Mmh, I do not agree with you, when you're saying "Kapital" is a boring read. I think it is fascinating to read, especially because of Marx polemics agianst other thinkers. It is also important to read the original Marx, reading secondary text based on secondary texts (and so on) was one biggest promblemsin traditional Marxism. Complemtary reading is necessary, but it doesn' spare you from reading Marx in the original.
According to Amazon's preview of the table of contents, Tucker's "Marx-Engels Reader" devotes just 145 pages to Vol. 1 of Capital. Does he try to condense the whole thing, or most of the salient points, into that, or does he include just a few chapters in their entirety? It seems kind of dubious either way, I'm not sure how much of Capital can be imparted in 145 pages!
It is definitely more accessible than other books I've read on marxist theory. It's almost entirely devoted to discussing the transformation problem and Okishio's Theorum, so if those are topics you are really interested in than you might give it a shot. I attempt to summarize its arguments in my TRansformation problem video. Try reading my blog and maybe the math supplement to it and if that makes sense and intrigues you then I would recommend the book.
I have read one chapter of the book, which was translated into swedish, and it was very easy to understand, much easier than most texts that are written by marxists. I think that I'll buy it soon.
Everytime I start Empire I get paranoid that I am reading a bunch of words signifying nothing. But one of these days I'm going to try harder and see what I really think of it.
You mention machines, does this theory seem fit: if machines and technology do most work, workers will not be needed or be paid, hence commodities will not be sold eliminating capitalism.
And you mention money which of course takes the role of value, do you think this seems fit for socialism:
Value will still be contained in production but it will be weighed by 1) skill 2) usefulness to society and 3) progress to society to maintain an even balance of wealth amongst society.
If machines do all the work, those commodities won't be worth anything and so there will be no basis for exchange.
Money and value- I haven't read all the literature on how different socialist economies claim to measure value. Clearly this issue of how value is created, measured and distributed will have to undergo a major transition in order to move away from a capitalist society.
I'm joining WIL and I think we need to comprehensibly come to more socialist ideas on how value is created, measured and distributed, it would be nice to have "Das Social" but we don't.
Marx put forward that socialism can't be in one country and a revolution in one country isn't socialism, there must be a world revolution towards socialism. I'm adding, world socialism under one currency value.
Hey brendan what do you think of this idea for socialism to bring about classless communism.
Most capitalists will still own the means of production, but workers will not work for wages, instead, they will pay capitalists to use their means of production and for raw materials. But how much will they pay to use their means of production? Workers will give what would have been their wages and will keep the surplus value created by them thereby keeping the full value of their labor.
"If machines do all the work, those commodities won't be worth anything and so there will be no basis for exchange."
Doesn't this make the assumption that automation will mean non-scarcity? A commodity could theoretically be produced by an entirely automated process yet still be scarce. Wouldn't that scarcity give it exchange value? It seems common sense that it would, at least if the means to produce it are in someway exclusively owned.
Contrary to popular belief, Marx does not base his LTV on what he dismisses as "ascribing a supernatural creative power to labor", arguing in the Critique of the Gotha Program that: Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.
Marx's LTV basically holds that within capitalist mode of production, labour is the only thing that can increase the value of the inputs, thus enabling surplus value. Machines cannot do this. However some things do have exchange value even before human labour is applied to them (such as land).
Here you are referring to the theory of rent. This is a really difficult subject. The best explanation I have read of the LTV and rent is in Harvey's Limits to Capital. Basically rent does not flow out of the ground. But human labor moves through physical space, creating value and changing space. Rent comes from a variety of sources, all based on the labor process: a deduction from wages for housing rent; differences in agricultural productivity based on work spent improving land, etc. BIG TOPIC
don't confuse wealth and use-value with value. Marx clearly believed only labor creates value, though it must manipulate nature to do so. This is not a supernatural power but a result of capitalist social relations.
the LTV applies to freely reproducible goods... that is, it abstracts from conditions of physical scarcity to form a model of value based on abstract social relations. In abstraction scarcity means more labor went into less commodities. When we place this model in the real world all sorts of environmental factors distort the mechanism of commodity exchange creating a more diverse concrete reality. But even w/ monopoly pricing based on scarcity this wouldn't be value creation- it would be rent.
I am re-reading Das Kapital with David Harvey again. He makes it easy for ANYONE to read. I am hooked on his lectures. People like to emphasise that Capital is boring and a streneous piece of writing without acknowledging the theories in it which are invaluable to the socialist movement.
thanks for thisbibliography. I have just started my 3rd attempt at reading Capital in the last 7 years. I never heard of David Harvey, so i did a search and it linked me to his web page where he is just happening to give a series of lectures on the whole first volume of Capital!!! I am now very enthusiastic about reading Capital now,especially since I am passed the first three chapters. I think that's how i found your channel,looking for a talk or something on Economis or Capital itself.Thanks
Nick. thanks for mentioning this David harvey website. I had heard of this course he teaches but didn't realize it was online. I am posting the link here for others. What a great resource!
Well I decided to read some of his books to understand where my market anarchist friends were coming from..they still have strong criticism of him especially the mutualists and the agorists.
Mutualism is virulently anti-capitalist. Markets appear in many systems besides capitalism(but "market anarchism" is a polite way to say "anarcho"-capitalist these days). And agorism can either be a form of anti-capitalist individualist anarchism or some bastardized for of "anarcho"-capitalism.
Mmh, I do not agree with you, when you're saying "Kapital" is a boring read. I think it is fascinating to read, especially because of Marx polemics agianst other thinkers. It is also important to read the original Marx, reading secondary text based on secondary texts (and so on) was one biggest promblemsin traditional Marxism. Complemtary reading is necessary, but it doesn' spare you from reading Marx in the original.
reformationposttlc 2 years ago
I totally agree with you. I have actually been planning to remake this video for this very reason.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
According to Amazon's preview of the table of contents, Tucker's "Marx-Engels Reader" devotes just 145 pages to Vol. 1 of Capital. Does he try to condense the whole thing, or most of the salient points, into that, or does he include just a few chapters in their entirety? It seems kind of dubious either way, I'm not sure how much of Capital can be imparted in 145 pages!
AntiCapitalistPig 2 years ago
shit, i went to click 'play' and i accidentally rated the video at 2 stars
mauroprovatos 2 years ago
My ideas aren't fully formed yet on that topic. That's why I am still studying.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
political science
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I have heard that "Reclaiming Marx's Capital
A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency" is a good book.
Anarkokommunist 3 years ago
killer book. i just made a video "what transformation problem?" about it.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Would you recomend it to someone who does'nt have english as his mother thounge?
Anarkokommunist 3 years ago
It is definitely more accessible than other books I've read on marxist theory. It's almost entirely devoted to discussing the transformation problem and Okishio's Theorum, so if those are topics you are really interested in than you might give it a shot. I attempt to summarize its arguments in my TRansformation problem video. Try reading my blog and maybe the math supplement to it and if that makes sense and intrigues you then I would recommend the book.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Thank you!
I have read one chapter of the book, which was translated into swedish, and it was very easy to understand, much easier than most texts that are written by marxists. I think that I'll buy it soon.
Anarkokommunist 3 years ago
Marx for beginners I LOVE THAT BOOK
McOath 3 years ago
Where the Felix the Cat and Superman videos inspired by Dorfman & Mattelart's How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic?
Any chance of a video in the future on Hardt and Negri?
joshsowords 3 years ago
The answers to both of those questions is "no".
Everytime I start Empire I get paranoid that I am reading a bunch of words signifying nothing. But one of these days I'm going to try harder and see what I really think of it.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
You mention machines, does this theory seem fit: if machines and technology do most work, workers will not be needed or be paid, hence commodities will not be sold eliminating capitalism.
And you mention money which of course takes the role of value, do you think this seems fit for socialism:
Value will still be contained in production but it will be weighed by 1) skill 2) usefulness to society and 3) progress to society to maintain an even balance of wealth amongst society.
paulsonofabitch 3 years ago
If machines do all the work, those commodities won't be worth anything and so there will be no basis for exchange.
Money and value- I haven't read all the literature on how different socialist economies claim to measure value. Clearly this issue of how value is created, measured and distributed will have to undergo a major transition in order to move away from a capitalist society.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I'm joining WIL and I think we need to comprehensibly come to more socialist ideas on how value is created, measured and distributed, it would be nice to have "Das Social" but we don't.
Marx put forward that socialism can't be in one country and a revolution in one country isn't socialism, there must be a world revolution towards socialism. I'm adding, world socialism under one currency value.
paulsonofabitch 3 years ago
Hey brendan what do you think of this idea for socialism to bring about classless communism.
Most capitalists will still own the means of production, but workers will not work for wages, instead, they will pay capitalists to use their means of production and for raw materials. But how much will they pay to use their means of production? Workers will give what would have been their wages and will keep the surplus value created by them thereby keeping the full value of their labor.
paulsonofabitch 3 years ago
Why would a capitalist let this happen? It seems that if they own the means of production, they have control over the social product..
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
"If machines do all the work, those commodities won't be worth anything and so there will be no basis for exchange."
Doesn't this make the assumption that automation will mean non-scarcity? A commodity could theoretically be produced by an entirely automated process yet still be scarce. Wouldn't that scarcity give it exchange value? It seems common sense that it would, at least if the means to produce it are in someway exclusively owned.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
@yeahwotevaman
I'm pretty sure the wiki page on the LTV has a section where Marx speaks directly to that point.
Have you seen the video stoodles made under his sock account claiming to "pwn" us?
watch?v=wjG2OXIerBM
shameoncanada 3 years ago
Yeah, he send me a weird PM from that account. It's all a game to him, I'd just ignore it really.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
Contrary to popular belief, Marx does not base his LTV on what he dismisses as "ascribing a supernatural creative power to labor", arguing in the Critique of the Gotha Program that: Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.
~wiki labour theory of value
shameoncanada 3 years ago
Marx's LTV basically holds that within capitalist mode of production, labour is the only thing that can increase the value of the inputs, thus enabling surplus value. Machines cannot do this. However some things do have exchange value even before human labour is applied to them (such as land).
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
Anyway I'll have to look more into this.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
Here you are referring to the theory of rent. This is a really difficult subject. The best explanation I have read of the LTV and rent is in Harvey's Limits to Capital. Basically rent does not flow out of the ground. But human labor moves through physical space, creating value and changing space. Rent comes from a variety of sources, all based on the labor process: a deduction from wages for housing rent; differences in agricultural productivity based on work spent improving land, etc. BIG TOPIC
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
don't confuse wealth and use-value with value. Marx clearly believed only labor creates value, though it must manipulate nature to do so. This is not a supernatural power but a result of capitalist social relations.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
the LTV applies to freely reproducible goods... that is, it abstracts from conditions of physical scarcity to form a model of value based on abstract social relations. In abstraction scarcity means more labor went into less commodities. When we place this model in the real world all sorts of environmental factors distort the mechanism of commodity exchange creating a more diverse concrete reality. But even w/ monopoly pricing based on scarcity this wouldn't be value creation- it would be rent.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
das kapital is a book i was going to buy but then didn't because of price
also you should right a book
a combination of all thouse books explaned in the same way of your videos
you would become the captilist
gbg112 3 years ago
I am re-reading Das Kapital with David Harvey again. He makes it easy for ANYONE to read. I am hooked on his lectures. People like to emphasise that Capital is boring and a streneous piece of writing without acknowledging the theories in it which are invaluable to the socialist movement.
santino666 3 years ago 2
thanks for thisbibliography. I have just started my 3rd attempt at reading Capital in the last 7 years. I never heard of David Harvey, so i did a search and it linked me to his web page where he is just happening to give a series of lectures on the whole first volume of Capital!!! I am now very enthusiastic about reading Capital now,especially since I am passed the first three chapters. I think that's how i found your channel,looking for a talk or something on Economis or Capital itself.Thanks
nickvanzetti 3 years ago 2
Nick. thanks for mentioning this David harvey website. I had heard of this course he teaches but didn't realize it was online. I am posting the link here for others. What a great resource!
davidharvey . org
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
no zizek or (other?) postmarxists?
hehehe685 3 years ago 2
i dig zizek. but this bibliography just pertains to the issues of political economy which I have addressed in my videos.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Great, Brendan. As always, good 'job'.
Leibo07 3 years ago
have you read anything by rothbard? I don't agree with him in the slightest but it is an interesting read.
napalmtube 3 years ago
Rothbard...eww. Rothbard was a hack who completely misunderstood the basis of almost every concept he dealt with.
IncoherentGodDotCom 3 years ago 2
Well I decided to read some of his books to understand where my market anarchist friends were coming from..they still have strong criticism of him especially the mutualists and the agorists.
napalmtube 3 years ago
Mutualism is virulently anti-capitalist. Markets appear in many systems besides capitalism(but "market anarchism" is a polite way to say "anarcho"-capitalist these days). And agorism can either be a form of anti-capitalist individualist anarchism or some bastardized for of "anarcho"-capitalism.
IncoherentGodDotCom 3 years ago
haha i know eric olin wright, he looks a bit like a nerd
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago