The world's economy is in the midst of a crisis of perhaps unprecedented proportion. Since the onset of the financial panic in the fall of 2008, there have been comparisons to the Great Depression, but some commentators are suggesting that this may become the Greatest Depression before this is over.
Such an extraordinary rift in the fabric of our economic system will necessarily produce political upheaval, and one very important aspect of that political activity and turmoil will be the efforts made by theorists, pundits and propagandists of different political persuasions to explain this crisis. The explanation that persuades the most people will determine, in large part, the direction society goes from here.
Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism linked to an explanation that she found interesting and persuasive today. It comes from David Harvey, a world-renowned anthropologist, geographer and Marxist. Smith felt her suggestion radical enough that it required a bit of an apologia:
For those who recoil, Marx was the first to take note of the propensity of capitalism towards instability. By contrast, neoclassical economics, which has dominated policymaking in advanced economies, posits that economies have a propensity to equilibrium, and that equilibrium is...full employment! Marxists also look at long term trends in corporate profitability, and because Marxists use that as an important framework, it seems to be verboten as a line of inquiry in other schools of economics. Weird.
This defense comes from a center-left economics author and blogger who once worked for Goldman Sachs. For those who want to shout "Stalin!" or "Mao!" as soon as someone mentions Marx on DailyKos, I'll just add that the point of Harvey's presentation is Marx's analysis of Capitalism's internal contradictions, the kind of contradictions that lead to the collapse that's threatening us right now. He is less interested in Marx's prescriptions for an alternative system, specifically a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Another objection might be raised because Harvey is an anthropologist and geographer rather than an economist. I'd argue that the narrow ideology and focus of economists is exactly what helped get us into this fix in the first place. About the best that neoliberal economists have been able to come up with in the way of explanation for what has happened is the much mocked, "Hoocoodanode?" These economists make assumptions about human beings and societies that they dare not challenge or their entire system would come tumbling down--much like our economy. At the root of the "mystery" of what has happened are questions about the nature of human beings and their relationship to the world around them, so Harvey's broader background may be a strength rather than a weakness.
After that overlong introduction comes finally the link to what is important: David Harvey's explanation of our economic and societal mess. It is not presented as a dull and dry academic presentation but as an clever animation with Harvey's voice in the background.