[OPE] 'Democracy Now!' interview of David Harvey on the G20, the Financial Crisis and Neoliberalism

"Democracy Now!" is a radio program hosted by Amy Goodman. / In solidarity,
Jerry

Marxist Geographer David Harvey on the G20, the Financial Crisis and
Neoliberalism
For some analysis on the G20 summit and the financial crisis, we speak to a
leading thinker on the global economy. David Harvey is a Marxist geographer
and distinguished professor of anthropology at the Graduate Center of the
City University of New York. He is the author of several books, including
The Limits to Capital and A Brief History of Neoliberalism.

Guest:
David Harvey, Marxist geographer and distinguished professor of anthropology
at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has been
teaching Karl Marx’s Capital for nearly forty years and is the author of
several books, including The Limits to Capital and A Brief History of
Neoliberalism. He has a lengthy discussion of the financial crisis in the
latest issue of n+1 magazine.
Rush Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: For some analysis on the G20 summit in London and the financial
crisis overall, I’m joined now by a leading thinker on the global economy,
David Harvey. He’s a Marxist geographer and distinguished professor of
anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He’s
author of several books, including The Limits to Capital and A Brief History
of Neoliberalism. He has a lengthy interview on the financial crisis in the
latest issue of n+1 magazine, nplusonemag.com. David Harvey joins us now on
Democracy Now!

We welcome you to Democracy Now!

DAVID HARVEY: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the—what is being proposed by the G20
leaders? And what needs to be done in this country?

DAVID HARVEY: I think Tony Benn was exactly right in the earlier segment,
and it’s a great pleasure to be here after him. I was always an admirer of
his.

What they’re trying to do is to reinvent the same system. And I think this
is a collective concern, and there’s a lot of squabbling on the details, as
it were. But the fundamental argument they are making is, how can we
actually reconstitute the same sort of capitalism we had and have had over
the last thirty years in a slightly more regulated, benevolent form, but don’t
challenge the fundamentals? And I think it’s time we challenge the
fundamentals.

AMY GOODMAN: What are those fundamentals?

DAVID HARVEY: The fundamentals have to do with the incredible increase in
consolidation, if you like, of class power. I mean, since the 1970s, we’ve
seen a tremendous increase in inequality, not just simply in this country,
but worldwide. And in effect, the assets of the world have been accumulated
more and more and more in few hands. And I think when you look at the nature
of the bailout programs, the stimulus programs and all the rest of it, what
it really does is to, in effect, try to keep those assets intact while
making the rest of us pay. And so, I think it’s time we stopped that and
kind of said, well, actually, we should actually be getting more of the
assets and, you know, much greater equality.

AMY GOODMAN: And how would we get more of the assets? How would there be
greater equality?

DAVID HARVEY: I think, for example, the nature of the bailout of the banks
and the sort of restructuring that is going on is, in effect, about saving
the banks and saving the bankers, while actually sticking it to the people.
I mean, we’re the ones who are going to have to pay for this in the long
run. So what I’m kind of arguing for is a political awareness that that is
happening.

In fact, it has been happening over the last thirty years, sort of step by
step. It’s been disguised in this kind of rhetoric about individual liberty
and freedom of markets and all those kinds of things. But if you look
backwards, you will see that this is not the first financial crisis we’ve
had. We’ve had many of them over the last thirty years, and they all have
the same character. We had our own savings and loan crisis back in the
1980s. There was a Mexican debt crisis back in 1982, when, in effect, Mexico
was going to go bankrupt. And if they had gone bankrupt, then the New York
investment banks would have gone under. So what did they do? They bailed out
Mexico, therefore bailing out the New York investment bankers, and then they
made the Mexican people pay.

AMY GOODMAN: Why would the banks in New York have gone under?

DAVID HARVEY: Because they had lent the money to Mexico in the first place.
And if Mexico had just defaulted on its debt, what would the—you know, what
would the bankers have done? They would have lost a tremendous amount.

AMY GOODMAN: If you were Timothy Geithner, if you were the Treasury
Secretary—

DAVID HARVEY: Yes, if I was Treasury Secretary.

AMY GOODMAN: —what exactly would you be doing?

DAVID HARVEY: Oh, I would take a lot of that money, and I would put it into
some kind of a national reconstruction corporation. And I would say, “Look,
your first duty is to take care of the foreclosure crisis and the people who
have been foreclosed upon. So go into cities like Cleveland and so on that
have been devastated, and go into sort of areas in California and so on and
take care of the foreclosure crisis.”

AMY GOODMAN: How would you do that?

DAVID HARVEY: Well, I think one of the ways you could do that is to start to
buy out all of those houses that are about to be foreclosed on and put them
into some kind of, I don’t know, municipal housing association or some
collective form of that kind, and then allow people to remain in those
houses, even though they’re no longer necessarily owners. So the ownership
rights would shift.

I mean, we have a myth in this country that homeownership is the gospel, as
it were. But for a lot of people, homeownership is not a good idea. And I
think, actually, it’s not a good idea in general.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

DAVID HARVEY: For two reasons. One is, it makes you actually very vulnerable
if you’re a heavily debt-encumbered homeowner. And actually, the initial
legislation was kind of interesting, the debate around it back in the 1930s,
when it kind of said debt-encumbered homeowners don’t go on strike, and
because it’s—you know, you’ve got to pay your mortgage. And so, this
becomes, as it were, a millstone around your neck. And that then makes you
very vulnerable to fluctuations in the market like we’re seeing right now,
particularly if you have variable rate mortgages, things of that kind, and
you can really easily get caught out. So, in effect, what we’ve seen in the
housing market is a tremendous plundering of the assets of some of the most
vulnerable people in the country. I mean, this has been the biggest loss of
asset wealth to the African American population that there’s ever been.

AMY GOODMAN: And the response of some that, well, they should never have
bought houses to begin with, because they couldn’t afford them?

DAVID HARVEY: Well, some of them, so that’s right, you know, but this is a
familiar story. The first wave of foreclosures was really in impoverished
neighborhoods, African American, immigrant and very often single-headed
household women. And, yeah, they probably should not have become homeowners.
But on the other hand, they were taking a risk. But who took the real big
risks in this economy, if it wasn’t the bankers? So, in a sense, they’re
being made to pay, while the bankers are still walking away with a
tremendous amount of money.

AMY GOODMAN: What is the connection between gentrification and the mortgage
crisis?

DAVID HARVEY: The gentrification process in here in New York and the like
was again about kind of reconstructing urban environments in such a way, and
a lot of that reconstruction entailed, particularly when it was
corporate-led, entailed a big investment in housing. You then have the
problem of who’s going to buy the housing. And it’s not only gentrification,
it’s also a lot of that new development, new condominiums and all the rest
of it.

And it’s kind of interesting. Finance controls both the creation of housing,
the production of housing, and also its consumption. You lend money to the
developers. They go in and gentrify a neighborhood. You lend them money to
the people who are going to occupy it. And even if they don’t have—you’ve
got to find that market for the gentrification once that process goes on.
And so, the connection there in this, the financial operators are working on
both ends of this game, if you like.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what you mean by “the right to the city”?

DAVID HARVEY: What I mean by the right to the city is that we have, I think,
a real need right now to democratize decisions as to how a city shall be and
what it should be about, so that we can actually have, if you like, a
collective project about reshaping urban—the urban world. I mean, here in
this city, effectively, the right to the city has been held by the mayor and
the Development Office and the developers and the financiers. Most of us don’t
really have a very strong say. I mean, there are kind of community
organizations and so on. So I think the democratization of the city, of city
decision making, is crucial. And I think we want to reclaim the right to the
city for all of us, so that we can all actually not only have access to what
exists in the city, but also be able to reshape the city in a different
image, in a different way, which is more socially just, more environmentally
sustainable and so on.

AMY GOODMAN: What does this current crisis mean for the future of
capitalism, David Harvey?

DAVID HARVEY: You know, crises are terribly important in the history of
capitalism. They are what I would call the kind of irrational rationalizers
of the system. What happens is that capitalism develops in a certain way,
has real problems, then it goes into crisis, and it comes phoenix-like out
of it in another form. We went through a long crisis in the 1970s. There was
a long crisis in the 1930s. So a crisis, then, is a moment of
reconfiguration of what capitalism is going to be about. And right now, as I’ve
said, the powers that be are more about trying to reconstruct the
pre-existing power structure or save the pre-existing power structure
without intervening in it in any way.

The way I see it right now is, however, we may be in a different kind of
world. Put it this way. Capitalism historically has grown at a 2.5 percent
compound rate of growth since 1750. OK. And in good years, it’s growing at
three percent. Obama, the other day, said, “Well, in a couple of years, we’ll
be back to three percent growth.” Gordon Brown says, “Well, actually, the
economy will double in the next few years.” Now, when capitalism was
constituted by everything going on around Manchester and a few other hot
spots in 1750, three percent compound growth rate was no problem. You’re now
looking at a situation where you’re going to say three percent compound rate
of growth on everything that’s going on in East and Southeast Asia, Europe,
North America and everywhere in the world. We’re looking at a different kind
of world.

The total economy back in, say, 1750 was about $135 billion. It was $4
trillion by the time you get to 1950. It’s $40 trillion by the time you get
to 2000. It’s now $56 trillion. If it doubles in the next year, we’re
talking about $100 trillion. And by 2030, you’re going to have to find three
trillion employment, if you like, profitable opportunities for capital to
operate at that point.

Now, there are limits, if you like, and I think we’re hitting those limits
environmentally, socially, politically. And I think it’s time we started
really thinking about an alternative. In other words, we have to think about
a zero-growth economy.

AMY GOODMAN: What does that mean?

DAVID HARVEY: It means that instead of growing at three percent per year,
you just keep it constant.

AMY GOODMAN: And how do you do that?

DAVID HARVEY: And that means a completely—it means it has to be
non-capitalist, because that means there’s not going to be any profit around
for anybody to have. In effect, you’re going to have to have a nonprofit
economy. And how you do that, of course, is a big, big question. I’m not—I
don’t have the blueprint for it. But I think that this is one of the key
questions we should be thinking about right now. And what disturbs me is we’re
going through this crisis right now, and we’re not asking those kinds of big
questions that we should be asking.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you make of the massive protest against the, well,
smallest percentage of the bailout money, which is going to the executives,
certainly something people can identify with?

DAVID HARVEY: Well, I got—actually, I got upset about all this fuss about
the AIG. I mean, we’re talking about $165 million in bonuses or 220? Last
January 2008, the Wall Street bonuses collectively came in at $32 billion.
OK. And at that time, two million people had already lost their houses.
Figure, two million people have lost their houses; Wall Street rewards
itself $32 billion. Nobody got angry about that. And I was extremely angry
about that. It seemed to me this was class robbery. This is like the bankers
going down into the hold of a sinking ship and grabbing all the gold and
going up and getting on a lifeboat and then disappearing and then leaving
everybody else on this sinking ship. And at that time, I thought that was
outrageous. And that’s $32 billion instead of this $165 or $235 million we’re
talking about.

That money is already gone. I mean, when this guy wrote in to the New York
Times, kind of saying, “I’m not going to—I’m just going to give mine
 away”—he’s going to give away $740,000 or something. And he said, “But my
family is not affected.” But there are people starving right now in many
parts of the world. Children are starving because of this. Nothing’s
happening about that. And that seems to me—

AMY GOODMAN: So what’s the difference between last year and now?

DAVID HARVEY: The difference between last year and now is that, actually,
the thing has got much worse. I mean, the toxic assets, if you like, become
more and more apparent. And we’ve had, of course, the destruction of the
investment banks, Lehman going bankrupt and the others merging, and so on.
So I think the difference right now is that Wall Street is clearly having to
completely reconstitute itself.

But I don’t think we should kid ourselves into thinking that actually there’s
not a lot of money—people are still making good money on Wall Street.

AMY GOODMAN: Who?

DAVID HARVEY: It’s just it’s consolidated now, as it were. We’ve got four
major banks left in this country. And it’s a tremendous centralization and
consolidation of class power.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Harvey, what is neoliberalism?

DAVID HARVEY: Neoliberalism, for me, was a political project, which formed
in the 1970s. And it was a political project to try to consolidate and
reconstruct class power. And it did it, if you like, through a whole kind of
set of mechanisms about privatization, about free markets, individual
responsibility, withdrawal of the state from social provision. But the state
never withdrew from the economy. I mean, that’s a myth. The state has been
bailing people out all along. Actually, the savings and loan crisis, I
mentioned earlier.

But as soon as the big guns get into trouble, the state bails them out. And
this is what we call moral hazard, that actually because you’re bailing out
Wall Street all of the time, then Wall Street will take high risks. And they’ve
taken immensely high risks over the last thirty years and again and again
and again being caught out. And each time they get caught out, the state
steps in and saves them. That’s the connection, if you like, between the
state and Wall Street. That’s the connection that has to be broken.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you see as the role of social movements?

DAVID HARVEY: I think right now it’s a desperate moment, in the sense that
if we’re going to come out of this crisis in any different kind of way, it’s
going to be because of the formation of very strong social movements that
say enough is enough. We’ve got to change the world in a very, very
different way.

Now, social movements of this kind don’t sort of form overnight. They take a
little while. I mean, it’s interesting when you look back. In 1929, there’s
the stock market crash. The social movements didn’t really start getting
into motion until 1932, ’33. It took about three years. Right now, I think
we’re in a legitimation crisis. They’re trying to rescue the system as is.
And I think more and more people are beginning to say this is an
illegitimate system, and therefore we have to think about doing something
different.

Out of that, likely to come, all kinds of different social movements. We
have this movement, which is a relatively new movement, called the Right to
the City movement. It’s here in New York City, and it’s several other cities
in the United States. There’s a national coalition. It’s small right now,
and it’s getting its act together. But these kinds of things can grow very
fast, very quickly. So there is likely to be many movements of that kind.

In other countries, there are already quite massive social movements. This
country is a little bit behind on that trajectory.

AMY GOODMAN: And what would you identify as those massive social movements
elsewhere?

DAVID HARVEY: In Brazil, for example, there are—there is a Right to the City
movement in Brazil around housing provision and dwelling and so on. There’s
a landless peasants’ movement in Brazil, which is very, very active and very
successful in many of the things that it does. So, those movements are
really very strong. There’s a peasant movement in India, too, which is
actually really quite, quite strong.

And so, I think there’s a real moment here, where we also have to think
about these things getting together globally, which is, of course, where the
World Social Forum originated. And so, there are ways in which we can start
to think about coordination between different parts of the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Harvey, how does war fit into this? US is still
pursuing the war in Iraq, though President Obama says that we will
eventually withdraw there, but expanding the war now in Afghanistan, not
just 17,000 more troops, then another 4,000—that made it 21,000—today the
Pentagon asking for another 10,000 troops?

DAVID HARVEY: Right, right. Well, interestingly, there’s two aspects to
this. First, you know, since 1945, what you call the military-industrial
complex, it’s been a terribly important vehicle in American development. It
has been the center of what we call military Keynesianism. I mean, it’s the
one sector where deficit financing was thoroughly permitted, and it was the
one sector under Reagan that expanded immensely and has never been let go,
in spite of the end of the Cold War. So there’s been a very important
economic function to what the military is about.

The second thing is that, as we’ve seen over the last couple of years,
commodity prices are very unstable. And command over commodities and
resources becomes absolutely crucial. So, in my view, a lot of the
interventionism in the Middle East and elsewhere has been clearly built
around US interest in controlling oil supplies. And it’s not only about
that, but it’s very strongly connected with that, so that then arguments are
made about, well, we’ve got to get rid of a dictator. Well, there have been
plenty of dictators around the world the United States has not taken any
notice of, because it didn’t control oil. And so, the kind of war machine,
if you like, and the covert machines starts to become very important in
terms of maintaining corporate access to the resources of the world and, at
some point, also to the labor resources of the world, not only the natural
resources.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you see the US in relation to the rest of the world, the
balance of power? US versus Europe, US and China—do you see China emerging
as the major dominant economic power?

DAVID HARVEY: No, I don’t see it becoming the major dominant economic power.
I think there was this National Intelligence Council report, which came out
last year. It kind of said, basically, the US is no longer going to be the
dominant power in the world. It’s going to be a very important player in the
world, but we have to look forward to a multi-polar world, in which East and
Southeast Asia, for example, is economically as powerful as the United
States. The European Union, if it gets its act together, is likely to be as
powerful as the United States. So the United States has to look towards a
multi-polar world.

That’s actually both unstable and potentially rather dangerous. Whether we
like what the US has done with its domination, at least there was only the
US versus the Soviet Union kind of world. When you start to look at the
multi-polar world, you start to think back to what happened to the 1930s,
when the groups decided they were going to go it alone and got into economic
conflict between each other. And I worry about the future—

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, “the groups”?

DAVID HARVEY: At that time, the Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere; Germany, with
its own kind of interests; the British. And, you know, everybody was going
it alone. And I think the threat of the G20 is what we’re going to see as
sort of a fracturing of the global economy along those lines. And that could
be a good thing, in the sense that if there is fracturing and coalitions
emerging at the same time, that’s one thing, but if it turns into fracturing
and then rivalries between the power blocs, I think that would be very
dangerous.

AMY GOODMAN: Your assessment of President Obama?

DAVID HARVEY: I think he needs a really, really strong, powerful social
movement behind him to do the things he really needs to do. Right now, he
has to deal with Congress. And, you know, there’s a group in Congress I
would call the party of Wall Street, that is deeply implanted in the
Democratic Party, it’s deeply implanted in the Republican Party. And so, he
can’t do battle with Wall Street, given the significance of the party of
Wall Street in Congress. I mean, for example, our New York senator, Charles
Schumer, has raised immense moneys from Wall Street, and he’s a great friend
of Wall Street. And so, the Democrats are not going to go against Wall
Street. And one way or another, the Republicans are not going to go against
Wall Street. So. I don’t know exactly where Obama would like to go, but
certainly he can’t go against Wall Street, unless a whole bunch of people
really force him to.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see neoliberalism as dead? And what gives you the most
hope?

DAVID HARVEY: I don’t see the neoliberalism as dead, if you say that
neoliberalism is about consolidation of class power, because actually we’re
seeing the further consolidation of it right now, rather than the lessening
of it. And that’s what I—when I talk about the bank bailout, that’s what it
was doing. So I’m kind of concerned.

AMY GOODMAN: Were you for no bank bailouts?

DAVID HARVEY: Well, I was in favor of solving the foreclosure crisis. You
see, if you’ve solved the housing crisis, the banks wouldn’t be holding any
toxic assets. If you had gone in and bailed out all of the people, there
would be no problem on Wall Street. They wouldn’t be sitting there with all
the toxic assets. You wouldn’t have the foreclosures. So we should have gone
in there right at the beginning and actually held down the foreclosure
crisis.

AMY GOODMAN: And why didn’t they?

DAVID HARVEY: Because that would mean bailing out poor African Americans and
people of that sort, and they’re not concerned with that. They’re concerned
with protecting the bankers, not with protecting the people.

This then gives me hope, you see, because I think now that people might see
it, that that is actually what’s been happening over the last thirty years
and is really highlighted now—I mean, it hits you in the face straightaway.
You know, this is what’s happening. And something different has to happen.
Some sort of movement has to come out and say, “Look, enough is enough. We’re
not going to continue in this particular way.”

AMY GOODMAN: Professor David Harvey, I want to thank you very much for being
with us.

DAVID HARVEY: I thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: David Harvey is a Marxist geographer and distinguished
professor of anthropology at the CUNY Grad Center. That’s the City
University of New York. The Limits to Capital, one of his books, A Brief
History of Neoliberalism.
Printer-friendly versionEmail to a friendShare delicio.us digg facebook
newsvine reddit slashdot stumbleupon

 The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the
work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Apr 3 09:50:21 2009