Reading Marx’s Capital

[TremulousTetra]

Marx was a dialectician, and therefore believed that all binary oppositions (such as ideas/matter) were mutally determining: it is impossible to conceive of matter without also conceiveing of ideas and so forth. So he protested against both idealism and materialism (which Lukacs famously and accurately called "inverted Platonism").

*snip the bollocks*

But as the connection between capitalism and materialism becomes increasingly obvious, the Hegelian Marx is making a comeback, and I predict that within two decades the notion that Marxism is compatible with materialism will be universally regarded as an historical aberration.

I agree with the way you express this, Marx was not a crude materialist as in Newton, but he was a materialist as in dialectical materialism? I think Butch expresses it well;

Marx argued that ideas become material forces when they grip the masses, which opened up a huge gap between him and the 'bourgeois materialism' taken up by the majoriy of marxists, a positivist, mirror-reflection of nature type of approach. The Theses On Feuerbach are largely concerned with this insight, that there is no mechanical seperation between idea and material forces with the former being a mere reflection olf the latter but of them both being component parts of the 'sensuousness as practical activity', as social activity.

I was at a district educational where people were commonly speaking of how the superstructure, ideas, reflected the base, our material circumstances. And I remember a comrade getting up and explaining how this was completely wrong, the superstructure does not merely reflect the base. He drew the analogy of the relationship between the base and the superstructure as like that of two men sat on the floor facing each other locked arm in arm in a tug of war, they are in a dynamic relationship. Each action by one effects the other, whether it be a tug on a push. And even better illustration that socialist worker shares this notion of ideas are not simply a "mirror reflection of nature" is the ISJ of the winter of 1989. So how do you explain that Marxist Leninist's too share your view?

PS. Yes it is funny how often in modern capitalism the ideas of the dialectic, and a dialectical understanding of our existence, is being accepted without any knowledge of Marx. People are coming to a dialectical understanding through their own paths, which is kind of good in a validation sense, but kind of a shame in the sense "it is not just about interpreting the world, it is about changing it".

 

[butchersapron]

Peter Fryer.

And Marx merely sent a signed copy of the original German edition to Darwin. A myth has grown about him offering to dedicate it (or VOl 2) to him though, slightly encouraged by Engels fater Marx's death.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Peter Fryer.

And Marx merely sent a signed copy of the original German edition to Darwin. A myth has grown about him offering to dedicate it (or VOl 2) to him though, slightly encouraged by Engels fater Marx's death.

page the Oracle!

"fater"?

I read a book, I think it was called "oh Poor Darwin", which painted a different picture of Darwin than I have been presented by the left. Unfortunately it was only in the last few pages they spoilt the book, by coming out as biological determinists, which I suppose for some may colour their testimony, but it nevertheless painted a more complicated character. I just feel we're just a bit too flippant about a man for his human failings, and his being apolitical, when there has been probably few in the last 300 years who have been of equal scientific and POLITICAL significance. I mean for Marx reading Darwin's work, it must have been a scientific vindication of dialectical materialism, yes?

 

[gorski]

Marx was a materialist in a sense, as he was following the real interests, as it were... similar to his Liberal colleagues, argue some who see Marx as a radical Liberal, taking his Liberal pals firmly at their word, trying to get all three colours in the tricolour flag on the scene, in actu!!! I.e. not just freedom to own but also brotherhood and egality, since they forgot the two, very quickly, after the successfully carried out Bourgeois Revolution... and having turned on their yesterday's ally, the Proletariat, without whom this could not have been done!

But the real "material" of his "historical materialism" was revolution, hence "history making with consciousness" is Marx's position, as opposed to Hegel's "typical" Philosophical position [allegedly ] of "Minerva's owl takes off at dusk", i.e. we [classically understood Philosophers] come after the event, to make sense out of it all. Not so for Marx, non! He considers himself a "Thinker", not a Philosopher - not any longer, not since that realisation!

Phil, of course, is right in a mutuality or co-determinism and interplay of both aspects of Humanity, as in dialectics of it all. In a sense, Hegel was not exactly an "idealist" [Classical German Philosophy was dubbed "idealist" in error, I think, too] precisely because of it. The whole position is speculative but not necessarily "idealist", as especially Hegel places the whole development into the sphere hitherto unknown to Philosophy, at least not to that extent - i.e. History.

Interestingly enough, Lenin also advocates that all the young [and old but nevertheless] budding Marxists [!!! ] must establish a Hegelian Club and start there, if they are to understand Marx!

But all the major development, as far as the official CPs were concerned, went, as Butchers mentioned, the way or "mirror" shit, Todor Pavlov and whatnot...

Povijesno mišljenje and mišljenje revolucije (povijesno = historical; mišljenje = thinking) is what Praxis school of thought comes up with, a bit later. I thought that was quite an interesting development, when I studied it...

 

[butchersapron]

Marx was a materialist in a sense, as he was following the real interests, as it were... similar to his Liberal colleagues, argue some who see Marx as a radical Liberal, taking his Liberal pals firmly at their word, trying to get all three colours in the tricolour flag on the scene, in actu!!! I.e. not just freedom to own but also brotherhood and egality, since they forgot the two, very quickly, after the successfully carried out Bourgeois Revolution... and having turned on their yesterday's ally, the Proletariat, without whom this could not have been done!

As often as, during these vacations the confusing noise of the parliament was hushed, and its body was dissolved in the nation, it was unmistakably shown that only one thing was still wanting to complete the true figure of the republic: to make the vacation of the National Assembly permanent, and substitute its inscription—"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"—by the unequivocal words, "Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery".

 

[butchersapron]

Next lecture up - streaming not working right now, but direct download is:
http://davidharvey.org/media/Capital_Class_04.mov

 

[audiotech]

Streaming now and it's a good one. Ties it in with Bush, the Iraq war, revolutionaries in Portugal in 1974, the hidden secret of profit making, Malthus, religion, parasites and THE PROLES.

I'm sure many more gems to come in the next lesson.

 

[geoff64]

got 20 mins into class 2 last night. hard going. You can tell Harvey is losing his students with this one, too. will keep at it though!

 

[geoff64]

capital is probably the masterpiece at the style, but two others spring to mind. "Staying Power, I History of Black People in Britain" for get who it is by, and though I have read many good books on racism, I would say this is the definitive Marxist explanation. The second one would probably be "A People's History of the World" by Chris Harman. Whilst it isn't as obviously repeating, when you step back and take a look at the book as a whole after you have read it, the constant rhythmic repeating of the dialectic in evolution, social evolution, gets the simple core message across.

One of the best Marxist books i read was about the history of Judaism by a jewish guy - Leon someone iirc. Can't find it on my bookshelf, but it was a fave on swp bookstalls in the 90s. anyone remember it?

 

[butchersapron]

Abram Leon - The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation?

 

[geoff64]

Abram Leon - The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation?

that's it! still can't find my copy tho

 

[butchersapron]

Next lecture now availible to stream:
http://davidharvey.org/2008/07/marxs-capital-class-05/

or download:
http://davidharvey.org/media/Capital_Class_05.mov

 

[dennisr]

that's it! still can't find my copy tho

From Pathfinder Books

http://www.pathfinderpress.com/

They should have back issues of it and also have a London based bookshop/outlet (near brick lane I think?)

The writer was a belgium/russian trotskyist who wrote while in the underground in occupied belgium i think = dead in a concentration camp after being arrested in 1944 (aged 23 or similar?). He says "we must not start with religion in order to explain jewish history" - its a powerful book

 

[audiotech]

*bump*

Class (excuse the pun ) 6 now up and running.

Chapter 10: The Working Day
Chapter 11: The Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value

http://davidharvey.org/

 

[audiotech]

Next class now available.

Reading Marx’s Capital - Class 7, Chapters 12-14

 

[audiotech]

The concluding lesson.

'We have to make the class struggle effective and we have to do it now' is the conclusion to this magnificent series of lectures.

 

[poster342002]

The concluding lesson.

'We have to make the class struggle effective and we have to do it now' is the conclusion to this magnificent series of lectures.

Shame the UK is currently doing exactly the opposite, then. Unless you count advancing the class struggle of the pseudo-bourgeoisie - in which case it's excelling.

 

[gorski]

The UK bourgeoisie never stopped waging the war, it seems... In the US even more so... So, it's a mythical beast!

Leaving the adversarial model behind would be much more realistic and quite a bit healthier, it seems to me...

 

[butchersapron]

What's a mythical beast? Because it exists? Eh?

And how?

 

[gorski]

The myth is, you silly, that it's only the refuge of the poor, whereas it's the rich who play with much more vigour and organisation...

 

[butchersapron]

The myth is, you silly, that it's only the refuge of the poor, whereas it's the rich who play with much more vigour and organisation...

*What* is? What is the bold bit referring to?

 

[gorski]

class war [sighs]

 

[butchersapron]

class war [sighs]

Thank you. So you're saying that the idea that the bourgeois engage in class war, and the idea that it's only played by the w/c is a myth. Not a problem (not esp illuminating either). But, you really need to link the bit in bold to that idea, otherwise no one will know what the 'mythical beast' is referring to, given that it's not been mentioned before.

The UK bourgeoisie never stopped waging the war, it seems... In the US even more so... So, it's a mythical beast!

Leaving the adversarial model behind would be much more realistic and quite a bit healthier, it seems to me...

 

[gorski]

No, you need to think before you write and a bit more carefully, too - as the point was that the adversarial model as such should be left behind... And I know that people like you can't even imagine anything like that as even a remote possibility...

Enough accents for ya?

 

[butchersapron]

You write very badly, just like a german philosopher. You don't just introduce an 'it' without linking it to something.

 

[gorski]

Yeah, I know, you frequently can't connect the dots and miss the subject matter completely, so worry not, I know very well of your inability to read with understanding...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, I know, you frequently can't connect the dots and miss the subject matter completely, so worry not, I know very well of your inability to read with understanding...

You really shouldn't project your own failings onto others. It's a sign of insecurity.

 

[gorski]

You mean, I really shouldn't note the truth, even at its very minimal - when, in fact, it's much worse, as he doesn't even care to do it properly... All he cares about is to get "one up" on the other... Constantly. Incessantly. Unendingly. Boringly childishly...

To go back to his objection: he couldn't be bothered to understand the obvious, the subject matter, as his intention never was to understand but to come across as superior, hence the "giving lectures" shite to the foreign infidel of poor quality...

 

[butchersapron]

You mean, I really shouldn't note the truth, even at its very minimal - when, in fact, it's much worse, as he doesn't even care to do it properly... All he cares about is to get "one up" on the other... Constantly. Incessantly. Unendingly. Boringly childishly...

To go back to his objection: he couldn't be bothered to understand the obvious, the subject matter, as his intention never was to understand but to come across as superior, hence the "giving lectures" shite to the foreign infidel of poor quality...

There was no 'objection'. There was a genuine bafflement at what you were trying to say. This

The UK bourgeoisie never stopped waging the war, it seems... In the US even more so... So, it's a mythical beast!

doesn't say what the 'mythical beast' is. Actually it does, it says the class war from the top exists, esp in the US and is a mythical beast. Now i know this surely wasn't what you intended to argue, so i asked you clarify what the mythical beast was. You couldn't do that without taking it as a slight though. Your problem, not mine.

If i were going to 'object' to your post it would be on the grounds of capital being an in inherently adversarial system, with conflict being necassarily written into it's functioning, as the moter of its dynamic and development - whether the context providing war of labour vs capital, or the internal conflict of competining capitals or the internal divisions in the w/c fosterd by politics. To plead for a less adversarial model seems a little naive, not say worryingly redolent of Kautsyite ultra-imperialism.

 

[gorski]

Have you ever been to Sweden? And I mean it in a minimal factual manner. Don't assume anything, just answer the question, please. Have you ever studied its "case"? Seriously.