craner

Beast of Burden
Well, I don't know a lot about his other work so I can't really tell you if it is down to his Marxist analytical method or not, but in this book he basically does a lot of work to perpetuate his tightly-held, conspiratorial view of capitalism. It's an exercise in assembling data to fit a conclusion he already feels in his bones. That's fine, but it presents itself as something that it is not.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
If the conspiratorial view of capitalism is that the rich seek to further their own interests, which are in opposition to those of the poor, then I agree with Harvey. Obvs.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
You don't think anything is wrong with it?
There's not alot to disagree with, is there? Pretty safe and base line critique, and plenty of track covering equivocation- was surprised to see he was nice to blair and clinton and even the original mont perelin guys. My primary problem was that it was, well, brief. Lots of listing going on.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Of course you do, which is fine. But that's what the book sets out to do. It doesn't set out to present a history of neoliberalism, like the title suggests or the way OUP marketed it. It's more like a political pamphlet.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
It's not really conspiracy to say that Thatcher (for example) had a bunch of libertarian types around her who wanted to work together to break union power and privatise the shit out of everything.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Of course you do, which is fine. But that's what the book sets out to do. It doesn't set out to present a history of neoliberalism, like the title suggests or the way OUP marketed it. It's more like a political pamphlet.
To be fair to Harvey he's not exactly hidden the politics of what he is trying to do?
 

craner

Beast of Burden
It's not really conspiracy to say that Thatcher (for example) had a bunch of libertarian types around her who wanted to work together to break union power and privatise the shit out of everything.

No, but it is to claim that the only objective of this is the restoration of class power. If it's not a conspiracy, then, it's a theory. And Harvey's is a theoretical work.

I'm not criticizing him for doing this necessarily or saying he has been dissembling. But, for whatever reason, this book is often presented as
something it isn't, that is a history of neoliberalism. It's a critique of neoliberalism with an identifiable agenda.
 

suspended

Well-known member
1972/1973 is typically considered a pivotal year for the American economy, when wages begin stagnating, inequality rises, and workers aren't given shares from increases in productivity. I've actually wanted to do a thread on it.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Well I think we can agree that people's standard of living (by most but not all measures) has increased since the stone age too.

This is broadly the argument that boomers make when it is pointed out to them that kids growing up now will have a worse standard of living than them.
 
Top