Have You Read Capital vol. One?

[butchersapron]

Incidentally, there'sa new hour long lecture by David Harvey The Enigma of Capital.

Maybe we should ask why people haven't read it?

 

[chilango]

Maybe we should ask why people haven't read it?

Because it's really long and I've got a short attention span.

I'd start it, and before I'd finished have started a bunch of other books too and Capital would lie unfinished in the middle of the pile of works "on the go".

Like so many other worthwhile books...

That happenned with "Reading Capital Politically", "Multitude" and the Derrida I bought a year or so back.

 

[danny la rouge]

Incidentally, there'sa new hour long lecture by David Harvey The Enigma of Capital.

Cheers for that. I like Harvery, and have been meaning to do his Capital course. Must find the time.

Maybe we should ask why people haven't read it?

Yes. I can understand why people reading it cold would give up after (or during) the 3rd chapter, but I suppose, given the numbers, it's also informative to ask why people haven't picked it up in the first place.

 

[danny la rouge]

"Reading Capital Politically"

I actually wouldn't advise reading that without having read Capital first.

 

[CyberRose]

Is it going to tell me anything I don't already know about the world, and is it still relevant to the 21st C?

 

[butchersapron]

Chris Arthur put together a pretty good abridged version, but it's still 400 pages long (and cuts out most of the important chapter on So-Called Primitive Accumulation.)

 

[chilango]

I actually wouldn't advise reading that without having read Capital first.

Sound advice.

It ended up in "the pile".

 

[chilango]

Chris Arthur put together a pretty good abridged version, but it's still 400 pages long (and cuts out most of the important chapter on So-Called Primitive Accumulation.)

I'll keep an eye out for that.

(though I've a pretty backlog of reading at the moment)

 

[danny la rouge]

Is it going to tell me anything I don't already know about the world, and is it still relevant to the 21st C?

I don't know what you know about the world, so I can't answer that. I can tell you what it's about though: it's part of a detailed study of how capitalism works. It draws on Ricardo, Adam Smith etc, and very much critiques capitalism on its own terms.

Still relevant? I think so. We still produce commodities. I certainly dip in to it from time to time if I think I might find an insight into some current event or other.

 

[CyberRose]

Well in my limited knowledge of political theory, I always viewed Marxism as the best ideological observation of how the world works (both at global level and micro level), but pretty shit when it came down to actually proposing any realistic workable alternative

 

[danny la rouge]

Well in my limited knowledge of political theory, I always viewed Marxism as the best ideological observation of how the world works (both at global level and micro level), but pretty shit when it came down to actually proposing any realistic workable alternative

Marx, for the most part, doesn't offer any alternatives. Certainly Capital doesn't. He observes and describes.

 

[CyberRose]

Marx, for the most part, doesn't offer any alternatives. Certainly Capital doesn't. He observes and describes.

Not particularly useful then!

 

[danny la rouge]

Not particularly useful then!

Having it read it, I beg to differ.

 

[butchersapron]

I always viewed Marxism as the best ideological observation of how the world works (both at global level and micro level),

Having a map is quite useful.

 

[CyberRose]

Having it read it, I beg to differ.

How is it useful if it doesn't offer any solutions to the problems Marx identifies?

And I'm not trying to be a cock here or anything as Das Kapital is one of "those" books that I consider extremely important to the world and would like to read it one day before I die (altho I've just started quite a chunky biography of Hugo Chavez over a week ago and only managed to tackle to first chapter so far so Marx might have to wait!)

I'm just curious about it and imo, political theories (or activists for that matter), who offer no alternative and merely snipe from the sidelines don't score particularly highly with me...

 

[CyberRose]

Having a map is quite useful.

That's true. Altho I went for a massive hike in the North Yorks Moors once and my OS map had footpaths cutting across the moors which turned out not to exists and because it had been raining heavily meant I had to wade thru swamps!

 

[butchersapron]

Fuck me, Marx's 40 years of revolutionary activity, his millions of words, dismissed with a BB standard as sniping from the sidelines

 

[CyberRose]

Fuck me, Marx's 40 years of revolutionary activity, his millions of words, dismissed with a BB standard as sniping from the sidelines

Well the complete failure and inability of the left to put forward a credible alternative for Britain would suggest they're staying loyal to his teachings if that is the case!

 

[danny la rouge]

How is it useful if it doesn't offer any solutions to the problems Marx identifies?

It explains what the problems are. That's a useful thing in itself. Also, as I'm not too keen on most of the solutions most "Marxists" put forwards, I think it's also useful to keep the two separate anyway.

Das Kapital

Just on a purely linguistic note, this annoys me. Lots of people do it, so I'm not having a personal go. But if you intend to read a book in English, it is the done thing to give it its title in English, too. For example, if reading in English, you'd say you'd read "The Fall" by Camus. Calling it "La Chute" does rather imply you read it in French. If you see what I mean.

 

[CyberRose]

It explains what the problems are. That's a useful thing in itself. Also, as I'm not too keen on most of the solutions most "Marxists" put forwards, I think it's also useful to keep the two separate anyway.

That's fair enough

Just on a purely linguistic note, this annoys me. Lots of people do it, so I'm not having a personal go. But if you intend to read a book in English, it is the done thing to give it its title in English, too. For example, if reading in English, you'd say you'd read "The Fall" by Camus. Calling it "La Chute" does rather imply you read it in French. If you see what I mean.

Yea but 'capital' and 'kapital' are practically the same! That's just nitpicking to the extreme!

 

[danny la rouge]

Yea but 'capital' and 'kapital' are practically the same! That's just nitpicking to the extreme!

"Das Kapital" has a das as well as the k.

Would you say "la Chute"?

 

[CyberRose]

"Das Kapital" has a das as well as the k.

Yea but you can work it out tho!

Would you say "la Chute"?

Well no cos I've never heard of it

I do, however, have a DVD called "La Haine" and have never referred to it as anything other than "La Haine" (despite its English (American) title as being "Hate")

 

[danny la rouge]

Well no cos I've never heard of it

Really? Albert Camus?

Jings.

 

[butchersapron]

Crivens

 

[danny la rouge]

Help ma boab!

 

[CyberRose]

Really? Albert Camus?

Nope, sorry

 

[danny la rouge]

Nope, sorry

Well, there's another one for your list, then. Although I'd start with the Outsider. (Especially if you're a Cure fan).

 

[butchersapron]

If you're a cure fan i'd recommend capital frankly.

 

[danny la rouge]

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well the complete failure and inability of the left to put forward a credible alternative for Britain would suggest they're staying loyal to his teachings if that is the case!

A "credible alternative" as measured by whom, though?
As measured by "we, the people", I'd say that we know that some form of Marxian economic scheme would be a "credible alternative", but it isn't "we, the people" who get to choose in this pseudo-democracy that we live under, it's the politicians, the power-elite(s) and Capital, to whom no alternative is "credible".