most developed economy in human history and in a single year millions lost their homes and their pensions and jobs without a war or a natural disaster. Harvey explains that houses primary purpose have become as financial assets instead of shelter. When you treat homes and the mortgages associated with them like bitcoin, when the bubble bursts people don't just see their crypto wallet worth nothing, they lose their homes.

@@jacobjones630 well the point of US becoming so rich is the absolute financialisation of the system, otherwise you can’t develop productivity fast enough to have such high growth % a year from the industrialisation era. This includes housing, healthcare, public transport, etc.

@@elaleyo The US is wealthy because of our vast natural and human resources. Financialization and speculation is like whip cream on a cake. it makes the cake bigger but it's mostly air. the amount of air to cake is becoming increasingly unbalanced and unless we reign in the absolute financialization of every single part of the economy, the entire thing will become unstable and collapse like in the 1930s. You can't have compounding growth year over year forever. There aren't enough goods or services on the planet for that. The insatiable profit motive will therefore turn to riskier and more speculative forms of money creation, like gambling on mortgage debt, combining securities into riskier and riskier assets, and crushing competition by forming monopolies and cartels. We either end this kind of unproductive greed or it is going to end us.

+sab287Leporidae Your confusing political analysis with tin foil hat behaviour. Bill Gates a socialist? Go and have a cold shower amigo.

nakedmambo ahhh no I am not but nice try, you must have taken classes from a old line SOCIALIST ! Are you going to tell me next that Marxism is more of a Cultural movement not economic ?

No it's completely economic. In my long experience it is only right-wing dunces who bleat about 'cultural Marxism'.

Quite. I'm the loser, yet you type in all capitals and repeat the word 'Child' eight times like a child having a tantrum. You're no competition, because you know nothing.

nakedmambo ha ha haha , ohhh this is way to funny , this is incredible a SOCIALIST IDIOT , he is all so full of himself as he is posting on what appears to be a OFFICIAL GEORGE SOROS KZbin VID AND PAGE , TELLS ME BECAUSE I TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND REPEAT THE WORD " CHILD " , THAT DEQUALIFIES ME , O H YOU ARE A LEFTIST SNAKE ! LOOK " DICK WEED " , DON'T SLITHER OUT OF A CONVERSATION LIKE THIS , YOU HAVE NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR MANIA , THIS SICKNESS CALLED " SOCIALISM ! IF I COULD PUT YOU IN CHAINS , RACK YOU AND THEN SEND YOU TO THE GALLOWS WITH THE REST OF YOUR KIND , THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WHICH WOULD SATISFY ME GREATLY ! PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE CAUSED WARS , FAMINES , MASS PURSECUTIONS , THE DEATH OF MILLIONS , THATS RIGHT MILLIONS ! WWI , WWII , KOREA , VIETNAM , , THE COMMUNES OF AFRICA , SOUTH , SOUTH CENTRAL AMERICA , ASIA AND THE MOST REPRESSIVE OF NATIONS IN EUROPA, THE CANADAS , ASSIE LAND DEALT SUCH AN ONCREDIBLE BLOW TO THE WILLS OF PEOPLE WHO I'M GENETICALLY RELATED TO ( EUROPEANS ) THAT THE LOSE OF SELF ESTEEM AKA " SENSE OF SELF " , IS STAGGERING , ITS PURE HUMAN ANGUISH !! YOU GET ANY RAT BASTARD SOCIALIST IN FRONT OF OF THEM IN A CONVERSATION ( I DO IT ALL THE TIME ) !! HEY SICKO , WHY DON'T YOU FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION ON THE MASSIVE WEALTH INEQUALITY WHICH THE MONARCHS , THEIR ARISTOCRACIES , NOBILTIES AND ASSOCIATED OLIGARCHIC MONARCHS POSSESS THROUGHOUT EUROPE , THE MIDDLE EAST/ NORTH AFRICA , PAKISTAN !! INCREDIBLE , PYSCHO SOROS , THAT SICK MALEVOLENT BEING , HIS SON ALSO , HE SHOULD BE DEPORTED BACK TO HUNGARY OR THROWN IN JAIL FOR TREASON , THE TRAITORIOUS BASTARD HE HE , HIS UGLY NOSE IS IN THE POLTICS OF EUROPE AND ELSWHERE , HE SHOULD SPEAK ABOUT THE MASSIVE WEALTH OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE !! THE PEOPLE OF BRITANIA LOST THEIR LAND IN 1066 ad TO WILLIAM THE CONQUER , THE DUKE ( DUCK ) OF NORMANDY AFTER HE DEFEATED THE EARL OF WESSEX HAROLD GODWINSONS !! Godwinson , the man who would be king , the man who would be " the last elected king " was backed by the dying Edward the III but William defied the tradition , would even fight their cousin , Harold of Norway , defeat him also and then Godwinson at the battle of HASTNGS !! You litle rat , you son of a bitch , you abortion , your mother should never have given birth to you , you defend MONARCHIES , THESE MERCANTILIST . FEUDAL OVERLORDS AS THEY CONTINUE ON FOR ANOTHER CENTURY OPPRESSING THE PEOPLE EUROPE AND ELSEWHERE , HORDING WEALTH THAT NEVER BELONG TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE , NOT EVEN GRANTING PROPER " PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS " AT LEAST APPEASEING THE " PEASANTS OF THE WORLD AKA ORDINARY PEOPLE !! YOU SCUM , YOU VIRUS , YOU LESS THAN A SINGLE CELLED PROTOZOAN !! I HOPE YOU AND YOURS " GET WHAT YOU HAVE COMING "!! ALL GOOD THINGS COME IN TIME !! ALL GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WAIT ! YOU'LL GET YOURS IN " SPADES "!! GEORGIE AND COMPANY , THOSE LIKE HIM WILL GET THINGS IN SPADES !! THERE IS A GOD , THERE IS A GOD !! YOU WILL ALL BURN FOR YOUR ACTIONS YOU WILL BE CONSIGNED TO THE 9TH CIRCLE OF HELL ! I LOOK FORWARD TO THE TIME WHEN I LOOK DOWN ON ALL OF YOU FROM ABOVE !

David Lilley Popper's Open Society is actually very unfair to Marx. Popper identifies Marx - along with Plato and Hegal - as the father of modern totalitarianism. That accusation is completely unfair and very misleading. Plato was a proto-fascist. Arguably, so was Hegel. But not Marx - not at all! One cannot blame Marx for the crimes of Lenin and Stalin and Mao just because these dictators appropriated Marx' name to provide intellectual justification for their regimes. Popper focuses his critique on what he calls Marx's "historicism", i.e., his notion of historical inevitability and dialectical progression that Marx borrowed from Hegel. But Marx was primarily a social critic and revolutionary and a very profound analyst of the capitalist economic system. Obviously, it is foolish to think that one can apply scientific methods that are used in the natural sciences to the so-called social sciences. Marx was not a scientist. Neither was Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J. M. Keynes, Hayek, Friedman, et al.. Indeed, as Popper himself concedes, there never can be a true science of human behavior at all - not sociology, psychology, economics, etc.. Leaving aside the scientific pretense, however, and you will find that the essential thrust of Marx's critique of capitalism is true. Leave aside the 19th century pretensions of History and the inevitability of Progress, and focus instead on the social and economic critique and you will find much that is worthwhile. Popper advocates what he calles the Open Society which is all very nice - but he fails to grasp that capitalism and genuine democracy are mutually incompatible, something Marx did, in fact, understand. Popper's defense of liberal and democratic society is actually as utopian as the social schemes of Plato that he dismisses. Popper ignores the class antagonisms that underlie capitalism and the concentration of welath in fewer and fewer hands. But how can there be anything like genuine individual liberty or democracy when the vast majority of people own nothing but their own labor power and a tiny handfull of corporations and bankers own and control virtually all the wealth and capital in the society? As a social philosopher, Popper is really quite superficial. He never tries to come to grips with the basic unfairness of capitalism.

David Lilley As far as logic is concerned, it is generally useless when arguing about politics and religion because people are attached to their religious and political views based far more on emotion and subjective values than on logic and knowledge.

Steven Yourke Excellent comment. I take my hat off to you.It is over forty years since I read everything published by Popper whilst studying mechanical engineering. As I recall Marx was far from being his target. Popper had great respect for Marx the man and his economics. Popper even agreed that it was "scientific socialism" but then Popper rewrote the book on the scientific method and Marxism ceased to be scientific thereafter.Popper was disgusted by Hegel and his state sponsored bumptiousness and found the Hegelian connection to be the main fault of the Marxist unstoppable march of history.I could revisit the Open Society but I do thinking and hate research by which I mean I am lazy. But I noted that Popper's biggest criticism of Marxism was that the UK introduced "state interventionism" which destroyed the idea of the rich getting richer and wealth equating to power and ultimately that the proletariat would stop capitalism with a revolution and we would finish in an end state with communism. But Marx only wrote a couple of pages on communism and never explained why the dialectic triad should suddenly stop working.When folk bring up capitalism today I immediately think of Popper's "state interventionism". No matter how rich you are you cannot send six year olds up chimneys. We killed off the inexorable march of capitalism even before Marx wrote Das Capital. The next step would be the "mixed economy", part public sector and part private sector and not communism. The Whigs led the way until we had universal suffrage.Today we love Adam Smith's invisible hand, Mill's complete freedom of the individual (provided that he doesn't interfere with the freedom of others), Mill's limitation of the power of the state and Popper's defence of the Open Society ( the only form of society where you can change the administration without violence).But also, with Mill and reinforced by Popper, rule by the majority is the worst form of tyranny. It is "vulgar" democracy but unfortunately it is the common understanding of democracy.

+Steven Yourke This is basically true. You cannot talk to a religious fanatic, a Marxist or an anarchist. Most of the former have no choice. There is no way out. Apostasy means death.We have a few Marxists in the UK but they cannot read and write. The old school Marxists, the British Communist Party, disappeared shortly after the publication of the pheasant president's autobiography in 1967. It is incredible that he could write and incredible that it wasn't translated into French, Italian and Greek. They still have anarchists in Greece and they have no idea of parliamentary democracy but only what Mill and Popper called "vulgar" democracy, the tyranny of the majority over the minorities. The worst kind of tyranny.No-one ever invented a religion. No-one is religious. Polytheism beat animism with its superior explanatory power. Monotheism beat polytheism with its superior explanatory power. Religion is about clinging to the old cosmology. Today we do objective knowledge. If it doesn't correspond with the facts its rubbish. If it is untestable its rubbish. If it is belief or opinion (subjective knowledge) it is rubbish. We only allow the best argument to win.The best argument is the one that corresponds with the facts.I welcome comment.

+David Lilley Read his book nearly 30 years ago. Since then it has suffered as much criticism as he gives to the ideas he discusses. Join the queue of desperate hopers who think they have finally buried Marx. If it were true people like you wouldn't keep going on about it.

AlanLSG Please come back to me. I visited your site but I couldn't make comment. I can make comment or every site that you may detest because they all respect "freedom of speech". The BBC, Sky, Wall St Journal, Reuters etc.You do know how much we borrow every week via the Debt Management Office. We have no money. Austerity has been pretty scarce. Government spending has increased every year since 2010. You do know that in 2010 we had to borrow £1 for every £4 that our servants spent.Please explain that austerity is a sham. I'm listening.This is an open question. You are all invited to comment.

David Lilley Hi David have no idea why you could not link to or make a comment as there are ones there already. In the UK we could clear the National Debt and thus the Deficit each year by charging the Robin Hood Tax of 0.5% on the £1trillion a day FGX/Financial transactions in the City of London and thus have more than enough to spen on Infrastructure/Homes/NHS etc etc Everything is built on Credit and that is about to go pop as we are seeing in the World Economies that rely on it.

+AlanLSG The Robin Hood tax was advanced by Gordon Brown and is now re-launched by Jeremy Corbin. It sounds great to the average man in the street because it sounds like money for nothing but there is no such thing as a fee lunch. We would all have to pay it in increased bank charges and pension charges.

+David Lilley This small charge on the FX/Financial transactions suggested would truly change and reset the UK eceonomy and would not entail the Banks increaing charges as they could be paid a small % of what they collect to cover those costs it just need to be calculated and instigated no matter what the Ban ksters and Coprs say as it spreads the cost and changes so much for so many and we will see what happens in next 5 years as Austerit will truly bite and must be changed.

+David Lilley No such thing as a free lunch? You must not know much about American politics. The biggest free lunch is capitalism. The working class produces value and the capitalists take it and don't pay for it. Actually it's more like robbery than a free lunch.

Steven Yourke How can you say this? He's an idiot. You have read Popper, he obviously hasn't. We stand on the shoulders of giants and see further.All comments welcome.

Popper is Great , I love Dave here but he is a nut , of the old marxist school anyway here is a reading list. Karl Marx, Racist, By Weyl Nathaniel ( Recommended) The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich von Hayek A World Without Jews. By (the racist) Karl Marx The Open Society and its Enemies, by Karl Popper Marx's Religion of Revolution: Regeneration Through Chaos by Gary North PhD. Communist Eschatology, by Francis Nigel Lee PhD. Socialism, by Ludwig Von Mises

Marx and Keynes are hugely important, whether we agree with them or not. (I do not). I appreciate the efforts of Harvey and his ilk for trying to help us understand what Marx was going on about and why he still appeals to people.

More reading: "Karl Marx and the Close of His System" by Bohm-Bawerk "Planned Chaos" by Mises "Classical Economics" by Rothbard "Main Currents of Marxism" by Kolakowski "Darwin, Marx, Wagner" by Jacques Barzun "The Drama of Atheistic Humanism" by Henri de Lubac "Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx, and Freud" by R.F. Baum "The Passing of an Illusion" by Francois Furet "Communism" by Richard Pipes "The Soviet Tragedy" by Martin Malia

Sounds interesting.

There's a number of things wrong with what your analysis. 1) It is wrong to say that human nature is inherently base. Humans are remarkably flexible. They bend and sway with their environment. If you have a socioeconomic system that is based on greed, you will produce mainly greedy humans. If you have one based on needs and sharing, you will produce more compassionate humans. It seems we're inherently greedy, because capitalism is all we know (and sadly is probably all we'll ever know). Humans have been around for 200,000 years and for the vast majority of that time, we lived communally in egalitarian societies. It was because of scarcity around 10,000 years ago that class divided societies began to emerge, and then the dark side of humans developed. So lets change the system, to improve human behaviour. 2) You have a very West-centric view of the world. You say 'people like to own stuff' and they dont want to give up that privilege. But you ignore the fact that billions of people around the world dont even have drinkable water, or enough food. Believe me, the last thing theyre thinking is owning surplus wealth. They just want to survive. The global capitalist system has not been kind to them. 3) Who says you cant be an individual under socialism? In fact, its under capitalism that over the half the world are reduced to virtual slaves living in grotesque conditions of abject poverty. Under socialism, everyone would have the material wherewithal to live meaningful lives and to be able to follow their own dreams. 4) You suggest China is communist. Let's be clear, communism / socialism has never existed, because working people have never been in control of the means of production. China is an example of state capitalism, as is North Korea, Cuba, the USSR etc etc. They're still systems based on profit, only its a small political bureaucracy who owns the capital.

Nevertheless, and believe me I am sympathetic to socialism and class myself as a socialist, as Zizek has pointed out it is easier for our cultural imaginary to contemplate the destruction of all life on earth (The Road, Deep Impact) than it is to contemplate an alternative to capitalism, whether on western model, Chinese model, etc. I'm not saying that this is a satisfactory state of affairs, but addressing dominator culture... as Terence Mckenna calls it, needs to be a part of the solution.

Also I am unconvinced by the communal society prelapserian argument. Many "primitive " societies of hunter gatherers are rigidly hierarchical. Yes agricultural technologies may exaggerate the notion of land owned and defended, but we are not in a position to feed the world's poor by hunting and gathering any longer. Our population as a species has become agriculture dependent.

luckyswine Ok fair enough, it sounds like Im preaching to the largely converted! I agree with you re addressing the dominant culture. This is essentially what Gramsci was talking about when he talks of 'war of position'. And you're right, it's going to be fucking hard to change people's minds on that. But if we dont, capitalist induced climate change will doom us within the next 50 years. So we have everything to gain in trying. 'we are not in a position to feed the world's poor by hunting and gathering any longer', Thats absolutely true. But we ARE in a position to feed the word through socialism. Anyway, I was simply making the case that theres nothing inherently greedy in human nature, and pre-neolithic hunter gatherer society demonstrates that.

Can you show research to demonstrate this?

ondank There's a book called 'the problem with interest' by Tarek El Diwany. A practical model will be coming to Pakistan in the coming years.

Waqas Amin Back when the charging of interest was disallowed by law, there was no way for an entrepreneur to get started, unless he had already inherited money or happened to befriend a rich guy willing to give him charity. I don't see what the problem with interest is supposed to be? Surely, paying a little extra to have something before you can afford it, isn't all that different from paying someone to deliver something to your door so you don't have to drive and pick it up. Either way, someone has to offer to do it, and someone has to think it's a sufficiently good deal to warrant consideration. Not to mention, I think it's a good thing that producers of goods are penlized for taking time. There should definitely be a premium for shortening your production processes - not to mention a baseline safe return on investment, against which you can compare your entrepreneurial projects. I can kind of see how someone could think it's a good idea to oppose private property (if I tilt my head and squint, and the light falls just right.) Democracy is a common enough ideal, and not for entirely bad reasons, and the idea of having something of your very own which is not available to the rest of society does run contrary to that ideal. But, once you've accepted private property and trade, then how can you take umbridge with something as innocuous as paying a premium for early access?

A person in a privileged position in a communist society questioning that communist society would be dead or in a gulag. That's the first difference.

Stupid comment. Harvey does not own the means of production. Your ignorance is amazing.