The two main issues that he fails to deal with are:
1) That "Money" as he describes it, is not "Money" at all. It's Debt. If we had a true "Monetery" system, the Money would be a strictly fixed value of a hard good, based on a fixed amount of work.
and 2) The main problem is (as it always has been) that morality has always been discarded at the altar of profit. The rise of humanism (wherein a human has no transcendent moral authority ) leaves us in a state of relative law, rather than absolute law. The founders knew well that the lust for power was far greater than monetary greed. Although the latter is usually a side effect of the former, the supreme law of the land has to be enforced without the influence of the ruling class, yet how can this be when the ruling class are both bankers and government leaders? The lack or morality in leadership leads to backroom deals that leave the the constituency outside. The role and power of government is defined by the people (on paper), but in reality, we the people have no power.

This video is exceptional.

Essentially what David Harvey has served up here is a cold dose of the truth. He's considered a radical, but these theories are clearly supported by recent events. For me, the relationship he draws between the alienation of labour in the 70s/80s through harsh wage control and the subsequent need for a credit-based economy is as devastatingly necessary as it is accurate.

The sort of "Casino Economics" that has become a core characterisitc of our economy in the UK needs to be shut down immediately- or else we should prepare for Recession part 2 in 20 years.

If possible, could the following be emailed to David Harvey.

Following watching the animated presentation “The Cries of Capitalism”, I would like to start by giving praise to your presentation which I thought was intelligent and delivered in an extremely engaging manner.
Whilst I consider myself reasonably well read and of moderate intellect, I am by no means an academic in this subject and so please forgive any layman ideas or errors I make below; this is simply my view point (right or wrong) from what I have observed.
The aspect that I found issue with is that whilst you state not to have the answer, you implore people to join anti-capitalist movements. Whilst I agree that it was the “polar extreme” capitalism that led to the current situation, I do not believe it is wrong in its entirety and you do not mention the benefits it can bring. I believe Capitalism, and its inherent reward mechanism, has in part led to the huge surge in innovation over the last 150 or so years. This has resulted in vast improvements in the overall standard of living. Clearly, the use of “polar extreme” has also caused vast social inequality and the current global economic situation.
On average I believe it is human nature to strive/innovate when the rewards offered include some amount of self-interest. As such some use of capitalism in this aspect is surely beneficial to optimising the increase in overall standards of living. Maybe, in the distant future, when standards of living have reached such a level the human race as a whole will be content to strive/innovate for purely altruistic and social reasons the capitalist reward mechanism will not be required – sadly I think this is a long way off. Until that point, I believe that some aspects of capitalism have valid benefits and should be utilised.
This all leads me to my point. After enjoying 99% of your presentation, I was slightly disappointed by the “join anti-capitalist” movements. This seems to advocate the use of the opposite “polar extreme”. I do not view Capitalism and Socialism as the only two discrete options. Clearly there is a sliding scale with uncountable permutations possible. Possibly, I have limited understanding of anti-capitalist movements and some of them merely try to reign us in from our current extreme. If this is true then I believe that their goals are not well marketed to the general public. My current impression is that their aim is to replace one extreme with another which will cure many problems whilst creating many new ones.
I will leave you by saying that, whilst I disagree on this one point (possibly through ignorance of anti-capitalist movements), your presentation has got me thinking and discussing the topic which is obviously a positive thing. I understand there has been a lot of interest in the presentation, but would love to hear anything you have to say on the above.
Regards
Stephen Pollock
Stephenpollock1@gmail.com

it would be great to have acess to a downloadable Hi-Res image of the final drawing

Excellent--now we can go on to David Harvey's new book on the enigma of capitalism.

I like the way he describes tax breaks as a subsidy.. lol.. since when has having your money Not stolen from you, been a subsidy.. Oh boy!!

1. THE MAN DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT SISTEMIC RISK IS!!
2. HOW CAN HE POSSIBLY TALK ECONOMICS, with that air of authority, WHEN HE CLEARLY DOES NOT READ OR STUDY ECONOMICS? NOT EVEN AT HOME!!! Instead of sticking to some easy rethoric based on the Marx he learned when young, he should GET SERIOUS AND READ WHAT ACTUAL ECONOMISTS HAVE WRITTEN, both about Marx and about economics as a whole. I suggest him to start with the following serious book WRITTEN ON MARXIAN ECONOMICS BY AN ECONOMIST: "An Essay on Marxian Economics" by Joan Robinson.
3. IF HE IS GOING TO THROW A NAME LIKE "KEYNES", HE SHOULD AT LEAST READ KEYNES FIRST! It is evident that he has not.
4.SIR, JUST GET SERIOUS.

Do you mean: reading the same economists who are directly responsible for our shitty situation (they put an end to five hundred years of occidental domination over the world, the balance of powers now shifting to Asia?). Maybe we should get rid of what you call "economics" and replace it by something like philosophy + management studies/organization theory at a very deep level ? Maybe you should learn what true knowledge is (certainly not what you are taught)?
Maybe you should begin by asking what "money" is, what "credit" is, what "liquidity" is (fucking metaphysical nonsense the way keynesian, marxists and libertarians still understand it...) and you would understand how it has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with antropology you dumbass.
Do not EVEN talk about what you will never understand, as a economist. This is out of your range of intelligibility.

By the way, libertarianism is one thing, marxism another one, neo-republicanism something else, as is classical political rationalism too... Don't think there are only two ways of thinking. Capitalism and marxism are both materialism and are both total failure. Either we get rid of our "capitalism or barbary" culture either we will be soon kicked out of History. The second version is probably the most plausible though.

Better yet, read Dr. Michael Hudson > http://michael-hudson.com/


...and learn how to spell "systemic".

Most excellent, I enjoyed this tremendously.

Love it. But FYI David Harvey is a Geographer, not a Sociologist.

This video-lecture is about as far "off-base" as most theories on socialism and communism, which has never worked in any country, and eventually only leads to a totalitarian form of government control and takeover. Government has never solved anything, except create larger and more ineffective controls. From the 1930's forward in America, it's not that the USA has had a "wage repression," it's that the worker-class cannot afford the social-welfare programs of our big-government, thus taxes are killing the working class. Socialism is Utopian, and will only take us down the road to "serfdom."

"... theories on socialism and communism, ..." You are missing the point of the piece. Even though the author may be a communist, I do not know, he is simply explaining one of the arguments that Marx used. That of how capitalism contains an inherent contradiction.

Mr. Harvey makes a cogent argument explaining one reason that the unfettered financial markets do not work. Please address that argument.

You also state that socialism and communism did not work. I'll agree with on communism, but if you include countries like Norway in the socialist camp then I would have to disagree with you on the socialism part.

As an aside, just in case you are a Hayekian, please name a country where laissez-faire capitalism has worked for a period as long as Soviet Russia existed, or even one-quarter as long. Or to make it even easier, name a single country where laissez-faire capitalism has even existed. Talk about a failure of a system, that system cannot even get off the ground!

For a good discussion of the topic of why laissez-faire capitalism (a pure market economy) does not exist please see the link: http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae13_2_2.pdf. Note: this is from the mises institute which is the headquarters of the Von Mises folks. They say that such an economy does not exist and offer a long article of apologetics why it does not.

Although I agree with what you say Marko, I think that the reference to the paper by E. Stringham and J. Hummel fails to clearly explain in adequate language their points, and most people will fall asleep before they understand it. The problem is that many people, even educated economists, like capitalism like football fans like their team; they don´t always bother to reason if their allegiance is wise. So the idea of having a sustainable social system with a free-market system on the top for budding entrepreneurs and market-types, would give society stability and encourage enterprise. This could be "marketed" to both ends of the spectrum, so to speak...

Aren´t you just repeating the same reply many people have been giving for the last century? This isn´t about "Government", its about a sensible and logical solution to poverty caused by the use of automation, which has been shown to cause reduced employment offer the last 2 centuries, leading to a financial stagnation and high unemployment. You can substitute the word "Government" with "collaboration of citizens" - we are all citizens, we want to find a solution that doesn´t cause those who can´t find work to starve or suffer. Rather than people in this column spouting their opinions, what we need is facts; like:- in the 17th century 67% of the british peoples were employed in agriculture, in 2000 this was reduced to 1%. In the 1950´s 24% of the population were employed in manufacture (?), and in 2000 this reduced to 12% (?). Without facts we have no idea whats happening.

Right. Don't listen to them when they say "vote for me it will be ok", instead, "vote for me and it will all be ok." Got it.

I love it when people lead others who aren't paying attention to false conclusions. That's kind of the real problem, and it's one of human nature not capitalist or anticapitalist.

So why don´t you find some relevant facts, so we can know what the real problems are?

Ay Currumba...! Love this...thanks for sharing Urooj :o)

This video is amazing and the most well thought out and intelligent video I have seen in a long time. Thank you for making it available.

What a peculiar set of icons. An excellent lecture. Think it deserves a "making of" verson. Thanks.

Can't wait for Part Two - Let me know when you have the solution

Are there not two basic choices? Let the unemployed starve, as Russia did in the 90´s, or provide basic resources to all. Well, governments could consider reducing the use of technology to create more jobs, or hope that someone invents a star-drive so we could expand capitalism to other planetary systems... but realistically, any solution will be the solution of necessity versus interests. You could imagine that the wealthy and the western governments have the power to decide, but perhaps what will happen is that they will be unable to control the millions of unemployed and angry people that have been made "redundant" by technology or by market changes, and as a result, as is happening in Spain, the governments will have to extend the welfare support to the long-term unemployable to prevent social chaos and resulting destabilizing violence. The human race has the technology and resources to feed and clothe everyone, so the human race has many options to decide. The problem is that when "democracies" are controlled by the rich and powerful, they rarely make good long-term decisions, leaving necessity to shape our future.

Engaging multi-media approach. The visuals are world-class, relevant, witty, and supportive of the vocals. What a great way to get a message to a brain!

Geoeconomics - What could this system accomplish in the real world?

At the ends of the spectrum, people on welfare would be encouraged to work and reach their potential, and people who are rich would be encouraged to use their talents to "earn" verses accumulating unearned wealth. The ecosystem and resources would be conserved and innovation to do so would be encouraged, promoting stability. The use of information technology would encourage transparency fostering ideas and consensus. The monetary system based on the above though not redeemable for resources (the public commons) would encourage confidence, and would take into account what true wealth is in terms of natural resources and human capital and give governments the flexibility they are seeking to transition, in light of their obligations. Borrowing from Mason Gaffneys capital turnover concepts, and liquidity in banking proposals, it would reduce sunk capital, encouraging job growth and again overall stability.

What do you think?

Mason Gaffney - Economist
http://www.masongaffney.org/index.html

Mason Gaffney - Essays
http://www.masongaffney.org/essays.html

Mason Gaffney - Book - The Corruption of Economics
http://www.amazon.com/Corruption-Economics-Georgist-Paradigm/dp/tags-on-product/0856832448

Mason Gaffney - Book - After the Crash - Designing a Depression Free Economy
http://www.amazon.com/After-Crash-Designing-Depression-free-Economic/dp/1444333070/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

Geo-Economics - A Proposal for Sustainability, Liberty, and Prosperity

We stand on the brink of a second great depression, with poverty in the midst of plenty. The potential social and environmental costs loom large.

Speculation, especially of land has been at the root of every crash in history.

History clearly shows too little regulation has been proven not to work, but too much has also been proven a failure.

Can we find a common sense balance? - We must.

As the second decade of the 21st century unfolds, ecosystems, financial systems, social systems, and other important institutions, including governments, are being overwhelmed.

Keynesian neoclassical economics seems to have become ineffective (hitting the wall) certainly from a monetary perspective, but also from a fiscal approach perspective as the debts are mounting, and the overall stimulus effect is falling on a dollar in - GDP output result.

With the gigantic amount of debt in the world, and especially derivatives (above all GDP by an order or magnitude) , and taking into account the present global ecology, a destructive stimulus (War) with the potential of WW III, might not "stimulate" the economy enough verses the severe trade off.

What to do?

For too long citizens have been divided over ideologies that appear to have outlived their usefulness.

It is time to take a fresh look at the problems that face our world, and find solutions that fit these pressing problems in a way that unites people in a new synthesis.

Our shared financial and ecological crises seem to lead to solutions offered by Henry George and Silvio Gesell.

These two philosophies combined with what is good in our present system can create something better.

That is Geo-Economics. It combines the best of what would work.

It promotes values of individual incentive, liberty, private property & shared community resources, true conservation, human dignity, and personal responsibility.

Geo-Economics as presently envisioned, would include a simplified tax system featuring low or no taxation on labor and encourage capital turnover, (thus encouraging job creation and innovation), with land the primary "rent" tax to fund our necessary government and services.

Under Geo-Economics, Land (the earth, including water and air resources) would be put back to it's traditional central place in society, and in would be considered separately from capital as it was originally in classical economics.

Geo-Economics includes a new monetary system which takes into account the finite earth, and building in true value into a medium of exchange.

This monetary value would include the concept value of time, (From Gesells theory for money velocity) but also considered in other ways. "Time is money" Other value concepts could include innovation, other socially valued information, price discovery and backed by a basket of commodities, not just Gold, but all resources.

Information technology could tie it together. (Computer Processing, Sensors, Business Intelligence - analytics, Databases, regulated trading systems, communication systems, social networks, etc.)

The system of value would consider whether a resource be used today, or saved for another day, while also taking into account pollution (carbon credits only the beginning?)

All are included as stakeholders with respectful consideration of others ideas to improve this concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_george

Progress and Poverty by Henry George
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

Scholars of George
http://wealthandwant.com/docs/index.htm

http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Andelson_HGRC.html

http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Dewey_Steps.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Gesell?

Gesells successful system used in the Great Depression
http://alt-money.tribe.net/thread/70e5eb29-853d-44ca-9faa-b789d1757037

The NATURAL ECONOMIC ORDER by Silvio Gesell
http://www.appropriate-economics.org/ebooks/neo/neo2.htm

I'm with the Queen - why didn't they see it coming? But, what caused this blindness? Contemporary greed? Goes back a lot further than that - domestication of animals, theoretical underpinning of society by an elite or royal family; agriculture; manufacturing; colonisation. It is about time there was a rethink especially about denial that there are other ways of thinking and acting. It is time to look to other cultures and societies that have been repressed and dominated to ensure the current system serves its masters.

Thats incredibly done - amazing way to tell a story and get attention.

Why call him a 'radical' sociologist, any intelligent person not part of the capitalist machine shares his views

I have found the entire RSAnimate videos to be entertaining and instructive. Being of the low attention-span generation, I can't quite sit through the full lectures but these are great. Any chance they could be made into podcasts on i-tunes? I would like to be able to download the available ones and be made aware of future animated lectures.

The theory is correct to a certain degree but what is left out in the equation is the instantaneous messaging of public media that capitalism feeds off of and believes as if it were biblical stone. The rapid change of media information causes in large part the immediate response mechanism of the public perspective. Y2K is a fine example of media testing their power in America and how based on minimum input by the British media is was not an issue in England.
The first step to stemming capitalism is stemming the media and what is put out to the listening ear by them. Their power has become so great that they feel they control the outcome and in fact do. Public forum was a Marxist platform. How do you incorporate that into today's world and make it hold throughout is the key to change.

Sociology... grownups yelling "it's not fair!"

How clever.

Why won't this piece of shit load BEFORE I press play?

Brilliant! I've just discovered these animates, they are mint!

His brief comment on the fact that Americans don't strike because they have to pay mortgages is right on. One thing I would like to add, though, is that in addition to solving the demand problem with credit cards, banks also utilized pension/retirement funds. This is perhaps even more nefarious than consumer credit.

Thanks for the post.

At last some common sense, excellent presentation! Its time we looked for a new economic model. As technology continues to do away with jobs, governments will face growing social unrest until they establish a basic living wage, or credits, so that everyone in the community has their basic needs. Those with jobs will have additional income, but we have to look to share the resources, food, clothing, shelter, regardless of whether people have work, because we have massive production capabilities that no longer require masses of people! Capitalism, or a similar form of free market economy could operate on top of a basic shared-resource for everyone system, which would have to be paid for by existing business/factory owners through taxation (resource sharing) and clearly the issue then becomes population! I can see a model developing along those lines whether we do anything or not!

Fantastic! Best thing I've seen in 2010.

Amusing stuff. What a pity that so much talent results in so little substance. Let’s have a debate. Wow. The RSA should be proud of such decisive thinking. Capitalism is bad – you bet. Unfortunately, the Marxist thinking seems to rapidly morph into the cruellest form of repression. Maybe the sorts of people who are attracted to Marxism are just weird. Give me the vagaries of Capitalism any day rather than the ranters of the left.

It would be nice to beleive that we could all continue playing that game, but time has moved on, and unless you´re willing to let hundreds of millions starve on the streets, a form of extended social welfare is the only solution, unless of course you want to destroy all the machines... time to think of new ideas,not repeat history

How about we stop the redistribution of middle-class wages to the people that already have 95% of the money... Cut the taxes, and let the individual be free to take care of the poor, as the churces and other charities in America have been doing for 250 years already.

While I agree with your sentiment, I can't agree that it is social welfare that we need. Social welfare in a production system that creates injustice is a mere sop. What we need is social enterprise - where the mode of production itself produces an equitable share of the 'welfare', both financial and social.
An equal society does not have to be a poor one, but how we get from here to there without putting a few 'owners' up against the wall for shooting is the challenge for the marxist academics.
For me it is a leap of faith too far to think that liberal democracies will seriously challenge the priveleges of ownership and 'limited liability' that underpin this system's inequities.

I agree with you, but I think that most probably, events will take their own course, as is happening in Spain, where the government is having to extend the unemployment support for over a million people who otherwise would have no income at all and end-up on th streets. I think the main challenge with social enterprise is how to implement it in parallel with the current free-market system. Of course many millions will remain dependent on social welfare until social enterprises could become widespread and effective. But what happens when there is simply not enough opportunties under social enterprise for all the millions of unemployed? What happends in the future when factories and services become almost 100% automated? We reach the same point in which the available production and service systems, be it government or private sector, are capable of meeting all needs and there simply is no need for so many millions of people. In the 17th century, approaching 70% of the UK propulation was involved in agriculture. In the 20th century that dropped to 1% who still produced well over 60% of the UKs food needs. There are many other examples of the same trend across sectors, and the end result is that there is no need for the majority of people to be involved in production or services. We have to face the fact that we will have to share resources to feed an ever larger bulk of the population, and channel their activities into positive social activities, of face increasing civil unrest.

Very nicely presented discussion piece but zero useful content.

[...] Video: David Harvey: The Crises of Capitalism [...]

http://www.berfrois.com/

I love your presentation. The ideas are easily absorbed and one takews pleasure in the lesson. However - perhaps the only way we can curb the worst excesses of capitalism is to find credit HARDER to get, demand minimum levels of public good on all economic and government functions, re-define the corporate entity, and establish of culture of repair and personal fabricating ability.

Mr. Harvey, please READ Hayek as today's crisis has NOTHING to do with capitalism.

One of the aspects that is only slightly mentioned, but not made explicit in this video, and is of vital importance (and not merely because it highlights the limitations of Marxist theory for a contemporary, non-Industrial Age world) is the rift that has occurred between finance and capital. Essentially, because money has transcended into the cyber world, finance can "manufacture money" (or at least its contemporary incarnation) without requiring the messy business of true capitalism (concentration of resource, production, profit, repeat).

I absolutely agree that a new mode of thinking is required, about which I've written on my blog: http://whatisthemessage.blogspot.com/2010/07/crisis-of-capitalism-and-effective.html

Have you read James Robertson on monetary reform? It's extremely relevant, in particular in relation to the explosion of credit.

из ккапитализма социализм не получиться.

So the capitalisation of socialism has failed?

Is it possible to obtain a digitalized photograph of that drawing? Would be looking great on my wall.

An A1 PDF is available at the CognitiveMedia homepage.
http://www.cognitivemedia.co.uk/shop.php

An excellent talking piece. Might inspire discussion on solutions.

This is brilliant. Starting at 7:55 covers the content of about 1200 pages of Capital in 30 seconds. Hilarious pictures. Who is the artist?!

oi! Harvey is a GEOGRAPHER! not a sociologist. Well, geographical-materialist, to be precise.

On point! Needs to be a basic part of the first day of hi school/freshman college sociology and economics classes with a little "where do we go from here" guidebook for students and community/workingfolk.

Great. A difficult subject presented with humour and vision.

Would RSA please invite someone who correctly forecast the financial crisis's arrival rather than a bunch of know-nothing socialist academic shills. The Austrian Economists have been warning of this for a decade or longer: Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Marc Faber, Peter Schiff, Von Mises Institute, et al. All too often, such as in this last video, the Austrians are marginalized and misquoted, but if you go back and read Hayek or watch videos of any of the others, you'd see precisely we're in the mess we're in. If all else fails, read Reinhart and Rogoff's "This time is different" which discusses the last eight centuries of financial crisis, and that this time is no different than the last. Government and monetary policy is the problem.

The right wingers also say that crises of this kind is not necessarily a bad thing, that inequality is wonderful and they completely and utterly ignore the ecological crisis. Douglas Adams'parody of them was the story economists who landed on planet covered with forests. They based the currency on leaves but this led to hyperinflation. Being good monetarists they burnt down the forests!

Funny! But you forgot that these planet-hopping economists also forgot about autumn, when they really suffered a crisis! :)

However:- Does anyone actually think that behaving in a tribal-manner helps us find the best solution to this crisis? "I am a Capitalist, we are great!" - "I am a social-economist, we are the future!" - "I support Chelsea...", its all the same story.

So can we forget which camp we belong to and open our minds? I doubt it personally, lets see:

Lets focus on what we know:-

1. For over a century business owners have been reducing labour requirement using machinery and a diverse and increasingly competent range of technologies, which has of course reduced the employment market dramatically. I hear you! New jobs are created in new sectors, in service for example, but also the new technologies are reducing service-sector labour requirements.

Can we imagine a future, say in 50 years, or less, in which robotic-automation and smarter computer software will reduce employment even more dramatically?

Do we really need all of humanity tied to work benches or desks, or serving in shops, etc??

Should we artificially create employment in order to justify giving people a living-wage?

Can we project the effects of ever advancing, albeit slowly at present, technology on employment trends?

Is any qualified and competent person able to do that here and now?

So far all this blog has produced is words, how about some action!

Anyone who predicts almost anything for enough time will often be correct.

So have the post-Keynesians, such as Steve Keen. I believe the lecture also mentioned Minsky and financial instability. I would argue that nearly every single socialist economist forecast the financial crisis, because socialists state that crisis is a fundemental aspect of capiatlism. International capitalism has fallen into crisis in the 1880-90's (The Great Depression before The Great Depression), the 1920-30's (The Great Depression), the 1970-80's (stagflation), and now in 2008-10 (the Global Finacial Crisis). That's every 30-40 years! You could say we were due for a new one.

I, too, say "different than"!

I was sitting in classes taught by David Harvey five years ago in which he was quite explicitly predicting a global financial crisis precipitated by a collapse of the housing market. You might want to read a book or two of his before you pass judgement. (And yes, I've read Hayek and Von Mises.) The idea that the Austrians are "marginalized" is preposterous. They are lionized in Econ Departments around the world and popularized versions of their ideas are routinely peddled on every TV network.

@ shaftoe
Actually marxist economists have been predicting this crisis for the last few years, and this crisis is due to the fetters of overproduction and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, both key aspects of a capitalist economy which removal of govt. barriers would do nothing to eradicate.

And let's just have a look at the Marxist of history, and how the devaluation of the individual has led to the rise of the totalitarian state... Anyone familiar with how the banks have funded both sides of the great wars? Who won? Not the Marxists. Certainly not the citizens. It was the banks!

I would commend to you the book "Saving Leonardo" by Nancy Pearcey as an interesting addition to the dialog on cultural forces and humanism in general.
http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Leonardo-Secular-Assault-Meaning/dp/1433669277/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283438030&sr=1-1