Books in Marxist geography?

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

So I have finished my collection of books by David Harvey. Can anyone recommend some books by other authors in the field?

[The Idler]

Owen Hatherley?

[The Jay]

Marxist geography? That is like saying buddhist christianity. You can't just mix different studies together.

[Red Banana]

Yeah, what the hell is Marxist geography?

[helot]

Marxist geography? That is like saying buddhist christianity. You can't just mix different studies together.

It'd be one thing if it were geology but geography is relevant considering it covers human society. Take developmental geography which focusses on standards of living as an example. Marxist analysis is inherently useful in understanding the disparity in standards of living around the world. The same can be said for most if not all aspects of geography.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Um, Marxist geography is quite a large sect within the larger field of geography. From the wiki article, "Marxist geography is a strand of critical geography that uses the theories and philosophy of Marxism to examine the spatial relations of human geography. In Marxist geography, the relations that geography has traditionally analyzed—natural environment and spatial relations—are reviewed as outcomes of the mode of material production."

David Harvey is the best known thinker from the field.


Thanks Idler, I'll check him out.

[The Jay]

It'd be one thing if it were geology but geography is relevant considering it covers human society. Take developmental geography which focusses on standards of living as an example. Marxist analysis is inherently useful in understanding the disparity in standards of living around the world. The same can be said for most if not all aspects of geography.

The fact that Geography overlaps with so many other fields makes the very study of it kind of silly. There are certainly links between Demography, Economics, and Geology but when you call that link Geography it loses the original meaning IMO.

For there to be a marxist Geography there must be a fundamental theorum of marxist-geography. I can tell you the fundamental ideas of marxism: class analysis/surplus analysis, labor theory of value, and historical materialism and I am sure that geography has several of its own.

After doing a quick google search I found this breakdown of the fundamental concepts of Geography:

http://globalgeography012.tripod.com/id2.html


Now, how can you link that to LTV? How do you link it with Surplus Analysis?

The two fields may touch upon the same objects but they do not inform one another. If you were to say that we were to take geography into account when determining economic decisions then I would agree but that is not what is being proposed.

What is being said when someone says 'marxist geography' is that marxian analysis is a form of geography, which it is not.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The fact that Geography overlaps with so many other fields makes the very study of it kind of silly. There are certainly links between Demography, Economics, and Geology but when you call that link Geography it loses the original meaning IMO.


Now, how can you link that to LTV? How do you link it with Surplus Analysis?

The two fields may touch upon the same objects but they do not inform one another. If you were to say that we were to take geography into account when determining economic decisions then I would agree but that is not what is being proposed.

What is being said when someone says 'marxist geography' is that marxian analysis is a form of geography, which it is not.

Fuck off.

[The Jay]

Fuck off.

No u.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

i HATE to be a wikipedia marxist..............but here ya go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_geography

[The Jay]

i HATE to be a wikipedia marxist..............but here ya go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_geography

I don't respect David Harvey, so that's not a very convincing source.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

"For there to be a marxist Geography there must be a fundamental theorum of marxist-geography. I can tell you the fundamental ideas of marxism: class analysis/surplus analysis, labor theory of value, and historical materialism and I am sure that geography has several of its own.

After doing a quick google search I found this breakdown of the fundamental concepts of Geography..."




Its an injustice to scientific socialism to sum up Marxism so simply, it is in fact universally applicable to any contradictory situation as it is a means of investigating contradictions, just as the Scientific Method is applicable to any observable phenomena. To define Marxism as a collection of doctrines, is not entirely accurate and suggests a metaphysical understanding of what Marxism is. It is not a static body of work but is rather kinetic and continually expanding, if it did not progress to include new fields of study it would disprove itself. The very fact that Geography covers so many overlapping fields is just the very reason it is important for us to be grounded in a thoroughly Marxist understanding of it. The political geography of nation-states, their demographics, and the relationship between these two and the physical geography of the Earth relate in numerous ways to specific concepts which you have defined as the essence of Marxism! For it is through the study of things like the labor theory of value or say, alienation, that we will be able to have a proletarian view of political boundaries and see how they are related to physical geography. This is because the relationship between political and physical geography reveals the concrete economic circumstances of that region and expains much about the conditioning of the various demographics present there. Do not rely on any "fundamental theory of geography" it is the product of bourgeois society and as such is of no use other than criticism. To believe that there is some sort of eternal theory or essence of geography is also metaphysical. We are not saying marxist analysis is a part of geography, we are saying that geography is best seen through the lens of marxist analysis.

[The Jay]

"For there to be a marxist Geography there must be a fundamental theorum of marxist-geography. I can tell you the fundamental ideas of marxism: class analysis/surplus analysis, labor theory of value, and historical materialism and I am sure that geography has several of its own.

After doing a quick google search I found this breakdown of the fundamental concepts of Geography..."




Its an injustice to scientific socialism to sum up Marxism so simply, it is in fact universally applicable to any contradictory situation as it is a means of investigating contradictions, just as the Scientific Method is applicable to any observable phenomena. To define Marxism as a collection of doctrines, is not entirely accurate and suggests a metaphysical understanding of what Marxism is. It is not a static body of work but is rather kinetic and continually expanding, if it did not progress to include new fields of study it would disprove itself. The very fact that Geography covers so many overlapping fields is just the very reason it is important for us to be grounded in a thoroughly Marxist understanding of it. The political geography of nation-states, their demographics, and the relationship between these two and the physical geography of the Earth relate in numerous ways to specific concepts which you have defined as the essence of Marxism! For it is through the study of things like the labor theory of value or say, alienation, that we will be able to have a proletarian view of political boundaries and see how they are related to physical geography. This is because the relationship between political and physical geography reveals the concrete economic circumstances of that region and expains much about the conditioning of the various demographics present there. Do not rely on any "fundamental theory of geography" it is the product of bourgeois society and as such is of no use other than criticism. To believe that there is some sort of eternal theory or essence of geography is also metaphysical. We are not saying marxist analysis is a part of geography, we are saying that geography is best seen through the lens of marxist analysis.

Marxism is not some amorphous blob that changes form depending on what surrounds it. The same is true with the scientific method, which is why I am glad that you brought it up. The scientific method also is based upon two fundamental theorems: 1) inductive logic works, and 2) the laws of logic work (for the most part).

The way that you talk about marxism is similar to how people talk about faith: without clear definition or clarity.

EDIT: If you think that everything that came from the Enlightenment is "of no use other than criticism" then you are a fool. Hyperbole may be fashionable on the internet and in rhetoric but it is useless for actual discussion.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Marxism is not some amorphous blob that changes form depending on what surrounds it. The same is true with the scientific method, which is why I am glad that you brought it up. The scientific method also is based upon two fundamental theorems: 1) inductive logic works, and 2) the laws of logic work (for the most part).

The way that you talk about marxism is similar to how people talk about faith: without clear definition or clarity.

Actually, taking a Marxist approach to Marxism or science shows that while neither is amorphous, both are absolutely contingent on socio-historical specificities and not grounded in absolutes.

Anyway, to the OP:

Check out Paul Virilio.

Also, my brilliant partner (<3) just wrote a pretty alright final paper about space and memory, focusing on the UC occupations of 2009. So I guess I have some personal interest in defending Marxist geography.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Shit man I own two books that I've never once cracked open on the subject.

Lefebvre's "The Production of Space", for what little I've read of it, is nothing short of breathtaking. I've got a copy of "Postmodern Geography", and that shit usually has something to do with Marx. But I've never read a word of it.

[Ostrinski]

The fact that Geography overlaps with so many other fields makes the very study of it kind of silly. There are certainly links between Demography, Economics, and Geology but when you call that link Geography it loses the original meaning IMO.

For there to be a marxist Geography there must be a fundamental theorum of marxist-geography. I can tell you the fundamental ideas of marxism: class analysis/surplus analysis, labor theory of value, and historical materialism and I am sure that geography has several of its own.

After doing a quick google search I found this breakdown of the fundamental concepts of Geography:

http://globalgeography012.tripod.com/id2.html


Now, how can you link that to LTV? How do you link it with Surplus Analysis?

The two fields may touch upon the same objects but they do not inform one another. If you were to say that we were to take geography into account when determining economic decisions then I would agree but that is not what is being proposed.

What is being said when someone says 'marxist geography' is that marxian analysis is a form of geography, which it is not.The simple problem here is that you don't understand Marxism and its application to social science very well. Marx's critique of political economy could only have an application to the various social sciences insofar as political economy in general would have an application.

But you're treating Marxism as some bag of ideas that can't be separated which is a very disgusting misunderstanding of Marxism as a scientific methodology. Flexibility, adaptability, and eslasticity are what make it useful. To deny that Marxism cannot be applied to geography is to deny that it cannot be applied to anthropology or history.

[The Jay]

Actually, taking a Marxist approach to Marxism or science shows that while neither is amorphous, both are absolutely contingent on socio-historical specificities and not grounded in absolutes.



That is another way of saying . . . nothing. In order to set up any conceptual framework certain axioms must be set as givens.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

That is another way of saying . . . nothing. In order to set up any conceptual framework certain axioms must be set as givens.

Givens are different than absolutes.
Something that is a given in a specific circumstance isn't necessarily universal.
Hence, praxis.

[The Jay]

The simple problem here is that you don't understand Marxism and its application to social science very well. Marx's critique of political economy could only have an application to the various social sciences insofar as political economy in general would have an application.

No, you don't understand marxism very well. See, wasn't that a productive response?

To give a serious response to your second sentence: that is what I said without some of the harshness. The subjects do interact but they are not joined. They are separate fields that share some common factors.

I also think that some of these responses are coming from a confusion of equating hegel's dialectic with marxism. Marx does use the hegelian dialectic but that has little to do with what I was saying anyway.


But you're treating Marxism as some bag of ideas that can't be separated

Clarify this statement please.


which is a very disgusting misunderstanding of Marxism as a scientific methodology.

You are just being plain icky.


Flexibility, adaptability, and eslasticity are what make it useful.

That sounds nice but does that actually mean anything?


To deny that Marxism cannot be applied to geography is to deny that it cannot be applied to anthropology or history.

Actually, Historical Materialism is an analysis of history, which you knew, and anthropology is a subset of history for the most part. Why try to make me seem to not know this?

[The Jay]

Givens are different than absolutes.
Something that is a given in a specific circumstance isn't necessarily universal.
Hence, praxis.

You have yet to reveal a point.


Praxis.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I don't want to offend Emmanuel Goldstein, with whom I usually see eye to eye, but my view of David Harvey is positive. I may be biased because I have met him via his lectures on Marx's Capital and found him to be a really nice guy whom I believe has a good handle on Capital.

[The Jay]

He seems to be a very nice person but that is not what I was referring to. I just don't think that he is nearly as smart as everyone thinks that he is, at least not in the subjects that many attribute to him. He is a geographer though so he may be very knowledgeable in that.

EDIT: Also, I just get annoyed with non-answers so I sometimes get hostile. It wasn't anything personal even with the troll. I just lose respect for trolls.

[GoddessCleoLover]

He seems to be a very nice person but that is not what I was referring to. I just don't think that he is nearly as smart as everyone thinks that he is, at least not in the subjects that many attribute to him. He is a geographer though so he may be very knowledgeable in that.

EDIT: Also, I just get annoyed with non-answers so I sometimes get hostile. It wasn't anything personal even with the troll. I just lose respect for trolls.

I am not an economist and have found David Harvey's lectures helpful in making Marx understandable to the likes of me.

[Ilyich]

May I throw out Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies?

Now, to cover my ass: Yes, yes, I know you knew someone was going to bring up Diamond. I know he's explicitly anti-Marxist and I've read some damning Marxist critiques of his book. To tell you the truth, I never read the whole thing. I was hoping to generate some discussion on it, though, because it seems relevant.

[GoddessCleoLover]

May I throw out Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies?

Now, to cover my ass: Yes, yes, I know you knew someone was going to bring up Diamond. I know he's explicitly anti-Marxist and I've read some damning Marxist critiques of his book. To tell you the truth, I never read the whole thing. I was hoping to generate some discussion on it, though, because it seems relevant.

I actually have not read that book, but have no problem reading bourgeois, anti-Marxist authors. I trust my own critical faculties and have no desire to deprive myself of potentially useful information for ideological reasons.

[Ilyich]

I actually have not read that book, but have no problem reading bourgeois, anti-Marxist authors. I trust my own critical faculties and have no desire to deprive myself of potentially useful information for ideological reasons.

Of course, there's no problem reading anti-Marxist literature just so long as it's not mistaken for Marxism. Jared Diamond (not a social scientist, by the way, but an ornithologist by profession) present a view of history that looks like historical materialism, at first glance. I originally thought that Diamond is a Marxist. Later, I realized that, while his ideas may overlap at some points with historical materialism, he is not as totally compatible with Marxism as I had previously thought. That said, his book should be read, albeit with a critical eye, as should almost every serious anti-Marxist text (or Marxist for that matter).

[hetz]

What's this "Marxist geography" supposed to be? What about Marxist history?
Marxist physics?

[Ilyich]

So yeah, if the OP wants to read Guns, Germs, and Steelwith a critical eye, it might prove useful for his or her study of geography from a Marxist perspective.

[The Jay]

What's this "Marxist geography" supposed to be? What about Marxist history?
Marxist physics?

There is historical materialism but other than that you're right.

[GoddessCleoLover]

What's this "Marxist geography" supposed to be? What about Marxist history?
Marxist physics?

Not gonna get into Marxist geography or physics in order to avoid revealing my ignorance but I will take a crack at history. The plain fact is that the vast majority of historians have been organic bourgeois intellectuals. Perhaps one day we will see armies of organic proletarian intellectuals but that day has not arrived.

A different way of answering the question involves historiography. In the earlier part of the 20th century there arose a school of thought commonly referred to as "history from below" founded I believe by Marc Bloch. This could be considered the functional equivalent of Marxian historiography.

A third approach would involve historians who are partisans of particular Marxian schools of thought. They certainly exist (Thompson and Hobsbawm from the UK for example).

[white picket fence]

@ op, i would second the recommendation of Henri Lefebvre, mainly 'the production of the space', and 'the urban revolution'

@ Gramsci Guy, there are a lot of problems in historiography that i'm having alot of trouble dealing with, how do you contend with the self proclaimed autonomy and objectivity of historians and their methodology as a marxist? what books do you have to read to understand the tautologies of liberal historians, how do you deal with this problem when you're dealing with the subject like the history of a given field in a historically communist setting, because there are rarely marxist histories of the history of marxism.

When you don't have at least an approximate ideal of historical objectivity you tend to fall into the legitimations of other scholars and analysts for example in a paper I did about education and reform in communist china I had to contend with (UN development reports, literacy advocates, anti-maoists, neo-liberal economists etc.)

[GoddessCleoLover]

[QUOTE=white picket fence;2550722]@ op, i would second the recommendation of Henri Lefebvre, mainly 'the production of the space', and 'the urban revolution'

@ Gramsci Guy, there are a lot of problems in historiography that i'm having alot of trouble dealing with, how do you contend with the self proclaimed autonomy and objectivity of historians and their methodology as a marxist? what books do you have to read to understand the tautologies of liberal historians, how do you deal with this problem when you're dealing with the subject like the history of a given field in a historically communist setting, because there are rarely marxist histories of the history of marxism.

When you don't have at least an approximate ideal of historical objectivity you tend to fall into the legitimations of other scholars and analysts for example in a paper I did about education and reform in communist china I had to contend with (UN development reports, literacy advocates, anti-maoists, neo-liberal economists etc.)[/QUOTE/}


It is a conundrum and the historiographical issues raised by your paper are emblematic of the general historiographical issues. I can't give you the type of detailed answer that you seek, don't get me wrong if I had the answer I would gladly share it, but I don't have the answer. I would avoid the two extremes of either uncritically accepting bourgeois sources or dismissing them out-of-hand. Sorry about the vagueness. A historian just has to sift through all of the evidence she or he can find, and use her or his critical faculties as informed by a Marxian perspective.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Jesus Christ. I wasn't asking for people's opinions of whether or not Marxist geography exists. It does. Anyway, thanks to those who were helpful! :)

[The Jay]

Well it doesn't exist and if you think I am wrong then address my statements instead of hiding behind quips.