babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Learn about Marxist economic theory

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Learn about Marxist economic theory
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 23 June 2008 07:57 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
David Harvey has been teaching Karl Marx’s Capital, Volume I for nearly 40 years, and his lectures are now available free online for the first time.

This open course consists of 13 two-hour video lectures of Professor Harvey’s close chapter by chapter reading of Capital, Volume I.

David Harvey is a Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the City University of New York (CUNY).


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 23 June 2008 08:07 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are only 3 of the 13 lectures posted so far. However, at 2 hours a pop, that's still 6 hours of free lectures. You can't beat that with a stick.

Incidently, I've already posted a link to Harvey's lectures on the Socialist, Marxist, and Radical Educational resources thread.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2008 08:14 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I really should re-read Capital - I read it when I was very young and am not sure I fully understood everything, moreover it is essential as grounding while working on ecosocialist concepts.

I've been studying German, and have re-read some of the easier and shorter Marxian texts in the original (the Manifesto, Utopian and Scientific Socialism, etc) but I don't think I'd be up to Das Kapital yet.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 23 June 2008 08:33 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I started watching those videos from Beltov's earlier links. The first chapter of Capital is the most important, in my opinion, and the most important part is eminently readable:

Chapter 1, Section 4: The Fetishism of Commodities

quote:
A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than “table-turning” ever was. [26a]

The mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use value. Just as little does it proceed from the nature of the determining factors of value. For, in the first place, however varied the useful kinds of labour, or productive activities, may be, it is a physiological fact, that they are functions of the human organism, and that each such function, whatever may be its nature or form, is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, &c. Secondly, with regard to that which forms the ground-work for the quantitative determination of value, namely, the duration of that expenditure, or the quantity of labour, it is quite clear that there is a palpable difference between its quantity and quality. In all states of society, the labour time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence, must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development.[27] And lastly, from the moment that men in any way work for one another, their labour assumes a social form.

Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from this form itself. The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour; and finally the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products.

A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the same way the light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye itself. But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to another, from the external object to the eye. There is a physical relation between physical things. But it is different with commodities. There, the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.


[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 23 June 2008 08:54 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This fetish can also be expressed, more briefly, as "the mistaken idea that the value of a commodity is an intrinsic property of the commodity as an object." Behind things (exchanged) are people (working).

Fox & Johnson, Understanding Capital, 1978, p. 100.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 23 June 2008 09:49 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That sounds like a criminal reduction to me. Marx is not simply pointing out that people make the things we use, nor that to think otherwise is simply a 'mistake'. Rather, the 'exchange-value' is the only thing connecting a commodity to its social value (i.e., to the labour required to produce it, which is the definitive attribute of humanity) but the exchange value has nothing to do with the commodity's material value, or use value. But this is not a mistake--the fetishistic character of the commodity comes in because exchange value appears as if it were objective, or socio-natural. So social relations, no longer based on existential labour, or, "relations between men (sic)" but between things.

This leads to all sorts of great analysis, like Georg Lukács on reification, Guy Debord on the Spectacle, among others.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca