David Harvey reading Marx’s Capital, Volume I.

[trivas7]

http://davidharvey.org/ (http://davidharvey.org/)

Excellent. (Perhaps this can be stickied?)

[punisa]

http://davidharvey.org/ (http://davidharvey.org/)

Excellent.

incredible stuff ! goes into my favourites right away

[punisa]

more on author - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harvey_%28social_theorist%29

[There is No God!]

Wow, thank you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Trivas, but I see he makes the traditional mistake of thinking Hegel is important for understanding Kapital (even though he downplays it somewhat).

[trivas7]

Thanks for that Trivas, but I see he makes the traditional mistake of thinking Hegel is important for understanding Kapital (even though he downplays it somewhat).
Yes, David Harvey asks us to try to understand Capital dialectically, i.e., as a process in motion, but specifically doesn't poo-poo the validity of analytic Marxism. Please don't go on.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Yes, he asks us to try to understand Kapital dialectically

As I said: a bad start, since Marx indicated that he did not write the book this way.


but specifically doesn't poo-poo the validity of analytic Marxism.

What has that got to do with anything? I am not an 'Analytic Marxist'.


Please don't go on.

No chance; as I have told you, I only came here two-and-a-half years ago to give you mystics a hard time (as sort of revenge for screwing around with the workers' movement for the last 150 years -- by a member of the working class, me).

[tedster]

Thanx for posting this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Only owing to Anti-Dühring did we learn to read and understand Capital the right way."

[ :D ;) ]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index6.html


Whoever said that is an idiot; the Tokyo telephone directory would have been better than 'Anti-Duhring' in this respect. In its 'philosophical' capacity, it is without doubt one of the worst books ever written by a Marxist.


http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-engels.shtml

A week ago, I wrote to the International Social Review making the above point to them: that this book is (philosophically) among the very worst ever written by a Marxist.

Let's see if they publish it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR -- So?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just wanted to get under your skin with as many Kautsky quotes as I could muster. :p ;) :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Then you need to list about 20,000...

[Hit The North]

Thanks for that, Trivas. This will be an invaluable resource for all the Marxists on Revleft.


Trivas:


Yes, he asks us to try to understand Kapital dialecticallyAs I said: a bad start, since Marx indicated that he did not write the book this way.

Not so. As Marx himself wrote:

I sent them one copy [of Das Kapital] at the end of last week with a short letter to the purpose, saying that my book does not share their opinions, but that the ‘scholarly’ nature of their paper suggests that some notice will be taken of this first attempt at applying the dialectic method to political economy’. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_11_07.htm

Or even:

And what this Lange has to say about the Hegelian method and my application of the same is simply childish. First, he understands rien [nothing] about Hegel’s method and, therefore, second, still less about my critical manner of applying it. In one respect he reminds me of Moses Mendelssohn. That prototype of a windbag once wrote to Lessing asking how he could possibly take ‘that dead dog Spinoza’ au sérieux! In the same way, Mr Lange expresses surprise that Engels, I, etc., take au sérieux the dead dog Hegel, after Büchner, Lange, Dr Dühring, Fechner, etc., had long agreed that they — poor dear — had long since buried him. Lange is naïve enough to say that I ‘move with rare freedom’ in empirical matter. He has not the slightest idea that this ‘free movement in matter’ is nothing but a paraphrase for the method of dealing with matter — that is, the dialectical method. (bold added)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_06_27.htm

[Hit The North]

I just wanted to get under your skin with as many Kautsky quotes as I could muster. :p ;) :D

JR, stop trolling.

[KC]

Don't feed the trolls.

Just ignore Rosa and she'll go away.

[Q]

Don't feed the trolls.

Just ignore Rosa and she'll go away.
In her own poetic words: No chance

Anyway, the link doesn't work for me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


I sent them one copy [of Das Kapital] at the end of last week with a short letter to the purpose, saying that my book does not share their opinions, but that the ‘scholarly’ nature of their paper suggests that some notice will be taken of this first attempt at applying the dialectic method to political economy’.

Indeed, and we both know (or at least one of us does) what this means, for Marx (not me) included in the Second Edition of Das Kapital, a summary of his method, in which there is not one ounce of Hegel -- no 'quantity into quality', no 'contradictions', no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation of the negation', no 'Totality'.

but you treat it as 'spam'.]

So, 'his method' owes nothing to Hegel, except a few items of jargon, with which he merely 'coquetted'.

These comments take precedence over any unpublished remarks Marx makes, and must therefore be used to interpret his less guarded comments in letters etc.

Hence, the 'dialectic' that Harvey refers to is merely the familiar, boring old scientific method.

Still scraping around for comments from Marx that suggest I am wrong, I see (and still finding nothing in any of his published works, too, I also see):


And what this Lange has to say about the Hegelian method and my application of the same is simply childish. First, he understands rien [nothing] about Hegel’s method and, therefore, second, still less about my critical manner of applying it. In one respect he reminds me of Moses Mendelssohn. That prototype of a windbag once wrote to Lessing asking how he could possibly take ‘that dead dog Spinoza’ au sérieux! In the same way, Mr Lange expresses surprise that Engels, I, etc., take au sérieux the dead dog Hegel, after Büchner, Lange, Dr Dühring, Fechner, etc., had long agreed that they — poor dear — had long since buried him. Lange is naïve enough to say that I ‘move with rare freedom’ in empirical matter. He has not the slightest idea that this ‘free movement in matter’ is nothing but a paraphrase for the method of dealing with matter — that is, the dialectical method. (bold added)

Indeed, Marx's 'critical manner' of applying it is to 'coquette' with a few items of Hegel's jargon, while removing every atom of Hegel's philosophy -- no 'quantity into quality', no 'contradictions', no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation of the negation', no 'Totality'...

You need to pay attention, for we have been over this many times.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Just ignore Rosa and she'll go away.

Still got your head in the sand, I see -- and after two and a half years here, you still think I will 'go away'?

[Hit The North]

http://davidharvey.org/ (http://davidharvey.org/)

Excellent. (Perhaps this can be stickied?)

Done.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Can you 'stickie' my criticisms then?

[Hit The North]

Your criticisms of Capital?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

My criticism of your (and other's) mystification of Kapital.

[Hit The North]

Your reservations are noted in this thread as well as numerous others.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, but not my reasons.

[professorchaos]

I've recommended Harvey's Limits to Capital as an excellent defense of Marxist political economy a few times on this board.

[Grunt]

This is good stuff ! :)

I added it immediately to my favourites.

Thanks for posting ! :D

[NerdVincent]

Waw. I downloaded the whole stuff, and listened to it in 3 weeks. Great.

[chicanorojo]

Waw. I downloaded the whole stuff, and listened to it in 3 weeks. Great.

Like wise! I am going to use for a reading group in our area. :D

[grok]

Two things:

1 -- IMO, David Harvey's online course on reading Capital is very, very good, overall -- as long as you keep in mind his (AFAIC) apparent limitations as an academic marxist. I do indeed recommend this course to all beginning revolutionaries (and most non-beginners as well, for that matter).

2 -- Rosa Lichtenstein will never go away. Willingly. The obsessive never do. But in all decency: this person should go away from here. If they were at all reasonable, they could possibly serve the useful purpose of forcing marxist dialecticians to 'put their money where their mouths are', and defend their praxis with a lot more theoretical rigor than they have heretofore, for the most part. The point here however, is that this person is not at all reasonable -- and is simply out to single-handedly short-circuit all and any discussion on dialectical-materialism, as much as is humanly possible for them to do. And so AFAIC, Rosa Lichtenstein's presence here (or anywhere for that matter) utterly detracts completely from all reason and reasonableness in any debate of marxism and its method. Period.

And that's the truth. You've been warned.
(but I'm kinda late here, aren't I?)
:thumbdown:

[hugsandmarxism]

Just downloaded, and I'm listening to the intro. Thanks for the post ;)

[acanthaster]

Does anybody have subtitles for this lectures?

[Jonnydraft]

Thanks for that Trivas, but I see he makes the traditional mistake of thinking Hegel is important for understanding Kapital (even though he downplays it somewhat).

Bahahaha.

While you're at it, how about you critic Michael J Watts, Erik Olan Wright, Neil Smith and Zizek.

[VILemon]

I've listened to the whole course. I thought it was insightful and am now beginning to read Limits to capital.
It's still early days in my reading, but would already recommend it highly to anyone interested in a systematic application of Marx's writing in Kapital to late 20th-21st century capitalism.:thumbup:

[comrade_scotland]

David Harvey is a legend

[k101]

Yes. I am a huge fan of Harvey and I think his Capital class is great.

I wanted to invite interested persons to visit my blog where I have begun posting chapter by chapter summaries and reflections on Volume 3 of Kapital. I don't think there are other projects like this going on online right now so folks who are currently tackling Volume 3 might find it useful. I am hoping to get others who are thinking about the book to share their thoughts on my blog so

kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/kapital-vol-3-opening-thoughts/

[noway]

brilliant

[anticap]

Continuing the success of Professor Harvey’s online video lectures of Marx’s Capital, Volume I, we are currently raising money to continue the project with new lectures on Capital Volumes II and III.

Inspired by the overwhelming interest in the Volume I lectures, which according to Google Analytics have logged over 700,000 page views from 10,884 cities in 187 countries since June 2008, we are happy to announce the next stage of this project.

Professor Harvey is planning on teaching a semester class on Capital Volumes II and III in the Spring of 2011. With your help, we plan to film, edit, and post a new set of free online videos to this site. To do this, we need to raise our budget of $10,000.

http://davidharvey.org/2010/03/support-more-capital-video-lectures/

[Common_Means]

davidharvey

Wow, good stuff.

[KurtFF8]

So it seems that Harvey is going to put up lectures for Volumes II and III but they need financial support.



Continuing the success of Professor Harvey’s online video lectures of Marx’s Capital, Volume I, we are currently raising money to continue the project with new lectures on Capital Volumes II and III.
Inspired by the overwhelming interest in the Volume I lectures, which according to Google Analytics have logged over 700,000 page views from 10,884 cities in 187 countries since June 2008, we are happy to announce the next stage of this project.
Professor Harvey is planning on teaching a semester class on Capital Volumes II and III in the Spring of 2011. With your help, we plan to film, edit, and post a new set of free online videos to this site. To do this, we need to raise our budget of $10,000.


And if you want to donate just go to the site

[Edith Lemsipberg]

do we have to put up with Rosa Lichtensein on this board - always the same record being played, always promoting her articles on anti-dialectics, in every kind of discussion board you come across.
Quite frankly it is distructive to discussion to wantonly keep posting about the same issue.
There are boards specifically designed for a discussion on dialectics (Which Rosa has over populated) Stick to those and don't crowd out and distort other discussion boards:D