Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Reading Marx Necessary?

Can you really read Capital without reading all the stuff that influenced Marx and his worldview/methodology, because it doesn't seem that way?

I watched some of David harvey's first class (it's quite long so I haven't finished it) and he seems to generally say you should just read the book.
 
To understand why capitalism is shit and to be able to articulate why?

I think it's shit. I've thought it was shit since before I even knew what it was. I've always felt at odds with how society works, it's just...that's how society works and you don't believe it can be any different.

So is Marx the only way to understand why this system's a bit of a shitshow?
Is capitalism shit?

Or is it just unbridled capitalism in neoliberal democracies that is shit.

China seems to have harnessed capitalism exceptionally well by utilising it but also imposing limits on it.
 
Is capitalism shit?

Or is it just unbridled capitalism in neoliberal democracies that is shit.

China seems to have harnessed capitalism exceptionally well by utilising it but also imposing limits on it.
Seems shit to me.

The worker and the capitalist cannot engage on equal footing and the former has his choices in life curtailed by the commodification of almost everything - education, food, housing, culture.
 
fair enough... but the point i am making should not be disqualified because , in your opinion, Assange is not an anarchist who has created notable anti-capitalist change.
What point are you making, though? You asked before that people address your arguments. But other than your thinking that Marx is outdated while his contemporaries in the First International are not, I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Can you really read Capital without reading all the stuff that influenced Marx and his worldview/methodology, because it doesn't seem that way?

I watched some of David harvey's first class (it's quite long so I haven't finished it) and he seems to generally say you should just read the book.
You can, no problem as long as you're prepared to make the effort. That said, a bit of background and context only makes things easier. I'd have a look at David McLellan's Marx Before Marxism or Maximillien Rubel's Marx: Life and Works. The former also does an abridgement of Capital - not that i think it's worth reading an abridgement. The latter also has a must read piece called Marx, theoretician of anarchism that certain people could do with having a look at.
 
What point are you making, though? You asked before that people address your arguments. But other than your thinking that Marx is outdated while his contemporaries in the First International are not, I'm not sure what your point is.

Reading Das ...Kapital is not essential to understanding Capitalism because there are more pragmatic and contemporary sources of analysis with scientific backing.

I am not trying to undermine the Cultural relevance of Marx ... ok maybe i was a little yesterday(which was stupid yes)... but I am just suggesting there are other faster routes to understanding the system .. also ones that were not formulated in the industrial revolution but slightly more up to date.... like the First International.
 
Last edited:
Reading Das ...Kapital is not essential to understanding Capitalism because there are more pragmatic and contemporary sources of analysis with scientific backing.

I am not trying to undermine the Cultural relevance of Marx ... ok maybe i was a little yesterday(which was stupid yes)... but I am just suggesting there are other faster routes to understanding the system .. also ones that were not formulated in the industrial revolution but slightly more up to date.... like the First International.

Who's foremost among those contemporary sources?
 
Noam Chomsky.

chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website

Manufacturing Consent - Is a stone cold classic and essential reading IMO.(co written by Edward S. Herman)

He consistently keeps abreast of Capitalism today.
He wont be alive long so make the most of him.

This is a good introductory film to his methods and ant-capitalist politics in general.

 
Last edited:
Reading Das ...Kapital is not essential to understanding Capitalism because there are more pragmatic and contemporary sources of analysis with scientific backing.

I am not trying to undermine the Cultural relevance of Marx ... ok maybe i was a little yesterday(which was stupid yes)... but I am just suggesting there are other faster routes to understanding the system .. also ones that were not formulated in the industrial revolution but slightly more up to date.... like the First International.
Name them
 
I am just suggesting there are other faster routes to understanding the system .. also ones that were not formulated in the industrial revolution but slightly more up to date.... like the First International.
I want to help you. I really do. But are you saying the First International is more up to date than Marx? You know that makes no kind of sense, don't you?
 
Could you point me to where this cunning linguist goes into detail about commodities?


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you about Latin America. We had a period, for about 10 years, of enormous social progress in Latin America—all these socially minded governments, reduction of income inequality, the only part of the world where there are no nuclear weapons. And yet, now we’ve seen, in the last few years, real steps backwards. Quite a few of the popular governments, with the exception of Ecuador, recently have been thrown out of office, and a deepening crisis in Venezuela. Your sense of what has happened, in that, after so much promise, all of a sudden it seems that the region is going backward?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there were—there were real achievements. But the left governments failed to use the opportunity available to them to try to create sustainable, viable economies. Almost every one—Venezuela, Brazil, others, Argentina—relied on the rise in commodity prices, which is a temporary phenomenon. Commodity prices did rise, mainly because of the growth of China. So there was a rise in the oil price, of soy, and so on and so forth. And instead of trying to develop a sustainable economy with manufacturing, agriculture and so on—like Venezuela is potentially a rich agricultural country, but they didn’t develop it—they simply relied on the commodity—raw materials commodities they could export. That’s a very harmful—it’s not only not a successful, it’s a harmful development model, because when you export grain to China, let’s say, they export manufacturing goods to you, and that undermines your manufacturing industries. And that’s pretty much what’s been happening.

There are overwhelming elements of non-informal economies that are not discussed much. Tax havens for example, are probably a substantial element of the international economy. But these elements of “informal economies” are part of the world of the strong and privileged, so not very much is known about them. They are not the focus of a great deal of attention and investigation, like drugs. In fact there are major factors in the drug system that are much too little discussed, such as the reasons why peasant farmers turn to coca production. They are being driven to it by the very politics that the powerful states advocate. For example, if you try to drive peasants to agro-export and you undercut the conditions for production for local markets by massive imports, and also establish conditions under which export of major commodities undergoes sharp price fluctuations, then peasants will not have many choices. They are likely to turn to production of commodities for which there is always demand. And that has happened.

What remains of democracy is to be construed as the right to choose among commodities. Business leaders have long explained the need to impose on the population a “philosophy of futility” and “lack of purpose in life,” to “concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption.” Deluged by such propaganda from infancy, people may then accept their meaningless and subordinate lives and forget ridiculous ideas about managing their own affairs. They may abandon their fate to the wizards, and in the political realm, to the self-described “intelligent minorities” who serve and administer power.

These are pragmatic observations ^

This is theory :

Marx said:
The fact that the substance of the exchange-value is something utterly different from and independent of the physical-sensual existence of the commodity or its reality as a use-value is revealed immediately by its exchange relationship. For this is characterized precisely by the abstraction from the use-value. As far as the exchange-value is concerned, one commodity is, after all, quite as good as every other, provided it is present in the correct proportion.
Hence, commodities are first of all simply to be considered as values, independent of their exchange-relationship or from the form, in which they appear as exchange-values.

Which is more essential is a matter of opinion... IMO Chomsky breaks it down better.
 
Last edited:
Can you really read Capital without reading all the stuff that influenced Marx and his worldview/methodology, because it doesn't seem that way?

I watched some of David harvey's first class (it's quite long so I haven't finished it) and he seems to generally say you should just read the book.

You can read Capital without reading all of the stuff that influences it. But, if you are like me, your reading list will explode because you will want to read some of the work he references and because there will be specific areas that interest you and where you will want to deepen your understanding.

My advice is to go one chapter at a time. Start with Harvey - the video or the book - and maybe one more primer. The read the chapter in Capital and then go back to the explainer texts to firm up anything you don't quite get or where you want to think it through a bit more.

I would also suggest reading the Communist Manifesto to periodise Marx and his work. The magnificence of the first line "A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of communism' sets the tone and enables you to locate the practical struggles Marx and Engles were seeking to promote.

Fell free to post thoughts and questions here.

You need to think about this as a project. You will need to put some effort in but the rewards, the discovery of writing and ideas and the grounding are well worth it.
 
Last edited:
Crass said:
You romanticise your heroes, quote from Marx and Mao
Well their ideas of freedom are just oppression now

Nothing changed for all the death, that their ideas created
It's just the same fascistic games, but the rules aren't clearly stated
Nothing's really different cos all government's the same
They can call it freedom, but slavery is the game
There's nothing that you offer but a dream of last years hero
The truth of revolution, brother................... Is year zero.

This song is good for pointing out differences between anarchist and communists :) And no... i`m not 3rd position... I just don`t agree with the notion of government.




Anarchism is not an iteration of communism. Communism is the sub-verter of the anarchist revolution as history states clearly (Russia/ Spain)

Early history
Most contemporary anthropologists as well as anarcho-primitivists agree that for the longest period before recorded history human society was without a separate class of established authority or formal political institutions.[24] According to Harold Barclay, long before anarchism emerged as a distinct perspective, human beings lived for thousands of years in self-governing societies without a special ruling or political class.[25] It was only after the rise of hierarchical societies that anarchist ideas were formulated as a critical response to and rejection of coercive political institutions and hierarchical social relationships.

Taoism, which developed in ancient China, has been embraced by some anarchists as a source of anarchistic attitudes. The Taoists sages Lao Zi (Lao Tzu) and Zhuang Zhou whose philosophy was a kind of philosophy based on a "anti-polity" stance and rejection of any kind of involvement in political movements or organisations and developed a philosophy of "non-rule" in the Zhuang Zhou and Tao Te Ching and many Taoists in response lived an anarchist lifestyle. In 300 CE, Bao Jingyan explicitly argued that there should be neither lords nor subjects.[24] Similarly, anarchistic tendencies in the West can be traced to the philosophers of ancient Greece such as Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism; and Aristippus, who said that the wise should not give up their liberty to the state.[26]

I’m aware that anarchist communism, libertarian communism has a history nearly as old as the first communist party. But those old anarcho-communists [2] were careful to make sure you knew they were anarchists. Their communist label never went out on the town unless adorned in its seductive anti-authoritarian finery. Most even seemed to recognize that individual autonomy was the primary aim of anarchism, though they often forgot that it’s also the primary practice.

Many of the anarchists today who yabber on lovingly about communism seem to reject the possibility of individual autonomy… or even of the individual. Whether naive nihilists tantalized by Tiqqun’s metaphysical twaddle or ultra-theorists ultra-excited by the ultra-left squabbles, most of today’s young “insurrectionary” communists believe that you and I don’t really act, but are simply the puppets of invisible, bodiless actors like society, social relationships, movements, various collective forces that apparently come out of nothing but themselves, since if you try to bring them back to an actual source, you have to come back to individuals acting in their worlds and relating with each other. And that won’t do, because then you’d have to recognize not “the commune,” not “human community,” certainly not that mystical absurdity “species being,” but yourself here and now – a unique individual capable of desiring, deciding and acting – as the center and aim of your theory and practice. And a whole lot of the theorizing that communists carry out seems to be aimed precisely at avoiding this.



So fuck off.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom