This argument--while unseemly--is actually a self-consistent & coherent one (which is not to say I agree with its conclusions, because I don't), that follows straightforwardly from the theory of capital's global hegemony & the contradictions of the capitalist system. https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1274716400351948802

For the sake of charity, his argument can be understood as the following:
1. Any revolution that is not truly global or complete—whether reformist social democracy or socialism in one country—will be recuperated or defeated by the global forces of capital

2. Therefore any revolution that aims to defeat capitalism would have to be totally global & complete to work, BUT
3. Capital has completely dominated the networks of logistics, distribution, & production in our totally global economy

4. Therefore, the necessary conditions for successfully overthrowing capitalism become self invalidating as they’ll either result in recuperation or total global collapse

Of course, part of the unstated aspect here is that Harvey rejects the possibility, desirability, and feasibiliry of anarchism, & of the leftist projects forging spaces & zones outside the circuits of capital.

If Harvey accepted the premises & potentialities of anarchism Or even just anti authoritarian Marxism’s Like autonomism our council communism, he wouldn’t draw the conclusion he draws in this video.

But the synchronicity here is quite interesting because yesterday I did a thread about how all left wing arguments against anarchism hold against leftism in general, and Harvey’s reasoning here is a great object lesson in this

Now I was considering deleting this thread entirely because despite it making a very specific claim about the logical & conceptual structure of anti anarchist arguments it’s liable to be misconstrued but Harvey’s argument illustrates my point https://twitter.com/yungneocon/status/1274542405916729344?s=21 https://twitter.com/yungneocon/status/1274542405916729344

Basically, it can be summed up as this:
Most arguments against anarchism & leftism in general boil down to petty insubstantial or ideological false consciousness, but valid, coherent, self consistent critiques of anarchism do exist. I then analyze their structure.

And my point was, IF one adopts the premises and conclusions of the self consistent & coherent arguments against anarchism, they take down all other forms of leftism with it. But if one rejects those premises, one is left with very few arguments against anarchism.

These arguments are ones that consider particulars and contingent facts about the world, and not general critiques of anarchism as such. Any critique powerful enough to take down anarchism takes down the other radical & communist views too.

Harvey illustrates this, as his anti revolutionary deduction from his premises about the nature of capital’s global hegemony, the nature of recuperation, & the unfeasibility of anarchism & projects outside the state & capital, is valid.

Thus, if one wants to rejects his conclusion—as I do, and I suspect most self ID communists do—one has to reject some of his premises. Which premises should we reject?

Well, if we reject the premises about the nature of capitalism, that guts our critique & obviates its purpose. We don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, we want to keep our revolutionary project and our critique, so what are we left with?

Thus to reject his conclusions but preserve communism we must reject 1 or more of the following:
1. Capital dependent logistics
2. Rebellion will be recuperated
3. anti state projects will fail
4. decentralized mutual aid alternatives cant work
5. Capital’s totalistic hegemony

(1) is a contingent & variable fact. If one rejects it, it weakens somewhat the urgency of communism but doesn’t destroy it. Rejecting (1) is the preferred path of those who see technology & automation as inevitably surpassing capitalism.

My own view is that (1) is more or less true in different areas, but in no place is it 100% the case, and its character varies. Thus, capital penetrates all logistics, but it never does so totally, & it produces contradictory spaces to move beyond it.