> Am/was I wrong? It feels to me that some here are taking very specific
> discourses focused on the politics of neoliberalization and extending them
> farther than Harvey would if asked.
I can't say you are wrong, but I don't read him that way. Harvey nominally ties accumulation by dispossession to (re)production, but he also makes it clear that under neoliberalism the former is easily dominant (I think he says this in the chapter on ABD in The New Imperialism). Finance provides the link, and so for Harvey house-flipping, in which poor people are fleeced of their savings, is the zeitgeist of the era. Apparently those people labor for nothing.
Oh, and the pithiest definition that I can recall Harvey giving of both ABD and neoliberalism is this: The “main substantive achievement of neoliberalization [...] has been to redistribute, rather than to generate, wealth and income.” The dominant capitalist mode rearranges value, it doesn't create it.
While I disagree strongly with Michael that primitive accumulation is a localized, one-off act -- I think it is very much a process, never done with for good, that always affects production -- I can't follow Harvey in saying that the current era mostly feeds off the labors of the previous era. That why in this article <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue19/beck.html> I called ABD an end-of-history narrative for anticapitalists.
None of this means that I don't think financialization isn't important -- it is, and it's why I think Randy Martin's book on it describes the present better than anything Harvey's done -- or that I'm convinced labor is the origin of all value, but Harvey's way of doing it strikes me as all wrong.