Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Reading Marx Necessary?

I have read das capital .. it`s quite good but not essential in this day and age.


Chomsky is ace :p
 
Loads.

A: He is still alive(just)

B: He has inspired and been involved in direct action all his life.

C: He understands contemporary threats , like the PR industry.
 
I will, just got to find a cheap copy of whatever is the easiest book to read

Wicked. There are a bunch online at marxists.org but to be honest your local library should be able to help too.

If you go for Capital, don't read all the intros and forewords. I did that about 15 years ago and fell asleep. Do check the David Harvey vids though.
 
Sorry, yes Toast Rider it is worth reading and is a very comprehensive study of Capitalism that will probably surprise you.

its Friday night :oops:
 
Wicked. There are a bunch online at marxists.org but to be honest your local library should be able to help too.

If you go for Capital, don't read all the intros and forewords. I did that about 15 years ago and fell asleep. Do check the David Harvey vids though.
It's more a case of reading stuff that explains how his ideas are true in the world.
 
It's more a case of reading stuff that explains how his ideas are true in the world.

Well what's good about Capital is that he starts with very simple ideas and then builds up from there, so you can jump off when you like... and again, David Harvey (I'm not on commission!) does explain in his interviews on Youtube and books like "Seventeen Contradictions of Capitalism" why Marx is still relevant.
 
Well what's good about Capital is that he starts with very simple ideas and then builds up from there, so you can jump off when you like... and again, David Harvey (I'm not on commission!) does explain in his interviews on Youtube and books like "Seventeen Contradictions of Capitalism" why Marx is still relevant.
yes i'm aware of David Harvey, peole have mentioned him. I just need a spare hour or three to get into it :D
 
Marxism-Leninism, derivations of which had been adopted in varying circumstances as the guiding state-socialist ideologies of countries you've been bigging up.

I was arguing that revolutionary movements are a lot more spontaneous and intuitive ... take the Horizontalidad movement, there may have been groups battling the state before the revolution, but when it popped people took to organizing horizontally out of instinct.

Also, people had these notions before Marx. Many fairer societies have been achieved.
 
Is it one of the branches threatened with closure?

department-exterior.jpg
 
I was arguing that revolutionary movements are a lot more spontaneous and intuitive ... take the Horizontalidad movement, there may have been groups battling the state before the revolution, but when it popped people took to organizing horizontally out of instinct.

Also, people had these notions before Marx. Many fairer societies have been achieved.

You were talking about societies ruled by governments using adaptations of the very political and ideological formulations you have said you're against elswhere.
 
Cuba and Yugoslavia yes, but are you seriously suggesting that without Das Capital revolutions of a socialist nature would not be taking place?
 
And Yugoslavia.

Where have I said anything of the sort?

I have merely been pointing out to you where you have been contradicting yourself.

It's embarrassing.
 
I said Yugoslavia :rolleyes:

Anyway revolutions work better ye old anarchist way. Marx`s transitional periods can spin on it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom