In re 32', though, production of relative surplus value giving advantage till all other capitalists adopt technology, and the technology superseded, nowadays it seems, and I'm sure Prof. Harvey would agree wholeheartedly with this, given his emphasis on contemporary expropriation by dispossession, it seems that technological leapfrogging is increasingly being replaced by the legal creation of corporate moats and that technology consists less in change in machinery than in creating legal distinctions and political machinations, which ends up exaggerating the power of those true technological advances that do become available.
One thing about automation: there is no such thing, even in principle at this time, as full automation. There are no self-sustaining, man-made systems anywhere, and there are no such systems even in principle. We don’t have “artificial intelligence”, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE at this time. What we have are semi-automated machine learning based systems that require significant amounts of human intervention to operate. Maybe full automation will be possible in the future, but it is pure speculation at this time. What is currently possible is simply an intensified system of exploitation of human labour, just as in Marx’ time. Marx is as relevant to ML than it was to machinery.
Re: 30 minutes in or so: so telling contemporary bourgeois economists' enthusiasm regarding potential productive power of automating everything whilst retaining the idea that somehow--perhaps even by monopolizing the market for a while--enhancing capitalist profitability. Incredible how Marx's dialectical understanding in the mid to late 19th century comprehended how this is fundamentally undermined via the distinction between social relative surplus value and individual relative surplus value, and that this is not clear as day to us now.
I think one of the biggest false critiques of Marxism, is to claim that Marx is a collectivist. I think Harvey and the co-operation chapter actually makes the argument that a bit more nuanced by Marx. First of all, Marx is a realist and suggests that we as humans live among other people, co-operation has taken different forms, but he also claims that the nature of co-operation in the way that capital influences it makes it work against the individual. Capitalists are the true collectivists, but they are collectivists who seek to exploit the other.
37'30" So does the last comment mitigate against Harvey's contention that the coercive laws of competition make "real" technological change internal to capitalism? Or could decreased contemporary technological dynamism be the true flag of the ultimately contradictory nature of the system itself?
1:30:00 Roosevelt podczas wojny nakazał przestawić całą gospodarkę USA na centralne planowanie dokładnie takie jakie kapitaliści stosują w swoich fabrykach. Było to do tego stopnia efektywne, że po wojnie kapitaliści wystrugali z banana mackrthy i podniósł się wrzask że to komunizm. Problem że planowanie miało inny cel. U kapitalistów cel jest maksymalizacja zysków a nie realizacja potrzeb ludzi
There was no successful examples of getting rid of feudalism, until there was. Or getting rid of mercantilism, until there was. We aren't at the end of history
In re 32', though, production of relative surplus value giving advantage till all other capitalists adopt technology, and the technology superseded, nowadays it seems, and I'm sure Prof. Harvey would agree wholeheartedly with this, given his emphasis on contemporary expropriation by dispossession, it seems that technological leapfrogging is increasingly being replaced by the legal creation of corporate moats and that technology consists less in change in machinery than in creating legal distinctions and political machinations, which ends up exaggerating the power of those true technological advances that do become available.
One thing about automation: there is no such thing, even in principle at this time, as full automation. There are no self-sustaining, man-made systems anywhere, and there are no such systems even in principle. We don’t have “artificial intelligence”, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE at this time. What we have are semi-automated machine learning based systems that require significant amounts of human intervention to operate. Maybe full automation will be possible in the future, but it is pure speculation at this time. What is currently possible is simply an intensified system of exploitation of human labour, just as in Marx’ time. Marx is as relevant to ML than it was to machinery.
P
Well said!
Re: 30 minutes in or so: so telling contemporary bourgeois economists' enthusiasm regarding potential productive power of automating everything whilst retaining the idea that somehow--perhaps even by monopolizing the market for a while--enhancing capitalist profitability. Incredible how Marx's dialectical understanding in the mid to late 19th century comprehended how this is fundamentally undermined via the distinction between social relative surplus value and individual relative surplus value, and that this is not clear as day to us now.
😊
I think one of the biggest false critiques of Marxism, is to claim that Marx is a collectivist. I think Harvey and the co-operation chapter actually makes the argument that a bit more nuanced by Marx. First of all, Marx is a realist and suggests that we as humans live among other people, co-operation has taken different forms, but he also claims that the nature of co-operation in the way that capital influences it makes it work against the individual. Capitalists are the true collectivists, but they are collectivists who seek to exploit the other.
37'30" So does the last comment mitigate against Harvey's contention that the coercive laws of competition make "real" technological change internal to capitalism? Or could decreased contemporary technological dynamism be the true flag of the ultimately contradictory nature of the system itself?
1:30:00
Roosevelt podczas wojny nakazał przestawić całą gospodarkę USA na centralne planowanie dokładnie takie jakie kapitaliści stosują w swoich fabrykach. Było to do tego stopnia efektywne, że po wojnie kapitaliści wystrugali z banana mackrthy i podniósł się wrzask że to komunizm. Problem że planowanie miało inny cel. U kapitalistów cel jest maksymalizacja zysków a nie realizacja potrzeb ludzi
3:00
*Marks zakłada w tomie I Idealny wolnorynkowy kapitalizm*
15:00
Wyzysk jest zawsze. To, że pracownicy mogą kupić za swoją wypłatę więcej dóbr nie stanowi o wyzysku!
30
White Timothy Jones John Robinson Ronald
the point tho is that there are almost no successful examples of mankind getting rid of capital.... 1.05
Yet*
There was no successful examples of getting rid of feudalism, until there was. Or getting rid of mercantilism, until there was. We aren't at the end of history