David Harvey’s Anti-Capitalist Chronicles is a bimonthly podcast that looks at capitalism through a Marxist lens. SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts | Google Play | Stitcher WATCH: YouTube

Host: David Harvey is a Marxist thinker about political economy and has been teaching Karl Marx’s Capital for over 40 years. He currently teaches at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Prof. Harvey has written extensively on the significance of Marx’s Capital for understanding contemporary capitalism, and will be presenting this knowledge and more to his podcast audience. Support: This podcast is made possible by donations to Democracy at Work and/or to Patreon. We are very grateful for your support of David Harvey’s Anti-Capitalist Chronicles even through this difficult and turbulent time. Your contributions helps us compensate the staff and workers it takes to put an episode together. Thank you for being a part of the ACC team.



Release Schedule: Season 3 will begin in September 2020. ACC is released every other Thursday, both as a podcast, and on Democracy at Work’s YouTube channel. Supporters of ACC on Patreon get access to the new episode and the RSS feed a day in advance. Join Patreon today. Listen now: Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Tumblr

Reddit



(Interview in English with Portuguese subtitles) David Harvey talks about the different forms and sites of class struggle today, beyond the classic struggle on the workplace, and reflects on the importance of articulating their particularities into a broad anticapitalist project in this fifth episode of the conversation with his Brazilian translator, Artur Renzo, on Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason. The video belongs to a special 6 episode series on the book produced by TV Boitempo. Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Tumblr

Reddit



(Interview in English with Portuguese subtitles) David Harvey talks about what mainstream economists miss in their analyses of the dynamics of capital accumulation in this fourth episode of the conversation with his Brazilian translator, Artur Renzo, on Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason. The video belongs to a special 6 episode series on the book produced by TV Boitempo. Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Tumblr

Reddit



(spoken in English, subtitled in Portuguese) Third in a series of short clips recorded on the occasion of the publication of the Brazilian edition of Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason by Boitempo. Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Tumblr

Reddit



(spoken in English, subtitled in Portuguese) Second in a series of short clips recorded on the occasion of the publication of the Brazilian edition of Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason by Boitempo. Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Tumblr

Reddit



(spoken in English, subtitled in Portuguese) First in a series of short clips recorded on the occasion of the publication of the Brazilian edition of Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason by Boitempo. Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Tumblr

Reddit



By David Harvey

Jacobin It is quite possible that if and when we collectively emerge from the torments being inflicted by COVID-19, we will find ourselves in a political landscape where the reform of capitalism is very much upon the agenda. Even before the virus struck, there were minor hints of such a transition. Major business leaders who were gathered at Davos, for example, heard that their obsession with profits and market value and neglect of social and environmental impacts was becoming counterproductive. They were advised to take shelter from rising public wrath in some form of “conscience” or “eco-capitalism.” The lamentable state of society’s public-health defenses against the onslaught of the virus, after forty years of neoliberal politics in many parts of the world, has increased the degree of public agitation. Austerity on anything other than military expenditures or subsidies to supposedly needy — though often filthy rich — corporations left behind a bitter taste, increasingly so after the bank bailout of 2008. In contrast, the collective and state-led measures to address the pandemic that did seem to work have generated more favorable public attitudes towards government. Continue reading Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Tumblr

Reddit



[Revised March 22, 2020] [Listen as podcast] When trying to interpret, understand and analyze the daily flow of news, I tend to locate what is happening against the background of two distinctive but intersecting models of how capitalism works. The first level is a mapping of the internal contradictions of the circulation and accumulation of capital as money value flows in search of profit through the different “moments” (as Marx calls them) of production, realization (consumption), distribution, and reinvestment. This is a model of the capitalist economy as a spiral of endless expansion and growth. It gets pretty complicated as it gets elaborated through, for example, the lenses of geopolitical rivalries, uneven geographical developments, financial institutions, state policies, technological reconfigurations and the ever-changing web of divisions of labour and of social relations. I envision this model as embedded, however, in a broader context of social reproduction (in households and communities), in an on-going and ever-evolving metabolic relation to nature (including the “second nature” of urbanization and the built environment) and all manner of cultural, scientific (knowledge-based), religious and contingent social formations that human populations typically create across space and time. These latter “moments” incorporate the active expression of human wants, needs and desires, the lust for knowledge and meaning and the evolving quest for fulfillment against a background of changing institutional arrangements, political contestations, ideological confrontations, losses, defeats, frustrations and alienations, all worked out in a world of marked geographical, cultural, social and political diversity. This second model constitutes, as it were, my working understanding of global capitalism as a distinctive social formation, whereas the first is about the contradictions within the economic engine that powers this social formation along certain pathways of its historical and geographical evolution. Continue reading Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Tumblr

Reddit

