David Harvey on capital, theory, and becoming a Marxist

For fifty years David Harvey has written and lectured on Capital, becoming one of the world’s foremost Marx scholars. In addition, his work on the history and geography of capitalist development has transformed our understanding of neoliberalism and the spread of inequalities across the globe.
In this interview David Harvey recalls the formation of his Marxist ideas, intellectual influences, and writing. He also talks about the growth of the populist right and how that is connected to geographical electoral splits, Marx's Grundrisse (which he has written a companion to - see below), and Marx's theories more broadly.
David Harvey teaches at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and is the author of many books, including:
A Companion to Marx's Grundrisse www.versobooks.com/products/2...
A Companion To Marx's Capital: The Complete Edition www.versobooks.com/products/8...
Spaces of Global Capitalism: A Theory of Uneven Geographical Development www.versobooks.com/products/1...
Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution www.versobooks.com/products/2...
The Limits to Capital www.versobooks.com/products/1...
See all his work here: www.versobooks.com/blogs/auth...
His website is davidharvey.org.
He is interviewed here by Sebastian Budgen, Editorial Director, Verso Books.

[@allypoum]

I'm entirely on board with the professor in his impatience with those intent on adjectivizing and euphemizing capitalism. I cringe every time someone is clearly talking about capitalism but are at pains to misdirect our brains with terms like "corporate greed" - it's a subtle but effective means of keeping our eyes off the ball.

[@collbair]

Most left wing politicians do that for strategic reasons. You gotta take into consideration that the overwhelming majority of people in western democraties have 0 political education and are brainwashed from a very young age to associate criticism of capitalism with gulags.

[@massgeneral9873]

great point. wonder what you make of the sudden proliferation of the term 'elites'? i've noticed its appearance in essays and articles by populists of all denominations, and it has a certain utility, but i'm wary of creating more euphemisms for 'ruling class,' 'capitalist class,' etc.

[@allypoum]

@@massgeneral9873 I agree. The term elite is vague and not inconsistent with extreme reactionary ideologies not the least of which is anti-semitism. I guess if you want to hedge your bets and not betray yourself as a class traitor it helps to keep your enemies amorphous.

[@collbair]

@@massgeneral9873 Terrible word, terrible concept. "Elites" belongs to fascists. The proof is in the fact that it contains nothing pertaining to relations of productions. It's an abstract idea used to mobilize masses. Historically was used to describe the supposed sexual depravity of "the elites", or the people in the world of culture supposedly corrupting the youth. Not surprising that you hear this word a lot in conspiracy theorists circles Edit: just realised you weren't talking to me, whatever

[@queenieman6883]

'corporate greed' and 'crony capitalism' etc is exactly what those on the left (louis Blanc etc) meant when using the word 'capitalism' mid 19th century onwards until Von Mises and i imagine others aimed at reclaiming the word as a positive to pretty much mean free enterprise and 'market liberalism'. All around the time of the Bolshevik Communism 'system' being propagandised through the US cultural exports as the complete opposite and antithesis of the 'western capitalism' system

[@geocouple]

What a fantastic interview! I've watched it several times and saved its script. I am currently working on a book about Professor David Harvey. I believe that Professor Harvey's ideas deserve to be as famous as those of Marx, which is why I am dedicating my efforts to this project. I am eager to interview him, and if anyone knows how to contact Professor Harvey, please let me know. Your assistance is greatly appreciated, as I am in great need of this information.

[@garysantos7053]

Capital’s idea of a future Utopia with the benefits of Artificial Intelligence does not mean a Utopia of Humanity for Humanity's sake, "It means a future Utopia of Capital for Capital’s sake."

[@nayaraspohr]

00:02 David Harvey became a Marxist through studying urban planning and economics 02:30 Using Marx's Capital to analyze urban studies 07:08 Importance of Marx's work and reading in influencing your views 09:40 David Harvey's Marxism is drawn from practical experience in urban settings. 14:40 David Harvey's immersion in Marxism was associated with his experience in the United States. 17:01 David Harvey found Corbin's influence on the democratized left very hopeful. 21:28 David Harvey's early interest in geography and the influence of his mother's expectations. 23:42 Raymond Williams found it difficult to articulate certain ideas except in novel form. 28:08 Harvey discusses the interrelation between place, space, and environment. 30:29 Marx's Theory incorporates the idea of a rising mass in the context of climate change and its relationship with capital. 34:45 David Harvey reflects on the significance of settling scores with post-modernism and post-structuralism 36:49 Postmodernism and flexible accumulation from a Marxist perspective. 40:29 Revival of debate on anti-capitalist strategies 42:27 Understanding the concept of capital active today is important for future actions. 46:35 Challenges in achieving socialist revolution 48:47 Concentration of wealth and power needs to be addressed for the stability of capitalism. 52:54 Geography should be open to various critical perspectives. 55:11 The need to understand and look at the ideas of mutual aid and the actions of the Kurdish movement 59:46 Rural revitalization in China has effectively doubled rural incomes. 1:01:44 David Harvey got frustrated with misrepresentations of Marx and aimed to make Marx more comprehensible. 1:06:06 David Harvey discusses his approach to covering Marx's texts 1:08:15 David Harvey is working on integrating the state into the political economy. 1:12:17 The Grundrisse has a unique status in the history of Marxism. 1:14:28 Marx's approach to understanding capital as an underground structure and how it shapes his research. 1:18:33 Understanding Capital as an organic totality, in motion and expanding. 1:20:33 Marx discusses contradictory relations in the economy 1:24:26 Marx discusses the influence of machine technology on the general intellect. 1:26:36 Technology evolves from servant to leader in capitalism 1:30:31 Marx's ideas are rooted in socialized technology and value theory. 1:32:32 Marx emphasizes the unique nature of land rent and credit under capitalism. 1:36:50 David Harvey discusses controversies around labor theory of value and role as a Marxist 1:38:58 Marx discusses the rising mass and falling rate 1:43:00 Capital is political and there is a fusion of state and capital. 1:45:23 Value cannot be discussed without discussing its negation 1:49:38 David Harvey discusses the revival of interest in trade unionism and dismisses the idea of a proletarian movement waiting to overthrow socialism. 1:51:51 Emphasizing the analysis of capitalism and challenges in developing a revolutionary pedagogy. 1:56:13 Revival of Marxist theory and organizational weakness 1:58:19 Understanding capital theory is essential for becoming a Marxist

[@kennytheclown3859]

Prof. Harvey continues to blow my mind.

[@JustJanitor]

Thank you so much for making this available

[@kennytheclown3859]

David Harvey is pure genius!

[@feikes1878]

Harvey often talks about that report he wrote about housing in Baltimore. Does anybody know where to find it?

[@geocouple]

Please let me know as well, if you are informed.

[@mjleger]

At 35:00, the suggestion by the interviewer that The Condition of Postmodernity "was" important at one time but is now dated ... i.e. because in Europe apparently they are "rediscovering" postmodernism, or some other unspecified reason, is a somewhat backhanded question to put to the author of a book that is more, or just as, relevant now than it was in 1989, despite the plethora of accusations of "flexible sexism" and the like that were lobbed at "reductionist" Marxist theorists in the 1990s. This "rediscovery" has been going on since the 1980s and was only interrupted by the renewed interest in macropolitics and the focus on the problem of economic inequality between c.2005 and 2012. One should not overlook the importance of Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek in the shift away from postmodernism, though Hardt & Negri also played an ambivalent role in this. After OWS, the shift to BLM, MeToo, Anthropocene, post-human new materialisms, privilege theory, intersectionality and decoloniality, etc, are all part of this so-called rediscovery of postmodernism, which reinforces the influence of discourse theory, difference politics and post-structuralism in the academy and in activist circles. The focus on identity in corporate and government DEI policies now reinforces what Nancy Fraser refers to as "progressive neoliberalism." Overall, the postmodern left has allowed the political right to posture as the defenders of universality and enlightenment. This undermines a genuine left project. I agree with Harvey that it's unfortunate that we don't have more Marxist intellectuals like Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton today, rather than so many pseudo-Gramscian postmodernists. There are similar issues with the overestimation of Italian workerism. Many of the problems of today's socialist left come into focus when you consider the rise to hegemonic status of (the ideology of) the petty bourgeoisie in the postwar era. With regard to "orthodoxy," what is needed is real questions and real answers rather than obsession with trends and paradigm shifts.

[@EyeByBrian]

Astutely put!👏🏻 To which I would add, the wide-scale embrace of identity politics (allow me to use the term ‘wokeism’) by corporations should sound the alarm bells of a dialectically-aware Left. What may on one hand be viewed as a progressive step toward a kind of liberation (e.g. having one’s identity affirmed by one’s employer) should also be understood as, perhaps, a Pyrrhic victory whereby what is diffused is a much more radical and subversive structural critique.

[@mjleger]

@@EyeByBrian Thanks. There's a growing literature on this but a few items that may interest is Mike Macnair's critique of Crenshaw's famous article on intersectionality in legal cases ( where the interests of the employer is of foremost concern, ignored by Crenshaw ) and Lee Fang's article in The Intercept on the uses of Diversity policy in union-busting.

[@EyeByBrian]

@@mjlegerThanks for those references.

[@scythermantis]

But isn't postmodernism all about critiicising hegemonies? Maybe it's just a misapplication, not endemic.

[@sail2byzantium]

I much admire Prof. Harvey's work, both the various books he's written and his online work here with KZbin, including the Democracy at Work organization. And here I will note how appropos it is the Prof. Harvey is wearing a red shirt.

[@WolfRevolt]

A great social warrior thanks David !!!

[@dangerousideas5356]

replayed the beginning (around 4:59) like 12 fucking times, he's saying "the Gundrisse", the '73 penguin books edition of marx's Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy for anyone else curious.

[@negarmansouri2572]

loved this! thank you

[@Jack-tg9qm]

What book by Foster about three cities referencing at around 1:35?

[@TheMCmushroom]

Bilbao, San Marino and Athens - he has a foundation now - Norman Foster maybe?

[@rapauli]

Thank you so much --- I only wish we could notice our destabilizing global climates -- and how we will continually need to revise and update political language to navigate the future.

[@JalalAsif-ep9ni]

Kudos to the interviewer! He asked great questions!

[@ramseypietronasser2]

He's great

[@physiqueDrummond]

At the beginning we can here the police coming for him!

[@pyps5005]

Elon Tusk

[@charli212]

1:45:00 I don’t get why Roberts and Harvey are so enraged with each other, when the former talks about production and company investment as the drive of capitalism movement and contradiction/crisis, and then Harvey talks about the fixated capital which is at the heart of the circulatory process of capital. I mean, they are talking about the fuckin same thing and they are arguing among each other. Fair enough Roberts wants to carry on with the orthodox view that class struggle is located in production and Harvey wants to move away from that (failed) perspective to find class struggle in other circulatory movements as in distribution and so on. But at the end of the day they are saying the same thing, that the core of the class struggle is in companies investment (Roberts) and in fix capital ( Harvey) which is the fucking same the machines! They way the capitalist class has to produce more and cheaper.

[@fracta1organism]

take over the banks and then what then?!! mmt for the people with massive social investments to improve people's lives rather than organize around profit for the few, that's what we do!!