What do you think?
Rate this book
Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism
"What I am seeking here is a better understanding of the contradictions of capital, not of capitalism. I want to know how the economic engine of capitalism works the way it does, and why it might stutter and stall and sometimes appear to be on the verge of collapse. I also want to show why this economic engine should be replaced, and with what." --from the IntroductionTo modern Western society, capitalism is the air we breathe, and most people rarely think to question it, for good or for ill. But knowing what makes capitalism work--and what makes it fail--is crucial to understanding its long-term health, and the vast implications for the global economy that go along with it.In Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, the eminent scholar David Harvey, author of A Brief History of Neoliberalism, examines the internal contradictions within the flow of capital that have precipitated recent crises. He contends that while the contradictions have made capitalism flexible and resilient, they also contain the seeds of systemic catastrophe. Many of the contradictions are manageable, but some are the stress on endless compound growth, the necessity to exploit nature to its limits, and tendency toward universal alienation. Capitalism has always managed to extend the outer limits through "spatial fixes," expanding the geography of the system to cover nations and people formerly outside of its range. Whether it can continue to expand is an open question, but Harvey thinks it unlikely in the medium term the limits cannot extend much further, and the recent financial crisis is a harbinger of this. David Harvey has long been recognized as one of the world's most acute critical analysts of the global capitalist system and the injustices that flow from it. In this book, he returns to the foundations of all of his work, dissecting and interrogating the fundamental illogic of our economic system, as well as giving us a look at how human societies are likely to evolve in a post-capitalist world.
351 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2014
298 people are currently reading
5685 people want to read
About the author
David Harvey
188 books1,620 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
David Harvey (born 1935) is the Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). A leading social theorist of international standing, he graduated from University of Cambridge with a PhD in Geography in 1961.
He is the world's most cited academic geographer (according to Andrew Bodman, see Transactions of the IBG, 1991,1992), and the author of many books and essays that have been prominent in the development of modern geography as a discipline.
His work has contributed greatly to broad social and political debate, most recently he has been credited with helping to bring back social class and Marxist methods as serious methodological tools in the critique of global capitalism, particularly in its neoliberal form.
David Harvey (born 1935) is the Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). A leading social theorist of international standing, he graduated from University of Cambridge with a PhD in Geography in 1961.
He is the world's most cited academic geographer (according to Andrew Bodman, see Transactions of the IBG, 1991,1992), and the author of many books and essays that have been prominent in the development of modern geography as a discipline.
His work has contributed greatly to broad social and political debate, most recently he has been credited with helping to bring back social class and Marxist methods as serious methodological tools in the critique of global capitalism, particularly in its neoliberal form.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews
May 30, 2015
Far superior in every way to schlock like This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate.
I want to write a lengthy and detailed review to convince people to read this, but I just don't have time right now, so listen, READ THIS.
I want to write a lengthy and detailed review to convince people to read this, but I just don't have time right now, so listen, READ THIS.
September 11, 2018
Despite him being a very bad writer, David Harvey will always have my respect for predicting the 2008 financial crisis in uncanny terms in his 2005 book Neoliberalism. This book is in many ways a restatement of Marx's arguments from Capital and a few other works. While Harvey is ostensibly a "popularizer" of Marx's texts, his writings are actually quite repetitive and circular. To be charitable sometimes abstract concepts need to be expressed in ways that are unintuitive.
According to dialectic views of history, systems that contain "contradictions" will inevitably doom themselves to failure. Harvey lays out seventeen alleged contradictions in short chapters here that he says will cause serious turmoil, if not the assured end, of capitalism in the foreseeable future. I don't really buy the Marxist idea that there is any kind of perfect and non-contradictory socioeconomic system to be had. It sounds quite Utopian and I feel that Jon Ralston Saul's exhortation to live with complexity and get used to living with it makes a lot more sense.
Having said that, Harvey makes some good points here about the way that our speculative valuations of things (see: housing) are making it impossible for many people to get the "use values" that such things are created for. He articulates well the suffocating nature of a world in which every human interaction has been monetized, and where every single object and event in the world is mediated through the existence of an immanent-transcendent thing known as "capital," which is constantly in a state of conflict with labor. Our working time is devoted to capital, and our leisure time is also devoted to it: spending, wanting, touristing and so forth. Capitalism is a totalitarian system in the sense that it is truly "total" and its inhabitants have difficulty even conceiving of existence outside of its terms. I don't think anyone could fail to be outraged by the knowledge that the extension of huge amounts of credit by banks is a way to get ordinary people to soak up the products of companies that, at the same time, don't want to pay the wages that would otherwise allow people to buy their stuff without borrowing. In other words they'd rather have people dig their own graves of debt than pay the wages that would allow the capitalist system to function according to its own logic.
Its not unfair today to point out that capital is effectively the "God" of the world in which capitalism exists and most of us inhabit today. There is a famous saying to the effect that it is "easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." I think this is truer than we suspect. This is also why reading this book and understanding Marxist critiques of capitalism generally is a surprisingly spiritual experience, even if the solutions offered are oftentimes vague and sometimes pernicious. Critically understanding the present and being given a framework to do so powerfully reorients ones views of daily life and the meaning of ones existence. Marxism does this, and as such its easy to see why it became an alternate religion for so many people in the 20th century. I think that ultimately it runs up against a wall of new materialistic problems after correctly de-alienating people from the immediate ones caused by the reigning economic system. But even those who dislike Marxism (or, more commonly, disliked the regimes that have over the past century claimed to act according to its dictates) have to respect the powerful intellectual achievements of many of its proponents.
Harvey doesn't do much to explain how to extricate ourselves from our present quasi-totalitarian dilemma. He does however articulate what I think are broadly held grievances about the monetization of all human life and activity. It helps to look at the world around you, the physical things, and understand where they came from, what conditions they were made in, whose labor produced them, and why. Doing so can help you be more "awake" to the world rather than sleepwalking through it as most of us are liable to do when not thinking critically. It also helps to understand the power dynamics that continue to operate on all of us very subtly, taking away our labor (all "things" are labor) and unjustly transforming it into the property of a select few who labor very little.
According to dialectic views of history, systems that contain "contradictions" will inevitably doom themselves to failure. Harvey lays out seventeen alleged contradictions in short chapters here that he says will cause serious turmoil, if not the assured end, of capitalism in the foreseeable future. I don't really buy the Marxist idea that there is any kind of perfect and non-contradictory socioeconomic system to be had. It sounds quite Utopian and I feel that Jon Ralston Saul's exhortation to live with complexity and get used to living with it makes a lot more sense.
Having said that, Harvey makes some good points here about the way that our speculative valuations of things (see: housing) are making it impossible for many people to get the "use values" that such things are created for. He articulates well the suffocating nature of a world in which every human interaction has been monetized, and where every single object and event in the world is mediated through the existence of an immanent-transcendent thing known as "capital," which is constantly in a state of conflict with labor. Our working time is devoted to capital, and our leisure time is also devoted to it: spending, wanting, touristing and so forth. Capitalism is a totalitarian system in the sense that it is truly "total" and its inhabitants have difficulty even conceiving of existence outside of its terms. I don't think anyone could fail to be outraged by the knowledge that the extension of huge amounts of credit by banks is a way to get ordinary people to soak up the products of companies that, at the same time, don't want to pay the wages that would otherwise allow people to buy their stuff without borrowing. In other words they'd rather have people dig their own graves of debt than pay the wages that would allow the capitalist system to function according to its own logic.
Its not unfair today to point out that capital is effectively the "God" of the world in which capitalism exists and most of us inhabit today. There is a famous saying to the effect that it is "easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." I think this is truer than we suspect. This is also why reading this book and understanding Marxist critiques of capitalism generally is a surprisingly spiritual experience, even if the solutions offered are oftentimes vague and sometimes pernicious. Critically understanding the present and being given a framework to do so powerfully reorients ones views of daily life and the meaning of ones existence. Marxism does this, and as such its easy to see why it became an alternate religion for so many people in the 20th century. I think that ultimately it runs up against a wall of new materialistic problems after correctly de-alienating people from the immediate ones caused by the reigning economic system. But even those who dislike Marxism (or, more commonly, disliked the regimes that have over the past century claimed to act according to its dictates) have to respect the powerful intellectual achievements of many of its proponents.
Harvey doesn't do much to explain how to extricate ourselves from our present quasi-totalitarian dilemma. He does however articulate what I think are broadly held grievances about the monetization of all human life and activity. It helps to look at the world around you, the physical things, and understand where they came from, what conditions they were made in, whose labor produced them, and why. Doing so can help you be more "awake" to the world rather than sleepwalking through it as most of us are liable to do when not thinking critically. It also helps to understand the power dynamics that continue to operate on all of us very subtly, taking away our labor (all "things" are labor) and unjustly transforming it into the property of a select few who labor very little.
November 30, 2016
I don’t know whether to be more surprised at myself or at this book. On the face of it, we should be made for each other - an account of the often-ignored structural contradictions of capitalism, couched in accessible language rather than impenetrable psychoanalytic theory. Yet here I am giving it three stars. There were certainly many thought-provoking points within ‘Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism’, however in most cases I fear they have already been better expressed elsewhere. My complaint, loath though I am to make it, is that the writing style is stolid and clunky, bleeding the energy and conviction from the very important points being made. While reading it, I wondered whether I was being unduly snobbish, or just fussy, but came to conclusion that there must be something askew when it takes me so much effort (and a five hour train journey) to finish an ostensibly accessible book on one of my favourite topics. An example to show you what I mean:
Why, in the name of all that’s holy, are there no commas in that sentence? Anyhow, I should praise some of the actual ideas advanced. For one, Harvey discusses the interesting notion of how capital ‘literally creates its own space and time’, which is also covered in Malm’s Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming. Perhaps my favourite part concerned the tendency to monopoly, which is to my mind a fundamental idiocy of neoclassical economics (something, I should add, that this book doesn’t concern itself with; it is about practise rather than than theory). As Barker puts it, ‘monopoly power is foundational rather than aberrational to the functioning of capital and [...] exists in a contradictory unity with competition’. The way I think of it, rational profit maximisation immediately implies a drift to monopoly. Competition bleeds away profit, so when rational actors can act in a monopolistic/oligopolistic fashion, surely they will. Free market theory treats competition like a fundamental physical force, something that is always actively present, such that monopolistic behaviour is impossible. It really isn’t. I think the theoretical contradiction is between the rational actor model of behaviour and the assumption that competition is the rule and the monopoly a rare exception.
Of the seventeen contradictions advanced in the book, the one I inevitably took the closest interest in concerned the environment. At first I felt Harvey was downplaying environmental problems in general and climate change in particular, however on balance I think his stance makes a dispiriting sort of sense:
I’m not wild about the way that is expressed, but the underlying point is solid. It raises the question: which falls first, capitalism or civilisation itself? How long can capitalism hold out against catastrophic climate change? The tragic fact is, of course, that it’s probably already held on for long enough to have passed dangerous tipping points. Still on the environmental theme, Harvey again echoes Malm in noting that capitalism moves pollution around the planet to wherever is cheapest.
Perhaps to some extent I focused on my dissatisfaction with the writing rather than the ideas here because the latter are so depressing. Harvey attempts to end on a positive note and even includes an epilogue of ‘Ideas for Political Praxis’. Despite this, the overriding message is that capitalism’s flaws do not prevent it sustaining itself very effectively, albeit at vast cost to the majority of humanity and the environment. Indeed, it seems that as the contradictions deepen, the defensiveness becomes all the more violent and destructive. The contradiction that really sums things up, in my view, concerns the extraordinary growth of wealth inequality. The richest 0.1% are simultaneously defending neoliberal capitalism with great vociferousness and creating a huge problem for it. As Harvey explains, such concentration of wealth results in sclerotic economic growth, quite apart from being socially disastrous and morally indefensible. Again, though, I’m sorry to say that this has been better explained elsewhere.
That it has done so over the last forty years by some mix of labour-saving technological changes and an alleatory globalisation is obvious even as conditions of fiercer international competition have put downward pressures upon profit rates in spite of rising rates of exploitation of labour power.
Why, in the name of all that’s holy, are there no commas in that sentence? Anyhow, I should praise some of the actual ideas advanced. For one, Harvey discusses the interesting notion of how capital ‘literally creates its own space and time’, which is also covered in Malm’s Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming. Perhaps my favourite part concerned the tendency to monopoly, which is to my mind a fundamental idiocy of neoclassical economics (something, I should add, that this book doesn’t concern itself with; it is about practise rather than than theory). As Barker puts it, ‘monopoly power is foundational rather than aberrational to the functioning of capital and [...] exists in a contradictory unity with competition’. The way I think of it, rational profit maximisation immediately implies a drift to monopoly. Competition bleeds away profit, so when rational actors can act in a monopolistic/oligopolistic fashion, surely they will. Free market theory treats competition like a fundamental physical force, something that is always actively present, such that monopolistic behaviour is impossible. It really isn’t. I think the theoretical contradiction is between the rational actor model of behaviour and the assumption that competition is the rule and the monopoly a rare exception.
Of the seventeen contradictions advanced in the book, the one I inevitably took the closest interest in concerned the environment. At first I felt Harvey was downplaying environmental problems in general and climate change in particular, however on balance I think his stance makes a dispiriting sort of sense:
I do not preclude apocalyptic-seeming moments in this process. The frequency of severe weather events is increasing, for example. But catastrophic localised events can readily be accommodated by capital since a predatory ‘disaster capitalism’ is raring to respond. Capital in fact thrives upon and evolves through the volatility of localised environmental disasters. Not only do these create new business opportunities. They also provide a convenient mask to hide capital’s own failings: it is that unpredictable, capricious and wilful shrew called ‘mother nature’ who is to blame for misfortunes that are largely of capital’s making.
I’m not wild about the way that is expressed, but the underlying point is solid. It raises the question: which falls first, capitalism or civilisation itself? How long can capitalism hold out against catastrophic climate change? The tragic fact is, of course, that it’s probably already held on for long enough to have passed dangerous tipping points. Still on the environmental theme, Harvey again echoes Malm in noting that capitalism moves pollution around the planet to wherever is cheapest.
Perhaps to some extent I focused on my dissatisfaction with the writing rather than the ideas here because the latter are so depressing. Harvey attempts to end on a positive note and even includes an epilogue of ‘Ideas for Political Praxis’. Despite this, the overriding message is that capitalism’s flaws do not prevent it sustaining itself very effectively, albeit at vast cost to the majority of humanity and the environment. Indeed, it seems that as the contradictions deepen, the defensiveness becomes all the more violent and destructive. The contradiction that really sums things up, in my view, concerns the extraordinary growth of wealth inequality. The richest 0.1% are simultaneously defending neoliberal capitalism with great vociferousness and creating a huge problem for it. As Harvey explains, such concentration of wealth results in sclerotic economic growth, quite apart from being socially disastrous and morally indefensible. Again, though, I’m sorry to say that this has been better explained elsewhere.
June 8, 2014
The foundational violence of wealth
[Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2013 posted revenues for $74 billion and $274 million profits. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standards at all the company's sites.]
There is no wealth without violence. No matter how many degrees of separations we build between actually murderous actions and our bank account. Accumulation is and has always been a violent process, even if now less visibly so - thanks to technology and finance that manufacture telescopic distances in between the economic dramatis personae. In order for wealth to build somewhere, someone has to suffer somewhere else. We are all conquistadores.
Then you might be interested in the details. Marx's Capital provides them all (apart, crucially, from energy's role).
Can violence ever be stopped? Yes, says Harvey, provided that you abolish wealth. Which leads to a very premature end of the revolutionary project.
What's missing from this riveting book is actually a sound analysis of class today. Who is going to lead the revolution? Who is NOT in our contemporary societies a rentier, profiteering from (violent) rent extraction? Capital's anti-revolutionary silver bullet is its cunning ability to turn the tables of class distinctions. Is for example the immigrant childminder described in the book who owns three houses in Brooklyn a proletarian any more? Anyone working in finance, media and entertainment, academia, consulting, energy, third sector, public administration, etc. is a rentier, whether they manage to save or not. Anyone who benefits from low energy and commodity prices is a rentier. This is much more powerful than governmentality, or the internalization of social control. Having a vested interest in violence only makes you long for someone garbing in principled storytelling the reality of the situation. And here is where the industry of "it's all neoliberalism's fault" kicks in.
Of course, if no revolution is possible or underway, making violence a bit less safe and respectable and ferocious can still be worth pursuing.
[Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2013 posted revenues for $74 billion and $274 million profits. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standards at all the company's sites.]
There is no wealth without violence. No matter how many degrees of separations we build between actually murderous actions and our bank account. Accumulation is and has always been a violent process, even if now less visibly so - thanks to technology and finance that manufacture telescopic distances in between the economic dramatis personae. In order for wealth to build somewhere, someone has to suffer somewhere else. We are all conquistadores.
Then you might be interested in the details. Marx's Capital provides them all (apart, crucially, from energy's role).
Can violence ever be stopped? Yes, says Harvey, provided that you abolish wealth. Which leads to a very premature end of the revolutionary project.
What's missing from this riveting book is actually a sound analysis of class today. Who is going to lead the revolution? Who is NOT in our contemporary societies a rentier, profiteering from (violent) rent extraction? Capital's anti-revolutionary silver bullet is its cunning ability to turn the tables of class distinctions. Is for example the immigrant childminder described in the book who owns three houses in Brooklyn a proletarian any more? Anyone working in finance, media and entertainment, academia, consulting, energy, third sector, public administration, etc. is a rentier, whether they manage to save or not. Anyone who benefits from low energy and commodity prices is a rentier. This is much more powerful than governmentality, or the internalization of social control. Having a vested interest in violence only makes you long for someone garbing in principled storytelling the reality of the situation. And here is where the industry of "it's all neoliberalism's fault" kicks in.
Of course, if no revolution is possible or underway, making violence a bit less safe and respectable and ferocious can still be worth pursuing.
August 29, 2014
Look, I really truly think that David Harvey is one of the most brilliant socio-economic theorists and commentators of this century. So my review of this particular book does not represent my view of his writings on the whole. But I found this book to be dreadfully repetitive and, I suppose, overly wordy. I think the best summary is: it presents a bunch of ideas that Harvey has done a much better job presenting in his other talks/works, and introduces almost no new ideas above and beyond these already-existing sources. So I'd go for those over this book.
May 8, 2016
In many ways it's Harvey redux - another solid, grounded, but by now familiar reproduction of the fundamentals of Capital (and the Grundrisse, in this case). This is a good thing insofar Harvey is good at it and the angle of 'contradictions' is a very helpful one. Compared to previous books, this work focuses less on Marxist theory per se and more on the more immediate political and economic 'strategic' aspects of capital, be it still in a pure form.
It has some of what I see as Harvey's typical weaker points. His emphasis on, so to speak, demand side aspects of capitalism with accompanying underconsumptionist views of crisis, and his increasing moralism about 'consumerism' and the like. But his strengths are also fully on display here: his characteristic ability to combine complexity with clarity and nuance with revolutionary vigour. It ends, in fact, with something of a paean to Fanon and the anticolonial movement - something that should do away with Harvey's image as a 'softy' (which seems to have come about just because he does not substitute militant rhetoric for understanding complex problems).
Additional strong points more particular to this book are the discussion of ecology, where Harvey goes against the tendency to think the ecological crisis will necessarily be the end of capitalism, and the discussion of the rising significance of rents and rentierism in contemporary capitalism. The latter certainly bodes ill for 'productive' capital's abilities to expand in the future. Finally, it is notable that Harvey engages here integrates more explicitly the centrality of reducing working hours via automation (though he rightly notes this is not a stand-alone solution) and the implications of 'redundant populations' - associated respectively with the 'accelerationist' trend and with the Endnotes collective, though he does not name them.
I'd say even if one is familiar with Harvey's oeuvre it may well be worth a read. Certainly a good primer for those leftists who want to know what they're up against and why it seems so hard to get any traction on the 'system' as a whole.
It has some of what I see as Harvey's typical weaker points. His emphasis on, so to speak, demand side aspects of capitalism with accompanying underconsumptionist views of crisis, and his increasing moralism about 'consumerism' and the like. But his strengths are also fully on display here: his characteristic ability to combine complexity with clarity and nuance with revolutionary vigour. It ends, in fact, with something of a paean to Fanon and the anticolonial movement - something that should do away with Harvey's image as a 'softy' (which seems to have come about just because he does not substitute militant rhetoric for understanding complex problems).
Additional strong points more particular to this book are the discussion of ecology, where Harvey goes against the tendency to think the ecological crisis will necessarily be the end of capitalism, and the discussion of the rising significance of rents and rentierism in contemporary capitalism. The latter certainly bodes ill for 'productive' capital's abilities to expand in the future. Finally, it is notable that Harvey engages here integrates more explicitly the centrality of reducing working hours via automation (though he rightly notes this is not a stand-alone solution) and the implications of 'redundant populations' - associated respectively with the 'accelerationist' trend and with the Endnotes collective, though he does not name them.
I'd say even if one is familiar with Harvey's oeuvre it may well be worth a read. Certainly a good primer for those leftists who want to know what they're up against and why it seems so hard to get any traction on the 'system' as a whole.
April 25, 2023
"The political orientation must be towards use values rather than exchange values,towards a money form that inhibits private accumulation of wealth and power and the dissolution of the state–private property nexus into multiple overlapping regimes of collectively managed common property rights. The ability of private persons to appropriate the common wealth must be checked and the monetary basis for class power must be undermined. The contradiction between capital and labour has to be displaced by emphasising the power of associated labour to engage in unalienated labour, to determine its own labour process while producing needed use values for others."
David Harvey
David Harvey
February 18, 2018
This was one of the most painful books I went through - I couldn't even finish it! Albeit totally valid and convincing in his argument about the evils of capitalism, I found Harvey's style of writing too too TOO flowery. Each concept (contradiction - Harvey calls them) was actually quite simple. But it took strong doses of concentration and critical reasoning to figure out what he was saying. This book is definitely not for the faint-hearted! Good luck :P
Read
August 27, 2015I like Harvey but this was overly wordy.
July 14, 2021
หลังจากที่สหภาพโซเวียตล่มสลายลง”ทุนนิยม”ก็กลายมาเป็นเครื่องจักรกลหลักในการขับเคลื่อนกิจกรรมแทบทุกอย่างในชีวิตของมนุษย์ และตลาดเสรีกลายมาเป็นเป้าหมายและบรรทัดฐานทางศีลธรรมในการการอยู่ร่วมกันเป็นสังคมในแทบทุกภูมิภาคบนโลกใบนี้ ว่าแต่ถ้าทุนนิยมและตลาดเสรีเป็นนวัตกรรมทางสังคมที่สมบูรณ์แบบอย่างไร้ที่ติแล้วจริง ๆ เหตุใดสภาพความเป็นอยู่ของผู้คนในหลายพื้นที่ของโลกจึงยากจนข้นแค้นยิ่ง? ทำไมคนรุ่นใหม่ถึงมีโอกาสเลือนลางมากขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ ในการมีความเป็นอยู่อย่างมั่นคงในสังคมยุคปัจจุบัน? เราได้เห็นผู้คนมากมายแสดงทัศนะในทิศทางต่อต้านระบบทุนนิยม แต่น้อยคนนักจะศึกษาระบบเศรษกิจแบบตลาดอย่างจริงจังและลึกซึ้งระดับเดียวกับที่ David Harvey ทำ
ใน“ความขัดแย้ง17ประการและจุดจบของระบบทุนนิยม” Harvey ชวนเราพินิจพิเคราะห์ระบบทุนนิยมอย่างเป็นกระบวนการอีกสักที เขาพยายามแยกองค์ประกอบทุกชิ้นที่เป็นส่วนประกอบของระบบตลาดเสรีออกมาทำความเข้าใจ ทั้งในแง่ของนิยามของมัน ไปถึงหลักการทำงานของชิ้นส่วนเหล่านี้ เขาวิเคราะห์มันด้วยมุมมองแบบที่จับมันให้หยุดนิ่งและมุมมองที่มีการเคลื่อนไหวผ่านการทำงานร่วมกันของพลเมืองโลก
นาน ๆ ทีจะได้อ่านงานของนักเศรษฐศาสตร์สักคนที่พยายามทำความเข้าใจระบบเศรษฐกิจโดยใช้ทฤษฎีและมุมมองที่หลากหลายรอบด้านในระดับที่ Harvey ทำ เขาต่อยอดความคิดทางเศรษฐกิจที่เชื่อว่ามีการแบ่งชนชั้นของ Karl Marx ด้วยรากฐานทางความคิดที่เชื่อว่า”ระบบตลาด”มิใช่ธรรมชาติพื้นฐานของเผ่าพันธุ์มนุษย์แบบที่ Karl Polanyi เคยวิเคราะห์ไว้ใน”เมื่อโลกพลิกผัน(The Great Transformation)” หนังสือเล่มนี้จึงเป็นผลงานเขียนที่ปรับปรุง das kapital ของ Marx ให้สมบูรณ์รอบด้าน และ ทันยุคสมัยขึ้น
เราเห็นนักเศรษฐศาสตร์หลายคนที่วิเคราะห์สาเหตุของความเสื่อมในสังคมประชาธิปไตยว่ามาจาก”ความเหลื่อมล้ำ” ไม่ว่าจะเป็น Amartya Sen หรือ Abhijit Banerjee ซึ่งต่างก็คาดหวังถึงเศรษฐศาสตร์ที่เปี่ยมจริยธรรมธรรมอันจะเป็นทางออกของปัญหานี้ แต่ Harvey กลับไม่ได้ตั้งความหวังไว้กับคุณธรรมของเหล่าผู้ปกครอง แต่เชื่อมั่นว่า”ความเหลื่อมล้ำสูง”เป็นเรื่องปกติที่ต้องเกิดขึ้นแน่ ๆ ภายใต้การขับเคลื่อนทางเศรษฐกิจภายใต้การกติกาของระบบทุนนิยมตลาดเสรี
ในเล่มนี้ Harvey ชวนเราไปทำความเข้าใจ”ทุนนิยม”อย่างลึกซึ้งอีกสักครั้ง ก่อนที่จะต่อต้านหรือปรับปรุงแก้ไขมัน ทั้งในส่วนที่เป็นโครงสร้างพื้นฐานในการทำงานของเศรษฐกิจแบบตลาด อาทิ มูลค่าใช้สอยแตกต่างจากมูลค่าแลกเปลี่ยนอย่างไรบ้าง? และมันส่งผลกระทบต่อสภาพความเป็นอยู่ของสังคมมนุษย์อย่างไร? , การเปลี่ยนแปลงรูปแบบของ”เงิน”จากเงินโภคภัณฑ์สู่Flat money จนมาถึง money of account พลิกโฉมโลกนี้ไปอย่างไรบ้าง? , ทุนทำงานอย่างไรกันแน่? เราจะสามารถทำความเข้าใจทุนทั้งในสถานะที่เป็นวัตถุที่แลกเปลี่ยนได้และสถานะที่เป็นกระบวนการ แบบที่สาขาวิชาฟิสิกส์มองแสงเป็นทั้งอนุภาคและคลื่นได้หรือเปล่า? ไหนจะความขัดแย้งที่ดำรงอยู่แกนของแนวคิดเศรษฐศาสตร์ระหว่างจุลภาคกับมหภาคเล่า? เมื่อกำไรที่มากขึ้นของบริษัทอาจหมายถึงการหดตัวของกำลังซื้อทั้งระบบเศรษฐกิจเราควรทำอย่างไร? ฯลฯ ทั้งหมดนี้คือสิ่งที่ผู้เขียนพยายามปูพื้นความเข้าใจของเราที่มีต่อระบบทุนนิยมก่อนที่จะมีตัวแปรต่าง ๆ มากมายเข้ามาเกี่ยวข้อง
เมื่อเราเข้าใจพื้นฐานการทำงานของระบบทุนนิยมแล้ว ผู้เขียนจะพาเราไปสำรวจระบบตลาดเสรียามที่มันทำงานขับเคลื่อนการเจริญเติบโตของสังคมมนุษย์ คราวนี้ภาพที่เราเห็นจะมีการเคลื่อนไหวที่สลับซับซ้อนมากยิ่งขึ้น และผู้เกี่ยวข้องกับระบบทุกฝ่ายล้วนมีเจตนาที่แตกต่างกัน ยิ่งด้วยพื้นฐานของระบบทุนนิยมซึ่งมีความขัดแย้งดำรงอยู่ ณ ใจกลางระบบของตัวมันเองด้วยแล้ว ทุกฝ่ายที่เกี่ยวข้องจึงพยายามตักตวงด้านที่เป็นอรรถประโยชน์ไว้กับตัว ผลักผลกระทบไปไว้ที่อื่น ในส่วนนี้ Harvey ใช้ทั้งวิธีการเชิงบรรยาย และวิธีการเชิงกลไก เพื่อเชื่อมโยงความสัมพันธ์ของ”ทุน”กับปัญหาคาราคาซังของสังคมมนุษย์ยุคหลังโลกาภิวัตน์ ไล่ตั้งแต่วิกฤติการณ์ทางเศรษฐกิจ ไปยังปัญหาสิ่งแวดล้อม เรื่อยไปถึงความรู้สึกแปลกแยกและไร้คุณค่าของเหล่าคนทำงาน รวมทั้งเรื่องอื่น ๆ อีกมากมาย
สิ่งที่เราชอบที่สุดในหนังสือเล่ทมนี้คือ การตีแผ่มายาคติที่แฝงตัวกลายเป็นอัตวิสัยร่วมของผู้คนในสังคมอย่างเรื่อง ตลาดเสรีเป็นระบบที่ส่งเสริมการแข่งขันและ ความชอบธรรมในการแสวงหากำไรของทุนเพราะเชื่อมั่นถึงเสรีภาพในการตัดสินใจทางเศรษฐกิจของพลเมือง
ตลอดห้วงประวัติศาสตร์ของทุน ทุนใช้”การแข่งขัน”เพื่อสร้างความชอบธรรมในการผูกขาด มากกว่าส่งเสริมอย่างเทียบกันไม่ได้ เมื่อ”เงิน” เป็นตัวกลางในการแลกเปลี่ยนที่เราใช้อ้างสิทธิเหนือแรงงานทางสังคมของผู้อื่นในระบบทุนนิยม เป็นสิ่งที่เก็บสะสมได้โดยไม่มีวันหมดอายุแถมยังผลิตซ้ำตัวเองได้(ด้วยระบบอัตราดอกเบี้ยทบต้น) ทุนที่สั่งสมเงินได้มากพอจึ���มักจะใช้มันสร้างอิทธิพลเหนือรัฐ เพื่อสร้างการผูกขาดมากกว่าการลงทุนเพื่อยกระดับประสิทธิภาพในการแข่งขัน ยิ่งมองภาพการควบรวมกิจการของผู้ผลิต ยักษ์ค้าปลีก ห้างขายส่งในประเทศ หรือการผูกขาดการนำเข้าวัคซีนในห้วงการระบาดของไวรัส ยิ่งเห็นภาพชัดขึ้น
พวกเราทุกคนต่างก็รู้ว่า”ความเหลื่อมล้ำ”เป็นรากเหง้าของปัญหาที่สังคมแทบทุกอย่าง หากแต่มีประเทศเพียงไม่กี่แห่งในโลกพยายามจัดการกับมัน ทำไมกันนะ? คำตอบ ของHarvey คือ”มายาคติของเสรีภาพ”ในระบบตลาด กล่าวคือพวกเรากลัวการผูกขาดโดยทุน น้อยกว่าการควบคุมโดยรัฐมาก หากแต่ภายใต้ระบบตลาดนี้พลเมืองมีเสรีภาพจริงหรือ? การจัดสรรทรัพยากรด้วยกลไกราคานั้นไม่ได้ชี้วัด”ความต้องการ”หากแต่เป็นกำลังซื้อต่างหาก และทุกการตัดสินใจในตลาดไม่ได้มีเสรีภาพเสมอ (นึกถึงเหล่าผู้คนที่ควักเง���นแพงกว่าที่ควรเป็นมาก เพื่อซื้อวรรคซีนฉีดในห้วงวิกฤติ หรือจ่ายเงินค่าที่พักแพงหูฉี่ยามน้ำท่วมใหญ่ดูสิ)
“ความขัดแย้ง 17 ประการกับจุดจบของระบบทุนนิยม”เป็นหนังสือที่อ่านยากเอาเรื่อง เพราะผู้เขียนอย่าง David Harvey พาเราไปทำความเข้าใจกลไกของระบบทุนนิยมและความสัมพันธ์ของมันที่มีต่อปัญหาสังคมต่าง ๆ แบบรอบด้านและลงลึก แถมเขาเองยังไม่จัดโครงสร้างในหนึ่งบทด้วยหัวข้อย่อยให้เราเห็นโครงร่างงานเขียนของเขาแบบชัด ๆ อีกต่างหาก แต่ถึงกระนั้นด้วยตัวเนื้อหาที่ทรงพลังก็ช่วยนำทางให้เราเข้าใจแทบทุกเรื่องภายใต้ระบบตลาดได้กระจ่างชัด จากเดิมที่เรามองเห็นขีดจำกัดของระบบทุนนิยมในแง่ของปรัชญาและศีลธรรม ตอนนี้เราสามารถมองเห็นขีดจำกัดของมันในเชิงกลไกได้แล้ว นั่นทำให้เล่มนี้เป็นหนังสืออีกเล่มที่เราอยากแนะนำกับคนหมู่มาก ยิ่งกับเหล่าผู้ต่อสู้เพื่อสร้างโลกในฝันแบบสังคมนิยมประชาธิปไตยด้วยแล้ว เผื่อว่าสักวันสยามจะเป็นกลายเป็นรัฐสวัสดิการที่เราทุกคนมีความเท่าเทียมทางโอกาสกันมากกว่าที่เป็นอยู่
ใน“ความขัดแย้ง17ประการและจุดจบของระบบทุนนิยม” Harvey ชวนเราพินิจพิเคราะห์ระบบทุนนิยมอย่างเป็นกระบวนการอีกสักที เขาพยายามแยกองค์ประกอบทุกชิ้นที่เป็นส่วนประกอบของระบบตลาดเสรีออกมาทำความเข้าใจ ทั้งในแง่ของนิยามของมัน ไปถึงหลักการทำงานของชิ้นส่วนเหล่านี้ เขาวิเคราะห์มันด้วยมุมมองแบบที่จับมันให้หยุดนิ่งและมุมมองที่มีการเคลื่อนไหวผ่านการทำงานร่วมกันของพลเมืองโลก
นาน ๆ ทีจะได้อ่านงานของนักเศรษฐศาสตร์สักคนที่พยายามทำความเข้าใจระบบเศรษฐกิจโดยใช้ทฤษฎีและมุมมองที่หลากหลายรอบด้านในระดับที่ Harvey ทำ เขาต่อยอดความคิดทางเศรษฐกิจที่เชื่อว่ามีการแบ่งชนชั้นของ Karl Marx ด้วยรากฐานทางความคิดที่เชื่อว่า”ระบบตลาด”มิใช่ธรรมชาติพื้นฐานของเผ่าพันธุ์มนุษย์แบบที่ Karl Polanyi เคยวิเคราะห์ไว้ใน”เมื่อโลกพลิกผัน(The Great Transformation)” หนังสือเล่มนี้จึงเป็นผลงานเขียนที่ปรับปรุง das kapital ของ Marx ให้สมบูรณ์รอบด้าน และ ทันยุคสมัยขึ้น
เราเห็นนักเศรษฐศาสตร์หลายคนที่วิเคราะห์สาเหตุของความเสื่อมในสังคมประชาธิปไตยว่ามาจาก”ความเหลื่อมล้ำ” ไม่ว่าจะเป็น Amartya Sen หรือ Abhijit Banerjee ซึ่งต่างก็คาดหวังถึงเศรษฐศาสตร์ที่เปี่ยมจริยธรรมธรรมอันจะเป็นทางออกของปัญหานี้ แต่ Harvey กลับไม่ได้ตั้งความหวังไว้กับคุณธรรมของเหล่าผู้ปกครอง แต่เชื่อมั่นว่า”ความเหลื่อมล้ำสูง”เป็นเรื่องปกติที่ต้องเกิดขึ้นแน่ ๆ ภายใต้การขับเคลื่อนทางเศรษฐกิจภายใต้การกติกาของระบบทุนนิยมตลาดเสรี
ในเล่มนี้ Harvey ชวนเราไปทำความเข้าใจ”ทุนนิยม”อย่างลึกซึ้งอีกสักครั้ง ก่อนที่จะต่อต้านหรือปรับปรุงแก้ไขมัน ทั้งในส่วนที่เป็นโครงสร้างพื้นฐานในการทำงานของเศรษฐกิจแบบตลาด อาทิ มูลค่าใช้สอยแตกต่างจากมูลค่าแลกเปลี่ยนอย่างไรบ้าง? และมันส่งผลกระทบต่อสภาพความเป็นอยู่ของสังคมมนุษย์อย่างไร? , การเปลี่ยนแปลงรูปแบบของ”เงิน”จากเงินโภคภัณฑ์สู่Flat money จนมาถึง money of account พลิกโฉมโลกนี้ไปอย่างไรบ้าง? , ทุนทำงานอย่างไรกันแน่? เราจะสามารถทำความเข้าใจทุนทั้งในสถานะที่เป็นวัตถุที่แลกเปลี่ยนได้และสถานะที่เป็นกระบวนการ แบบที่สาขาวิชาฟิสิกส์มองแสงเป็นทั้งอนุภาคและคลื่นได้หรือเปล่า? ไหนจะความขัดแย้งที่ดำรงอยู่แกนของแนวคิดเศรษฐศาสตร์ระหว่างจุลภาคกับมหภาคเล่า? เมื่อกำไรที่มากขึ้นของบริษัทอาจหมายถึงการหดตัวของกำลังซื้อทั้งระบบเศรษฐกิจเราควรทำอย่างไร? ฯลฯ ทั้งหมดนี้คือสิ่งที่ผู้เขียนพยายามปูพื้นความเข้าใจของเราที่มีต่อระบบทุนนิยมก่อนที่จะมีตัวแปรต่าง ๆ มากมายเข้ามาเกี่ยวข้อง
เมื่อเราเข้าใจพื้นฐานการทำงานของระบบทุนนิยมแล้ว ผู้เขียนจะพาเราไปสำรวจระบบตลาดเสรียามที่มันทำงานขับเคลื่อนการเจริญเติบโตของสังคมมนุษย์ คราวนี้ภาพที่เราเห็นจะมีการเคลื่อนไหวที่สลับซับซ้อนมากยิ่งขึ้น และผู้เกี่ยวข้องกับระบบทุกฝ่ายล้วนมีเจตนาที่แตกต่างกัน ยิ่งด้วยพื้นฐานของระบบทุนนิยมซึ่งมีความขัดแย้งดำรงอยู่ ณ ใจกลางระบบของตัวมันเองด้วยแล้ว ทุกฝ่ายที่เกี่ยวข้องจึงพยายามตักตวงด้านที่เป็นอรรถประโยชน์ไว้กับตัว ผลักผลกระทบไปไว้ที่อื่น ในส่วนนี้ Harvey ใช้ทั้งวิธีการเชิงบรรยาย และวิธีการเชิงกลไก เพื่อเชื่อมโยงความสัมพันธ์ของ”ทุน”กับปัญหาคาราคาซังของสังคมมนุษย์ยุคหลังโลกาภิวัตน์ ไล่ตั้งแต่วิกฤติการณ์ทางเศรษฐกิจ ไปยังปัญหาสิ่งแวดล้อม เรื่อยไปถึงความรู้สึกแปลกแยกและไร้คุณค่าของเหล่าคนทำงาน รวมทั้งเรื่องอื่น ๆ อีกมากมาย
สิ่งที่เราชอบที่สุดในหนังสือเล่ทมนี้คือ การตีแผ่มายาคติที่แฝงตัวกลายเป็นอัตวิสัยร่วมของผู้คนในสังคมอย่างเรื่อง ตลาดเสรีเป็นระบบที่ส่งเสริมการแข่งขันและ ความชอบธรรมในการแสวงหากำไรของทุนเพราะเชื่อมั่นถึงเสรีภาพในการตัดสินใจทางเศรษฐกิจของพลเมือง
ตลอดห้วงประวัติศาสตร์ของทุน ทุนใช้”การแข่งขัน”เพื่อสร้างความชอบธรรมในการผูกขาด มากกว่าส่งเสริมอย่างเทียบกันไม่ได้ เมื่อ”เงิน” เป็นตัวกลางในการแลกเปลี่ยนที่เราใช้อ้างสิทธิเหนือแรงงานทางสังคมของผู้อื่นในระบบทุนนิยม เป็นสิ่งที่เก็บสะสมได้โดยไม่มีวันหมดอายุแถมยังผลิตซ้ำตัวเองได้(ด้วยระบบอัตราดอกเบี้ยทบต้น) ทุนที่สั่งสมเงินได้มากพอจึ���มักจะใช้มันสร้างอิทธิพลเหนือรัฐ เพื่อสร้างการผูกขาดมากกว่าการลงทุนเพื่อยกระดับประสิทธิภาพในการแข่งขัน ยิ่งมองภาพการควบรวมกิจการของผู้ผลิต ยักษ์ค้าปลีก ห้างขายส่งในประเทศ หรือการผูกขาดการนำเข้าวัคซีนในห้วงการระบาดของไวรัส ยิ่งเห็นภาพชัดขึ้น
พวกเราทุกคนต่างก็รู้ว่า”ความเหลื่อมล้ำ”เป็นรากเหง้าของปัญหาที่สังคมแทบทุกอย่าง หากแต่มีประเทศเพียงไม่กี่แห่งในโลกพยายามจัดการกับมัน ทำไมกันนะ? คำตอบ ของHarvey คือ”มายาคติของเสรีภาพ”ในระบบตลาด กล่าวคือพวกเรากลัวการผูกขาดโดยทุน น้อยกว่าการควบคุมโดยรัฐมาก หากแต่ภายใต้ระบบตลาดนี้พลเมืองมีเสรีภาพจริงหรือ? การจัดสรรทรัพยากรด้วยกลไกราคานั้นไม่ได้ชี้วัด”ความต้องการ”หากแต่เป็นกำลังซื้อต่างหาก และทุกการตัดสินใจในตลาดไม่ได้มีเสรีภาพเสมอ (นึกถึงเหล่าผู้คนที่ควักเง���นแพงกว่าที่ควรเป็นมาก เพื่อซื้อวรรคซีนฉีดในห้วงวิกฤติ หรือจ่ายเงินค่าที่พักแพงหูฉี่ยามน้ำท่วมใหญ่ดูสิ)
“ความขัดแย้ง 17 ประการกับจุดจบของระบบทุนนิยม”เป็นหนังสือที่อ่านยากเอาเรื่อง เพราะผู้เขียนอย่าง David Harvey พาเราไปทำความเข้าใจกลไกของระบบทุนนิยมและความสัมพันธ์ของมันที่มีต่อปัญหาสังคมต่าง ๆ แบบรอบด้านและลงลึก แถมเขาเองยังไม่จัดโครงสร้างในหนึ่งบทด้วยหัวข้อย่อยให้เราเห็นโครงร่างงานเขียนของเขาแบบชัด ๆ อีกต่างหาก แต่ถึงกระนั้นด้วยตัวเนื้อหาที่ทรงพลังก็ช่วยนำทางให้เราเข้าใจแทบทุกเรื่องภายใต้ระบบตลาดได้กระจ่างชัด จากเดิมที่เรามองเห็นขีดจำกัดของระบบทุนนิยมในแง่ของปรัชญาและศีลธรรม ตอนนี้เราสามารถมองเห็นขีดจำกัดของมันในเชิงกลไกได้แล้ว นั่นทำให้เล่มนี้เป็นหนังสืออีกเล่มที่เราอยากแนะนำกับคนหมู่มาก ยิ่งกับเหล่าผู้ต่อสู้เพื่อสร้างโลกในฝันแบบสังคมนิยมประชาธิปไตยด้วยแล้ว เผื่อว่าสักวันสยามจะเป็นกลายเป็นรัฐสวัสดิการที่เราทุกคนมีความเท่าเทียมทางโอกาสกันมากกว่าที่เป็นอยู่
October 7, 2014
This was certainly a clear extension of his recent works on Rebel Cities and his companions to Capital.
The contradictions developed by Harvey are not surprising, though some of his tough perspectives and advice to progressives was at times:
"The enormous increase in and nature of the complicitous activities of the humanist NGOs over recent decades would seem to support Althusser’s criticisms. The growth of the charitable industrial complex mainly reflects the need to increase ‘conscience laundering’ for a world’s oligarchy that is doubling its wealth and power every few years in the midst of economic stagnation. Their work has done little or nothing in aggregate to deal with human degradation and dispossession or proliferating environmental degradation" (p.286)
I believe a lot can be learned from this book.
The contradictions developed by Harvey are not surprising, though some of his tough perspectives and advice to progressives was at times:
"The enormous increase in and nature of the complicitous activities of the humanist NGOs over recent decades would seem to support Althusser’s criticisms. The growth of the charitable industrial complex mainly reflects the need to increase ‘conscience laundering’ for a world’s oligarchy that is doubling its wealth and power every few years in the midst of economic stagnation. Their work has done little or nothing in aggregate to deal with human degradation and dispossession or proliferating environmental degradation" (p.286)
I believe a lot can be learned from this book.
January 26, 2018
I've been thinking about this book since I read it a while back and I've realized I really am not a fan of David Harvey period. There are many intro guides to Capital and Marxist thought, from Ben Fine to Ernest Mandel, Paul Sweezy, Joan Robinson, to the Marx-Engels reader. Most of those are illuminating and more succinct than this book was or Harvey seems to be in general. Harvey doesn't clarify much, and at the beginning of this book he restates old classical orthodoxy on the origins of money, which has since come under serious attack by other anthropologists like David Graeber. David Harvey's hobby horse seems to be abolishing currency but he never fleshes out or completely justifies this interesting idea! This book tries jack of all trades on the financial crisis, revolution, Capital, geography, monetary systems but fails to master anything.
March 7, 2016
David Harvey is a cool, clear, rigorous and considered scholar. The format of this book - configured around the 17 contradictions of capital - is ideally structured to demonstrate this balance, reflection and interpretative flair.
Most sentences in this book are quotable. Most can be the foundation for outstanding further analysis and consideration. I was profoundly impressed - and deeply moved - by his theorization of freedom and alienation.
For anyone interested in capital, capitalism and the difference between the two, this book is a landmark study and a pleasure to read.
Most sentences in this book are quotable. Most can be the foundation for outstanding further analysis and consideration. I was profoundly impressed - and deeply moved - by his theorization of freedom and alienation.
For anyone interested in capital, capitalism and the difference between the two, this book is a landmark study and a pleasure to read.
August 31, 2017
David Harvey is a Marxist. David Harvey is also a geographer. Before you blow your cheeks out and wonder at that you also have to take in that David Harvey teaches at an American University, a country that does it's very best to revile any thought of Marx and to banish any sense in understanding of his writings under the belief that it can't be true because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. All your assumptions will probably be wrong on many levels.
Harvey has consistently been THE academic to illuminate the thoughts and research of Marx and find that his writings from the early and mid 19th century still present a validity which can be applied to modern life and weighed up in the scales of not only academia but also praxis for everyday life. Having now finished this book from 2014, I find myself thinking that A, B and C should read this and planning to buy copies for D and E for Christmas. The second-hand book market should be a happy hunting ground.
Harvey has consistently nailed his colours to the mast and produced a string of books and lectures (they're out there also freely available on U-Tube) from 1973's 'Social Justice in the City' to 2016's 'The Ways of the World'. He is one of the few people to have fully read the three volumes of 'Capital', to have digested the contents and to have commented intelligently on them for the benefit of us all. This book really asks the question skirted around in many of his preceding books on whether Capitalism has a future. He does so by using dialectical methods and through delineating the contradictions inherent in capital and Capitalism. Now before you switch pages saying 'if-you-don't-like-it-you-can-move-somewhere-else' you ought to realise that the message within this book is fundamental for the survival of mankind. Nothing less than that as his final contradiction, the big daddy of them all, is Capital's relationship to Nature and the Environment. If we don't want to drown in our own shit and suffocate in our own effluent then we'd better start to REALLY take heed and forget about our 'champions / leaders' lip service in successive conferences at various glitzy locations, all high profile affairs with major publicity. Of course, it's never US that will drown and suffocate, but if we want our grandchildren or the grandchildren of our granchildren to have any hope of existence then its WE that have to do something NOW.
I could go through the book and delineate Harvey's description of the inherent contradictions but that would be taking the task away from you the reader. YOU have to go out there and read this book. My copy is now annotated, underscored and marked out the successive pieces of evidence and logic that make this a compelling read and champion for not only a better way of life but also a way of saving humanity from either blowing itself up, strangling each other in successive bloody revolutions or drowning in our own effluent.
Read it................. and weep.
Because ultimately it is a very depressing statement.
Because.............. at heart.................. you know that nothing will get done........ or at best we will again apply sticking plasters over amputations whilst we all sit and wait to die.
Harvey has consistently been THE academic to illuminate the thoughts and research of Marx and find that his writings from the early and mid 19th century still present a validity which can be applied to modern life and weighed up in the scales of not only academia but also praxis for everyday life. Having now finished this book from 2014, I find myself thinking that A, B and C should read this and planning to buy copies for D and E for Christmas. The second-hand book market should be a happy hunting ground.
Harvey has consistently nailed his colours to the mast and produced a string of books and lectures (they're out there also freely available on U-Tube) from 1973's 'Social Justice in the City' to 2016's 'The Ways of the World'. He is one of the few people to have fully read the three volumes of 'Capital', to have digested the contents and to have commented intelligently on them for the benefit of us all. This book really asks the question skirted around in many of his preceding books on whether Capitalism has a future. He does so by using dialectical methods and through delineating the contradictions inherent in capital and Capitalism. Now before you switch pages saying 'if-you-don't-like-it-you-can-move-somewhere-else' you ought to realise that the message within this book is fundamental for the survival of mankind. Nothing less than that as his final contradiction, the big daddy of them all, is Capital's relationship to Nature and the Environment. If we don't want to drown in our own shit and suffocate in our own effluent then we'd better start to REALLY take heed and forget about our 'champions / leaders' lip service in successive conferences at various glitzy locations, all high profile affairs with major publicity. Of course, it's never US that will drown and suffocate, but if we want our grandchildren or the grandchildren of our granchildren to have any hope of existence then its WE that have to do something NOW.
I could go through the book and delineate Harvey's description of the inherent contradictions but that would be taking the task away from you the reader. YOU have to go out there and read this book. My copy is now annotated, underscored and marked out the successive pieces of evidence and logic that make this a compelling read and champion for not only a better way of life but also a way of saving humanity from either blowing itself up, strangling each other in successive bloody revolutions or drowning in our own effluent.
Read it................. and weep.
Because ultimately it is a very depressing statement.
Because.............. at heart.................. you know that nothing will get done........ or at best we will again apply sticking plasters over amputations whilst we all sit and wait to die.
October 28, 2017
This is not a polemic against, but rather an investigation of the contradictions inherent in capitalism. Although there are Marxian foundations to some of the analysis, it’s not a constraint to the analysis, nor the other sources that Harvey draws on. A strong intellect and a ton of thought provoking facts, deployed in the service of challenging many of the assumptions many of us assume define the natural order or necessary evils of how things operate in capitalist systems. The chapter on the impact and long term implications of our belief in achieving endless compound growth, is particularly scary. It makes a strong case for the extent to which we are all deluded as a result of widespread manipulation of how we view the world. Requires close reading, but well worth the time.
November 1, 2015
Harvey at his best. You don't need to agree with all of his analysis or his ideological basis to recognize the depth of his understanding of the inherent contradictions in capital. This book is a must-read for anyone looking to understand the state of the world today and how capitalism shapes not only our relation to the material, nature, and others, but also our own ideologies and beliefs.
March 19, 2025
A remarkable book that drives deep into the interworkings of the economic engine of capitalism (i.e. “capital”). As the title suggests, Harvey systematically diagnoses and unpacks seventeen different contradictions within capital. These represent the various weak points of the economic engine which have periodically caused the engine to break into moments of widespread economic crisis throughout history, and he notes the clever ways that capital has been able to adapt and reinvent itself in the aftermath of these crisis points, often appearing to come out “stronger than ever”.
These inherent contradictions (weak points) within capital can also be seen as opportunities to “throw sand in the machine” as well as foundational themes upon which to construct an alternative economic system to ultimately replace capital. Harvey does an excellent job summarizing the contradictions along the way, building upon earlier concepts, and offering clear actionable ways to resist capital effectively.
For anyone interested in understanding and critiquing the economic engine of capital, I couldn’t recommend this book highly enough. It will undoubtedly be a resource that I’ll continue to lean on for years to come.
All that being said, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that I found Harvey’s driving vision of a secular revolutionary humanism to be seriously lacking. In his defense, I think he’s come to the best possible conclusion apart from the Way of Jesus. Yet there is a huge gap between the kingdom of God, as demonstrated and offered by Jesus, compared with any other alternative vision and plan for human flourishing. Allow me to explain. Harvey advocates for the widespread need for “a new kind of human” (p. 287), a transformed way to be human. Yet the mode of transformation offered is for the oppressed to take back control from their oppressors, and then starting over anew in an equitable way to meet the tangible needs of all. Harvey admits that, while he is not in favor of supporting violence when it comes to resisting capital, he does ultimately believe that “there is no other option” (p. 291), hence his preferred identification with “revolutionary humanism” as opposed to a passive and ineffective liberal humanism. Jesus, on the other hand, is the only true way for us to actually transform our hearts from the inside out, cleansing us of all greed as well as fear, lust, apathy, deceit, and pride. In other words, all forms of selfishness which a secular humanist vision of human flourishing is unable to actually produce - despite its best efforts to try.
Nevertheless, the main purpose of this book is to better understand and critique the system of capital. Not necessarily to provide the one and only alternative that everyone must adhere to. And for what Harvey sets out to accomplish in this book, I believe he does so powerfully and decisively. And I hope to be able to apply much of this book in tangible ways as I seek to resist and undermine the hold that capital has on the world around me.
These inherent contradictions (weak points) within capital can also be seen as opportunities to “throw sand in the machine” as well as foundational themes upon which to construct an alternative economic system to ultimately replace capital. Harvey does an excellent job summarizing the contradictions along the way, building upon earlier concepts, and offering clear actionable ways to resist capital effectively.
For anyone interested in understanding and critiquing the economic engine of capital, I couldn’t recommend this book highly enough. It will undoubtedly be a resource that I’ll continue to lean on for years to come.
All that being said, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that I found Harvey’s driving vision of a secular revolutionary humanism to be seriously lacking. In his defense, I think he’s come to the best possible conclusion apart from the Way of Jesus. Yet there is a huge gap between the kingdom of God, as demonstrated and offered by Jesus, compared with any other alternative vision and plan for human flourishing. Allow me to explain. Harvey advocates for the widespread need for “a new kind of human” (p. 287), a transformed way to be human. Yet the mode of transformation offered is for the oppressed to take back control from their oppressors, and then starting over anew in an equitable way to meet the tangible needs of all. Harvey admits that, while he is not in favor of supporting violence when it comes to resisting capital, he does ultimately believe that “there is no other option” (p. 291), hence his preferred identification with “revolutionary humanism” as opposed to a passive and ineffective liberal humanism. Jesus, on the other hand, is the only true way for us to actually transform our hearts from the inside out, cleansing us of all greed as well as fear, lust, apathy, deceit, and pride. In other words, all forms of selfishness which a secular humanist vision of human flourishing is unable to actually produce - despite its best efforts to try.
Nevertheless, the main purpose of this book is to better understand and critique the system of capital. Not necessarily to provide the one and only alternative that everyone must adhere to. And for what Harvey sets out to accomplish in this book, I believe he does so powerfully and decisively. And I hope to be able to apply much of this book in tangible ways as I seek to resist and undermine the hold that capital has on the world around me.
May 20, 2019
If you can parse through the abysmal writing, Harvey makes some keenly insightful observations about the often-overlooked foundations of capital, and the problems its contradictions cause. The concepts he works through are dense, but important. Many people know that something isn't working in the system. Some understand the general workings of that system. But very few understand the way capital actually functions, and the reason that churns out such disparate results. For someone who wishes to understand the inner workings of why the global capitalist system functions the way it does, and hopefully change it for the better, the concepts he proposes are highly enlightening.
That being said, the author sure doesn't do you any favors to understand the dense subjects he covers. Most of the book consists of grotesquely wordy explanations with zero illustrative examples. It begs the question who in the world his intended audience was. For a book trying to impassion left-wing populism and decrying the tyranny of the experts, it sure knows how to make itself absolutely unreadable to the general public. The author also tends to make acerbic blanket statements with no evidence to back them up. He relies on quotes from previous 'experts' (am I the only one who has no idea who most of these people are?) as evidence, but provides no real-word empirical proof.
Additionally, his finger is simply not on the pulse of today's society. He often just misses the mark, failing to account for future trends that seem now to be on the horizon, or harshly judging outdated examples of a much-changed current landscape. Given the recent release date, I take this to be a function of the author veering into territory in which he is not an expert, such as in technological trends or global philanthropy.
Some questions I would love to discuss:
What would the ramifications of space exploration be on Harvey's ideas on the contradictions of capital? Would population settlement and resource use on other planets mean effectively no limitation on the compounded growth of capital? How would that affect Harvey's argument?
That being said, the author sure doesn't do you any favors to understand the dense subjects he covers. Most of the book consists of grotesquely wordy explanations with zero illustrative examples. It begs the question who in the world his intended audience was. For a book trying to impassion left-wing populism and decrying the tyranny of the experts, it sure knows how to make itself absolutely unreadable to the general public. The author also tends to make acerbic blanket statements with no evidence to back them up. He relies on quotes from previous 'experts' (am I the only one who has no idea who most of these people are?) as evidence, but provides no real-word empirical proof.
Additionally, his finger is simply not on the pulse of today's society. He often just misses the mark, failing to account for future trends that seem now to be on the horizon, or harshly judging outdated examples of a much-changed current landscape. Given the recent release date, I take this to be a function of the author veering into territory in which he is not an expert, such as in technological trends or global philanthropy.
Some questions I would love to discuss:
What would the ramifications of space exploration be on Harvey's ideas on the contradictions of capital? Would population settlement and resource use on other planets mean effectively no limitation on the compounded growth of capital? How would that affect Harvey's argument?
December 5, 2024
The book reads as if Harvey needs the book to be longer than it should. The biggest disappointment about this book is they there is a sea of visceral examples to choose from to illustrate these contradictions, yet Harvey more often than not employs idealism in his descriptions. For that reason it’s not particularly compelling (however unfair it is to expect an economics book to be compelling) when we are all desperately searching for answers as to why we are all economically worse off and experiencing societal decay all around us- while at the same time being told that this economic system is the best one! I had expected the book to make the somewhat complex answers provided by Marx about capitalist society more palatable, but instead it seems to take simple Marxist ideas (that the masses are primed to receive due to the currently accelerated decay of capitalism) and wrap them in the boring voice of pop-economics. Perhaps that was a tactical decision by Harvey, but I personally didn’t find it effective. Maybe I’m not the target audience. However, had I not read Marx already, I’m not sure this book would compel me to do so, which is a shame because I find Marx’s work to be extremely compelling- much moreso than the vapid ideas of popular economic liberalism that the voicing/framing of this book reminds me of.
I’m glad someone else brought up chapter 16, but I’m surprised that they don’t find it appalling. When you look up “idealism” in the dictionary it should point to the first few pages of this chapter. Absolute trash. Appalling is the only word I can find to describe it. Revising my rating to the lowest possible.
I’m glad someone else brought up chapter 16, but I’m surprised that they don’t find it appalling. When you look up “idealism” in the dictionary it should point to the first few pages of this chapter. Absolute trash. Appalling is the only word I can find to describe it. Revising my rating to the lowest possible.
October 26, 2021
'ความขัดแย้งสิบเจ็ดประการกับจุดจบของระบบทุนนิยม' โดย เดวิด ฮาร์วี
หนังสือว่าด้วยความขัดแย้งภายในตัวเองของระบบทุนนิยม
ผู้เขียนชี้ให้เห็นว่าภายใต้เครื่องจักรที่เรียกว่าทุนนิยมที่ครอบงำเศรษฐกิจและการดำเนินชีวิตของมนุษย์มายาวนาน
ภายนอกที่ดูราบรื่น แม้จะเกิดวิกฤตในบางครั้งแต่ทุนนิยมก็ยังสามารถปรับตัว ฟื้นตัว และอยู่รอดได้จวบจนปัจจุบันนั้น
แท้จริงแล้วเต็มไปด้วย 'ความขัดแย้ง' ภายในตัวมันเอง และการที่เกิดวิกฤตเศรษฐกิจแตต่ละครั้ง นั่นคือข้อพิสูจน์ว่า
ความขัดแย้งเหล่านั้นมีเงื่อนปมซับซ้อน และที่ดูเหมือนว่าทุนนิยมปรับตัวและฟื้นตัวขึ้นมา แท้จริงเป็นเพียงแค่การกวดซุก
ความขัดแย้งเหล่านี้ไว้ใต้เงื่่อนปมความขัดแย้งอื่นๆ ผู้เขียนแบ่งเนื้อหาออกเป็นสามภาค ได้แก่
ภาคหนึ่ง : ความขัดแย้งระดับรากฐาน
ภาคสอง : ความขัดแย้งเคลื่อนไหว
ภาคสาม : ความขัดแย้งอันตราย
โดยแต่ละความขัดแย้งในทั้งสามภาคเป็นเงื่อนปมที่ผูกกับซับซ้อน แม้ผู้เขียนจะค่อยเป็นค่อยไปในการอธิบายเงื่อนปมความขัดแย้งแต่ก็ต้องสารภาพว่าในบางครั้งอาจจะต้องอ่านย่อหน้าหนึ่งซ้ำหลายรอบเพื่อทำความเข้าใจ
ซึ่งอาจจะเป็นอุปสรรคแก่ผู้ที่ไม่คุ้นเคยกับศัพท์ทางเศรษฐศาสตร์และวิชาการเท่าไร อย่างไรก็ดีสาส์นที่ผู้เขียนตั้งใจจะสื่อให้ผู้อ่านเข้าใจปรากฎอยู่ในทุกย่อหน้าทุกบรรทัด หนังสือเล่มนี้จึง คุ้มค่าและควรค่าแก่การทำความเข้าใจอย่างถึงที่สุด
ปล. ไม่เหมาะกับผู้ที่นิยมชมชอบทุนนิยมเสรีนิยมแบบสุดโต่ง รวมถึงผู้บูชาลัทธิมาร์กซิสตามตำราแบบดั้งเดิม
(ผู้เขียนได้วิพากษ์แนวทางการต่อสู้ของเหล่าคลาสสิกมาร์กซิสไว้ในหลายประเด็น)
หนังสือว่าด้วยความขัดแย้งภายในตัวเองของระบบทุนนิยม
ผู้เขียนชี้ให้เห็นว่าภายใต้เครื่องจักรที่เรียกว่าทุนนิยมที่ครอบงำเศรษฐกิจและการดำเนินชีวิตของมนุษย์มายาวนาน
ภายนอกที่ดูราบรื่น แม้จะเกิดวิกฤตในบางครั้งแต่ทุนนิยมก็ยังสามารถปรับตัว ฟื้นตัว และอยู่รอดได้จวบจนปัจจุบันนั้น
แท้จริงแล้วเต็มไปด้วย 'ความขัดแย้ง' ภายในตัวมันเอง และการที่เกิดวิกฤตเศรษฐกิจแตต่ละครั้ง นั่นคือข้อพิสูจน์ว่า
ความขัดแย้งเหล่านั้นมีเงื่อนปมซับซ้อน และที่ดูเหมือนว่าทุนนิยมปรับตัวและฟื้นตัวขึ้นมา แท้จริงเป็นเพียงแค่การกวดซุก
ความขัดแย้งเหล่านี้ไว้ใต้เงื่่อนปมความขัดแย้งอื่นๆ ผู้เขียนแบ่งเนื้อหาออกเป็นสามภาค ได้แก่
ภาคหนึ่ง : ความขัดแย้งระดับรากฐาน
ภาคสอง : ความขัดแย้งเคลื่อนไหว
ภาคสาม : ความขัดแย้งอันตราย
โดยแต่ละความขัดแย้งในทั้งสามภาคเป็นเงื่อนปมที่ผูกกับซับซ้อน แม้ผู้เขียนจะค่อยเป็นค่อยไปในการอธิบายเงื่อนปมความขัดแย้งแต่ก็ต้องสารภาพว่าในบางครั้งอาจจะต้องอ่านย่อหน้าหนึ่งซ้ำหลายรอบเพื่อทำความเข้าใจ
ซึ่งอาจจะเป็นอุปสรรคแก่ผู้ที่ไม่คุ้นเคยกับศัพท์ทางเศรษฐศาสตร์และวิชาการเท่าไร อย่างไรก็ดีสาส์นที่ผู้เขียนตั้งใจจะสื่อให้ผู้อ่านเข้าใจปรากฎอยู่ในทุกย่อหน้าทุกบรรทัด หนังสือเล่มนี้จึง คุ้มค่าและควรค่าแก่การทำความเข้าใจอย่างถึงที่สุด
ปล. ไม่เหมาะกับผู้ที่นิยมชมชอบทุนนิยมเสรีนิยมแบบสุดโต่ง รวมถึงผู้บูชาลัทธิมาร์กซิสตามตำราแบบดั้งเดิม
(ผู้เขียนได้วิพากษ์แนวทางการต่อสู้ของเหล่าคลาสสิกมาร์กซิสไว้ในหลายประเด็น)
November 23, 2021
Excellent book. I have a background in the Analytic Philosophy tradition so before some smarty pants says contradictions are false and a bad guide to the economy, The author and Marxists, in general, are not using contradiction in the Aristotelean P vs Not P sense of the word. A contradiction in the sense used is forces in a process that pull a system in different often opposing directions and are a stressor on that system that tends to lead to crisis. Contradictions between wages and profits come to mind or contradictions between wages paid and the need for consumers to buy with such low wages for profit. The contradictions between something that is useful or a necessity and asset speculation on it in a money economy. This book dissects all the contradictory forces inherent in Capitalism that cause the whole thing to lurch into crisis. An excellent book much easier to digest than say Das Capital.
April 5, 2021
A lot of the stuff covered in this book is covered extensively in his podcast so not much new stuff here if you’ve listened. Good overall summary however his take on the worlds current environmental issues is quite badly explained and can seem like he us downplaying the seriousness of the situation at times.
December 9, 2024
Modern rehashing of Marxist ideas on the contradictions of capitalism, easy to read and accessible to newbies not totally versed in political economy. A lot of ppl find David Harvey annoying though for understandable reasons.
May 22, 2020
woke now
September 24, 2014
I've admired David Harvey since reading his 'The Condition of Postmodernity'. For those familiar with David Harvey's oeurve, 'Seventeen Contradictions' and it's contents will not come as a surprise to the dedicated Harvey-ite.
Then again, all it really takes is a basic familiarity with Marxist principles as expressed in 'Capital' a work intimidating in both size and scope. This is Marx for the 21st century, nothing more, nothing less (particularly the first 7 contradictions). If you're looking for the next big *original* idea from the left, this isn't gonna be it.
This is not a huge concern for me—innovation for innovation's sake reeks of the creative distruction at all costs which comes under heavy fire from Harvey at many points during 'Seventeen Contradictions', and a retro fitting of 'older' ideas can be (and is in this case) a cool glass of water. What I admire about Harvey is his way of expressing a grounded critique of capital (nothing short of the project Marx himself undertook) through direct prose. Usually when I think of Marxist writing I think of the twisting and turning (though deeply profound) tracts on 'rational man' by the Frankfurt School. In his particular brand of Marxism, I think that Harvey has much in common with his German-Jewish radical brethren of yesteryear in that he is well aware of the tenacity of capital and its ability to persevere despite the deterministic predictions of Marx himself. Harvey, however, is somewhat more optimistic.
Harvey admits that without action on our part, capital *will* continue to persevere. The problem (or solution) is that, no matter what course of action is taken, it will not persevere in the same way as it has been, but will evolve as it has tended to do in some way or another. *How* this evolution occurs is up to us. Will we maintain a democratic society through an insistence on egalitarianism and tightening of income disparity, or plunge deeper into the oligarchy we seem to be falling into? Funnily enough, the contradictions that 'Seventeen Contradictions' refers to would be resolved with either of the two scenarios (once the oligarchy has dispensed with that pesky democracy, that is)—so I ask, "which do you prefer"?
One of the major take-aways I got from this book is that the contradiction between use value and exchange value is paramount. I think it's pretty clear that Harvey himself considers this to continue to be the most important and cruel contradiction of capital from the revolutions of 1848 to the present day.
Finally, this book extends a query as to what we consider to be the tendrils of freedom. We must consider, is it a freedom 'to-do' or a freedom 'from want' that allows for a truly democratic society? I opt for the priority of the latter. Upon such foundations we can build a society we can *all* truly be proud of.
-AF
P.S—This book will make you want to re-read your Karl Polanyi. Possible New Year's resolution?
Then again, all it really takes is a basic familiarity with Marxist principles as expressed in 'Capital' a work intimidating in both size and scope. This is Marx for the 21st century, nothing more, nothing less (particularly the first 7 contradictions). If you're looking for the next big *original* idea from the left, this isn't gonna be it.
This is not a huge concern for me—innovation for innovation's sake reeks of the creative distruction at all costs which comes under heavy fire from Harvey at many points during 'Seventeen Contradictions', and a retro fitting of 'older' ideas can be (and is in this case) a cool glass of water. What I admire about Harvey is his way of expressing a grounded critique of capital (nothing short of the project Marx himself undertook) through direct prose. Usually when I think of Marxist writing I think of the twisting and turning (though deeply profound) tracts on 'rational man' by the Frankfurt School. In his particular brand of Marxism, I think that Harvey has much in common with his German-Jewish radical brethren of yesteryear in that he is well aware of the tenacity of capital and its ability to persevere despite the deterministic predictions of Marx himself. Harvey, however, is somewhat more optimistic.
Harvey admits that without action on our part, capital *will* continue to persevere. The problem (or solution) is that, no matter what course of action is taken, it will not persevere in the same way as it has been, but will evolve as it has tended to do in some way or another. *How* this evolution occurs is up to us. Will we maintain a democratic society through an insistence on egalitarianism and tightening of income disparity, or plunge deeper into the oligarchy we seem to be falling into? Funnily enough, the contradictions that 'Seventeen Contradictions' refers to would be resolved with either of the two scenarios (once the oligarchy has dispensed with that pesky democracy, that is)—so I ask, "which do you prefer"?
One of the major take-aways I got from this book is that the contradiction between use value and exchange value is paramount. I think it's pretty clear that Harvey himself considers this to continue to be the most important and cruel contradiction of capital from the revolutions of 1848 to the present day.
Finally, this book extends a query as to what we consider to be the tendrils of freedom. We must consider, is it a freedom 'to-do' or a freedom 'from want' that allows for a truly democratic society? I opt for the priority of the latter. Upon such foundations we can build a society we can *all* truly be proud of.
-AF
P.S—This book will make you want to re-read your Karl Polanyi. Possible New Year's resolution?
July 13, 2014
This is basically an application of Marxist dialectic to the present conditions of capitalism. The first part of the book, "Foundational Contradictions", deals with the contradictions already identified 140 years ago in "Capital", updated for the present time. That time being one of another transitional period for capitalism, in which rent extraction from developed capitalist countries has (probably) surpassed resource extraction from the third world as the primary engine of capitalist development. "Rent extraction" refers mostly to the activities of the finance, insurance, and real estate sector, such as interest and fees and actual real estate rent.
Harvey's goal in this book seems to have been to use dialectic as a guide to action for the left: by identifying the crucial "contradictions" (a term of art in Marxist thought, to refer to tensions or opposing tendencies that arise from the logic of capital) he hopes to expose lever points where the left can make some headway. I don't know whether he succeeded in his goal, but I do think this is a book worth reading if for no other reason then that it shows a manner of analysis and argument more or less unique to Marxist thinkers.
Harvey's goal in this book seems to have been to use dialectic as a guide to action for the left: by identifying the crucial "contradictions" (a term of art in Marxist thought, to refer to tensions or opposing tendencies that arise from the logic of capital) he hopes to expose lever points where the left can make some headway. I don't know whether he succeeded in his goal, but I do think this is a book worth reading if for no other reason then that it shows a manner of analysis and argument more or less unique to Marxist thinkers.
October 18, 2020
I don't know why all the Marxists I read so far gave the impression that when they point out some characteristic of capitalism they are being clever. No one is disputing these, and none of them are some hidden feature you have suddenly uncovered. In fact on most of them fans of capitalism will wholeheartedly agree with you.
And yes, most of them are just that, characteristics, not contradictions - this attempt to redefine a basic word is tortuous and pointless.
Almost the whole book is describing dynamics of capitalism, pointing out it's shortcomings. In the last couple of pages the author provides some goals he tries to pass off as practical solutions. It's as if I suggested that we should have world peace. That is not a solution.
How about you reverse the ratio? Spend a couple of pages to describe the faults with capitalism that you want to solve and then spend the rest of the book suggesting your alternative solutions.
And yes, most of them are just that, characteristics, not contradictions - this attempt to redefine a basic word is tortuous and pointless.
Almost the whole book is describing dynamics of capitalism, pointing out it's shortcomings. In the last couple of pages the author provides some goals he tries to pass off as practical solutions. It's as if I suggested that we should have world peace. That is not a solution.
How about you reverse the ratio? Spend a couple of pages to describe the faults with capitalism that you want to solve and then spend the rest of the book suggesting your alternative solutions.
September 12, 2022
8El primer libro que me leí de David Harvey, sobre Urbanismo y desigualdad, me aburrió enormemente. Pero este me ha sorprendido. Parece que el título es un poco clickbait. ¿Cómo puede haber 17 contradicciones del capitalismo? Pues dividido en tres grupos (contradicciones fundamentales, cambiantes y peligrosas), desgrana poco a poco el juego en el que estamos inmersos. La verdad es que el libro es deprimente y da la sensación de que cada vez, al igual que el interés compuesto, el capitalismo es un tren que va sin frenos hacia el abismo. Y ya no solo a niveles de altas esferas estatales y gubernamentales, incluso a nivel personal me ha hecho plantearme muchas cosas sobre mi propio trabajo y mi propio ocio.
Al principio se hace un poco cuesta arriba, pero cuando le coges el tranquillo a cómo va a ser el libro (ensayo tras ensayo), se hace muy interesante. Lo recomiendo.
Algunas partes que me han parecido interesantes:
"Lo que queda de la izquierda radical actúa ahora mayoritariamente fuera de los canales de la oposición organizada o institucional, esperando que las acciones a pequeña escala y el activismo local puedan a la larga converger en algún tipo de gran alternativa satisfactoria. Esta izquierda, está alimentada intelectualemnte por pensadores como Michel Foucault y todos los que han vuelto a juntar los fragmentos posmodernos bajo el estandarte de un posestructuralismo en gran medida incormpresnible que favorece las políticas identitarias y se abstiene de los análisis de clase. Dado que esta izquierda quiere cambiar el mundo sin tomar el poder, la clase capitalista plutócrata, cada vez más consolidada, se mantiene sin que se desafíe su capacidad de dominar el mundo ilimitadamente."
Hay otro apartado donde dice que el dinero debería ser algo no acumulable. Que se gaste si no se usa. "Si el dinero se oxida, sería imposible ahorrarlo para futuras necesidades. (...) La Sguridad Social, debería cubrir unos derechos de jubilación indepenitnes del principio del ahorro de dinero para el futuro. Los trabajadores de hoy mantienen a quienes les precedieron. (...) Una renta básica garantizada para todos, esto es, un acceso mínimo a un conjunto de valores uso colectivamente gestionado, obviaría totalmente la necesidad de una forma dinero y de unos ahorros privados que garanticen cierta seguridad económica en el futuro."
"Desde el punto de vista del capital es útil, si no crucial, disponer de un mercado laboral segmentado, fragmentado y muy competitivo, lo que alza barreras a la organización coherente y unificada de la fuerza de trabajo. Los capitalistas pueden aplicar, y a menudo lo hacen deliberadamente, una política de divide y vencerás fomentando tensiones interétnicas, por ejemplo. La competencia entre grupos sociales que se enfrentan por mejores posiciones dentro de la división del trabajo se convierte en un medio primordial por el que la mano de obra en general pierde poder y el capital puede ejrcer un control mayor y más completo, tanto en el mercado laboral como en el lugar de trabajo."
En general, al autor le dan risa las iniciativas de ser autosostenible localmente. Si dependes solamente de ti mismo, una mala cosecha puede ser tu fin. "Esto debería ser una saludable lección para todos aquellos que sitúan su fe anticapitalista en la perspectiva de una soberanía alimentaria local, la autosuficiencia y el desacoplamiento de la economía global. Liberarse de las cadenas de la división internacional del trabajo organizado en beneficio del capital y las potencias imperialistas es una cosa, y otra muy distinta intentar desacoplarse del mercado mundial en nombre de la antiglobalización; a mi juicio sería una alternativa potencialmente suicida."
"El capital parece con frecuencia indiferente con respecto a qué diferenciaciones sociales particulares debe apoyar y cuáles discriminar. Tiende a poyar cualquier forma de emancipación social que gana respaldo (como los derechos de los gays y el multiculturalismo durante los últimos años), con tal que no ponga en cuestión las estrategias generales de control de la mano de obra y que constituya un nicho de mercado susceptible de ser explotado." Viva el capitalismo rosa.
Hay un pasaje que me lleva a la conclusión de que a mayor formación del trabajador, mayor producción, pero el beneficiado no es el trabajador sino su empleador. ¿Vale la pena seguir formándose?
Hace muchas referencias a Marx, y creo que cada vez es más importante tener en mente cuál debe ser el objetivo del ser humano. Abandonar ese reino de la necesidad y poder alcanzar el reino de la libertad. "El significado de la actual revolución tecnológica no puede ser rehabilitar la ética del trabajo y la identificación con el propio trabajo. Solo podría tener significado si liberara al trabajador de la ingrata tarea del trabajo a cambio de actividades no laborales en las que podamos, el nuevo tipo de trabajador incluido, desarrollar esa dimensión de nuestra humanidad que no encuentra salida en el trabajo tecnificado."
"Probablemente el capital pueda funcionar indefinidamente, pero de una forma tal que provocará la degradación progresiva del planeta y un empobrecimiento de masas, que acarreará un espectacular aumento de las desigualdades sociales y de la deshumanización de la mayoría de la humanidad, la cual se verá sometida a una negación cada vez más represiva y autocrática del potencial para el florecimiento humano inidividual mediante la intensificación de una vigilancia policial totalitaria por parte del Estado, un sistema de control militarizado y una democracia totalitaria, aspectos todos ellos que en gran medida ya experimentamos en el momento presente." Aterrador.
Me sorprende que existan libros como este y que no estén prohibidos. Claro, para prohibirlos tendría que leerlo la gente y/o los políticos. Y no sé de quién me lo espero menos...
Al final hace varias propuestas de qué se podría hacer.
Al principio se hace un poco cuesta arriba, pero cuando le coges el tranquillo a cómo va a ser el libro (ensayo tras ensayo), se hace muy interesante. Lo recomiendo.
Algunas partes que me han parecido interesantes:
"Lo que queda de la izquierda radical actúa ahora mayoritariamente fuera de los canales de la oposición organizada o institucional, esperando que las acciones a pequeña escala y el activismo local puedan a la larga converger en algún tipo de gran alternativa satisfactoria. Esta izquierda, está alimentada intelectualemnte por pensadores como Michel Foucault y todos los que han vuelto a juntar los fragmentos posmodernos bajo el estandarte de un posestructuralismo en gran medida incormpresnible que favorece las políticas identitarias y se abstiene de los análisis de clase. Dado que esta izquierda quiere cambiar el mundo sin tomar el poder, la clase capitalista plutócrata, cada vez más consolidada, se mantiene sin que se desafíe su capacidad de dominar el mundo ilimitadamente."
Hay otro apartado donde dice que el dinero debería ser algo no acumulable. Que se gaste si no se usa. "Si el dinero se oxida, sería imposible ahorrarlo para futuras necesidades. (...) La Sguridad Social, debería cubrir unos derechos de jubilación indepenitnes del principio del ahorro de dinero para el futuro. Los trabajadores de hoy mantienen a quienes les precedieron. (...) Una renta básica garantizada para todos, esto es, un acceso mínimo a un conjunto de valores uso colectivamente gestionado, obviaría totalmente la necesidad de una forma dinero y de unos ahorros privados que garanticen cierta seguridad económica en el futuro."
"Desde el punto de vista del capital es útil, si no crucial, disponer de un mercado laboral segmentado, fragmentado y muy competitivo, lo que alza barreras a la organización coherente y unificada de la fuerza de trabajo. Los capitalistas pueden aplicar, y a menudo lo hacen deliberadamente, una política de divide y vencerás fomentando tensiones interétnicas, por ejemplo. La competencia entre grupos sociales que se enfrentan por mejores posiciones dentro de la división del trabajo se convierte en un medio primordial por el que la mano de obra en general pierde poder y el capital puede ejrcer un control mayor y más completo, tanto en el mercado laboral como en el lugar de trabajo."
En general, al autor le dan risa las iniciativas de ser autosostenible localmente. Si dependes solamente de ti mismo, una mala cosecha puede ser tu fin. "Esto debería ser una saludable lección para todos aquellos que sitúan su fe anticapitalista en la perspectiva de una soberanía alimentaria local, la autosuficiencia y el desacoplamiento de la economía global. Liberarse de las cadenas de la división internacional del trabajo organizado en beneficio del capital y las potencias imperialistas es una cosa, y otra muy distinta intentar desacoplarse del mercado mundial en nombre de la antiglobalización; a mi juicio sería una alternativa potencialmente suicida."
"El capital parece con frecuencia indiferente con respecto a qué diferenciaciones sociales particulares debe apoyar y cuáles discriminar. Tiende a poyar cualquier forma de emancipación social que gana respaldo (como los derechos de los gays y el multiculturalismo durante los últimos años), con tal que no ponga en cuestión las estrategias generales de control de la mano de obra y que constituya un nicho de mercado susceptible de ser explotado." Viva el capitalismo rosa.
Hay un pasaje que me lleva a la conclusión de que a mayor formación del trabajador, mayor producción, pero el beneficiado no es el trabajador sino su empleador. ¿Vale la pena seguir formándose?
Hace muchas referencias a Marx, y creo que cada vez es más importante tener en mente cuál debe ser el objetivo del ser humano. Abandonar ese reino de la necesidad y poder alcanzar el reino de la libertad. "El significado de la actual revolución tecnológica no puede ser rehabilitar la ética del trabajo y la identificación con el propio trabajo. Solo podría tener significado si liberara al trabajador de la ingrata tarea del trabajo a cambio de actividades no laborales en las que podamos, el nuevo tipo de trabajador incluido, desarrollar esa dimensión de nuestra humanidad que no encuentra salida en el trabajo tecnificado."
"Probablemente el capital pueda funcionar indefinidamente, pero de una forma tal que provocará la degradación progresiva del planeta y un empobrecimiento de masas, que acarreará un espectacular aumento de las desigualdades sociales y de la deshumanización de la mayoría de la humanidad, la cual se verá sometida a una negación cada vez más represiva y autocrática del potencial para el florecimiento humano inidividual mediante la intensificación de una vigilancia policial totalitaria por parte del Estado, un sistema de control militarizado y una democracia totalitaria, aspectos todos ellos que en gran medida ya experimentamos en el momento presente." Aterrador.
Me sorprende que existan libros como este y que no estén prohibidos. Claro, para prohibirlos tendría que leerlo la gente y/o los políticos. Y no sé de quién me lo espero menos...
Al final hace varias propuestas de qué se podría hacer.
June 14, 2016
Having watched some of david harvey's lectures on Capital, the thoroughness of the points being argued for were expected. An understanding of Capital is needed to fully appreciate this work. Reading this convinces you that the system is flawed and makes you appreciate how issues and struggles in the world today (e.g. the struggle over the working day or the need to mobilise workforces in asia and africa) are intrinsically linked to capitalism. I did find 17 points a bit overkill - 10 or so would have sufficed! 'The end of capitalism?' I'm not sure.
June 18, 2018
Está interesante, es como una especie de actualización de "El Capital" de Marx. Las mismas ideas básicas pero analizando los rasgos más novedosos del capitalismo actual, algunos de los cuales Marx no había sido capaz de predecir. Tal vez demasiado denso y académico, poco didáctico. He tenido que releer varias cosas para entenderlas, pero por lo demás bien.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews