EDUCATION | Part 6 | Reading Marx’s "Capital" Volume 1 with David Harvey
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2024
- A close reading of the text of Volume I of Marx’s Capital with Professor David Harvey. - askdavidharvey@peoplesforum.org -
Documents:
peoplesforum.org/wp-content/u...
peoplesforum.org/wp-content/u...
Interesting how the number of views decreases slowly throughout the reading... this is probably the most explicit chapter where exploitation is exposed, yet, we are seeing that people who are willing (or probably capable due to their indoctrination within the neoliberal order, and the lack of time to commit to this project) is dwindling. I am thankful for Harvey, and the People's Forum NYC, for publishing this on CZcams and giving me a companion to the reading of Marx's Capital. At this point, any blind spots I had to the "freedom" associated within the neoliberal political economy have been blown out of the water.
There's a previous section of the book here which is awfully dry and hard to get through. It's in this segment where Marx pays off on the many chapters of setup. This is the first section of the book where Marx makes some initial observations (explosive ones) about the self-destructive nature of capitalism and the total lack of incentive there is to protect worker's survival needs. As Harvey says, it's in this section where Marx says in effect that any and all questions of sustainability are lost on the capitalist. "They don't care". Capitalists don't give a flying fuck. They figure they'll be clear and safe before the system collapses on everyone else.
In the previous sections Marx had to spend a lot of time using logical reasoning, social observation, and even some (painfully dry) mathematic reasoning to support this section. A lot of those sections of Capital are sort of redundant these days-everyone knows what he's talking about and we don't need mathematical proofs to see that the Capitalist single-mindedly desires to turn M into M^1 or M^Prime etc. Later segments of the book are hinted on here-namely how the Capitalist believes himself to be outside of the coercive mechanisms he can inflict on workers-but he's really not....
Best so far
26:44 is great passage contra the silly notion of 'cultural marxism.' Capitalism is more than enough to uproot any sense of 'traditional values/culture.'
This is pure Marx interpretation ... 'cultural marxism.' is a after Marx concept from the Frankist School !!
So whatever you are pointing out that took place @ 26:44 is non-sensical.
@@garysalisbury4117 1) That's the *Frankfurt* School, not 'Frankist'. 2) They were, yes, influenced by Marx/Engels, and equally, if not even more so, by Freud, existentialism (ex: Heidegger) and Hegel's idealism. My advice for you, would be to engage what you want to use for evidence prior to using it *as* evidence...especially when you're pointing out 'nonsense' on the part of others.
@@non-standardproletarian3356 Yes, but what is @ 26:44, and what has this got to do with the original Marx ... "Cultural Marxism" was an invention after his death? Where is the silly notion ... there is nothing silly in the way this ideology is affecting modern society from what I can see. Your advice seems to mislead, if you are going to be dictatorial, then back up what you said originally, that seems to be pure propaganda. Where is your evidence ... It's impossible to have "Cultural Marxism" in the original works ... So exactly what are you saying here?
It seems out the ether, you choose you totally disregard "cultural marxism" and blame everything Capitalism ... Sophism !
@@garysalisbury4117 Listen to 26:44 onward for yourself. Marx pointed out that capital(ism) was destroying traditional values, the family structure, etc., all on its own during his day. Pointing this out isn't causal. There's neither need to invent the bogeyman of 'cultural marxism' nor any other external 'force' to destroy the institutions and values so-called traditionalists and their ilk This destruction is part and parcel of the process of capital and has nothing to do with latter-day scapegoating and everything to do with retaining the ruling class.
@@non-standardproletarian3356 This is still sophism, using the original works of Marx to dismiss 'cultural marxism' as nothing but something but a silly notion ( based on some of his ad-hoc comments on culture ), and then to blame Capitalism in totality, for the decline of western 'traditional values/culture.' is just ludicrous. 'Cultural Marxism' is a political ideology to gain power and has no link to capitalism that I can see, other than a political tool to over turn it . I do agree Capitalism has its faults, but your original statement, blaming "western cultural decline" on capitalism, I find totally incorrect.
It's a pity, that modern-day academy, has thrown away debate and free speech, for this crazed abused version of Marx ... that allows ideology to surpass reason!
Maybe Marx would even turn in his grave, looking at how this ideology has changed modern-day western institutions ...
1:00:00
Wolność zaczyna się tam gdzie kończy się praca, którą dyktuje nędza i zaspokojone są podstawowe potrzeby ludzkie umożliwiające biologiczne przetrwanie
8:35 tfw class struggle is referenced for the first time
Relay means shift work system.
I must read., moral depreciation.
26:00
12:00
Żadna teoria rynkowa nie potrafi odpowiedzieć na pytaniej jak długi ma być dzień pracy pracownika. Żadna teoria ekonomii kapitalistycznej się tym nie zajmuje i ma to w dupie. Dla Marksa jest to kluczowe
19:00 pp 363
reducing the working day increases productivity, did Marx know this?
Yep, he talked about there being a natural limit to the working day- as a capitalist you could extend your working day longer than that but it would negatively affect your workers, causing them to not be able to work as well, shorten their lifespan etc.
However, you don’t really want to go too under the natural limits of the working day, because the shorter the working day, the less surplus value (profit) you can get.
I think the counter example he gives is that of a slave, who is a means of production (like a horse or mule) to a slave master, not a laborer and as a consequence is worked to his maximum and dies at the age of 30 or less.
You watched the lecture? Prob not, since Harvey discusses this explicitly.