EDUCATION | Part 3 | Reading Marx’s "Capital" Volume 1 with David Harvey
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 03. 2019
- 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...
Super helpful close walk-through of notoriously obtuse 3rd chapter on money. Reading Vol. 1 along with this close-to-the-text lecture series is great. It's like taking a graduate course on Capital Vol. 1 for free.
It's abstruse. if you can't understand the book then you, the reader, are obtuse.
@Colton Boone
Not everyone is as well-endowed with intellectual power as you are. Spare a thought for us dummies, eh?
@@coltonboone5977 I’m going back back in a a
Ch 2: co evaluation of value form and money form in an institutional framework of exchange and then to Ch 3- Money, units of both measure of value and means of circulation and contradiction between these two aspects.Beautifully put.
Great explanation, complex concepts related to money are broke down ! Thank you professor.
Did you know that these are also guitar lectures in the sense that you can play guitar while you listen to them?
Tough chapter but a great breakdown from Professor Harvey!
Worth the time to listen very carefully ..... superb analysis by Professor Harvey..... thank you for posting
Wonderful! Very enlightening and easy to understand.
This is so incredible. Thank for your these lectures!
57:10
3 elementy wskazujące ile potrzebujesz pieniędzy
a) ruch cen
b) ilość rowarów w obrocie
c)szbkość obrotu pieniądza
17:15 - Chapter 3
45:00
Marks jest w pełni świadomy, że może być problem ze sprzedażą towaru. Ale dla czystości modelu krytyki kapitalizmu zakłada, że do sprzedaży dochodzi i następuje konwersja C=>M
51:00
Krytyka Sales Law
left this and came back and completely lost all concept of what was happening
Edit: back into it now
mood
1:40:00
Odejście od złota w 1971r przez USA
1:18:50
Kryzys monetarny
36:30
59:00
yay more marxist grandad
7:30 Marx assumes utopian vision of perfect market in Capitalism
so that he can critique it.
28:00
31:00
1:22:50
1:15:00
1:24:00
52:00
Hobbits are in danger of becoming like Smaug.
Try applying the labour theory of value to the emission trading system. Not all value is derived from labour.
Also, you should be able to put a price on your honour. That is how we make moral decisions, how we handle questions like "Would you eat shit to save your child?".
Big fan of Harvey though, I just feel like Marx is missing the mark here.
I'm not super aware of how these emission trading schemes have actually played out, but isn't it that they are relatively arbitrary state interventions into the economy? What value are you referring to- gains made by trading permits?
@@cameronrobson1218 The value of the created permits.
@@robbedemey Can you explain how it's incommensurate with the labour theory of value?
52:40 Is Harvey confused how stock buybacks work, or am I missing something? Buying back stock is spending the (hoarded) money, it is bringing money back into circulation, it is investing. Companies have no way to exploit a rising stock price to buy back more of their own stock. In general companies do not hoard money, they tend to lend as much money as possible. They hoard capital in every form but the money form.
You're misunderstanding what stocks actually are, how the market treats them, and what buy-backs actually do.
What are stocks? They are shares in a venture that are purely idealistic (ideas, not tangible things even if certificates are printed). People buy them, thus investing in the venture for the promise of future returns. The stock market doesn't care about that. It is a market for trading those shares, where people "speculate" on the value of a venture, and therefore change the price of the right to that future return (a lower price relative to the initial sale, to the company, means that there's not much faith in their ability to pay off the return, which suggests that they're in trouble. A higher price is high confidence that they can, and it makes them that much more appealing for investment).
Stock buy-backs are not an investment in the venture, but playing on that market to increase the price of the shares that have already been sold by the venture. Money is spent by the venture to pay off the people who own their stock, thus removing their obligation of future returns, and artificially increasing the price of their stock by rarifying it (rarify: to refine. In this case, buying back the shares from the low-stake holders so that the shares of the high-stake holders are more valuable by virtue of its "rarity." It also makes the venture look good to have that high stock price).
No investment was actually made except by the initial selling of those stocks by the venture. The money that was invested into the venture by those initial stock sales didn't go anywhere; it was already spent when the venture sold the stocks, whether in growing or improving the venture, lending to others, or buying stock in other ventures. Money was not put back into circulation, but instead transferred as that promised return on investment to whoever ended up holding the stock after years of speculating and trading; money put back into circulation would take the form of wage increases for the workers or building up the venture further (or even a massive spending spree by the people who sold their shares), but in most cases those things don't happen. The stock holders don't circulate their profits from the buy-back except into other stocks, because that's not profitable, though some amount will get circulated (buying yachts, for instance, but very little of it actually circulates back into the economy. It stays circulating in the gambling den of speculation and financial hoodoo).
Buy-backs are all smoke-and-mirrors shifting of debt, a strategy used to pad the portfolios of the primary investors (who aren't the ones selling their stock back to the ventures) and the CEOs. It's all about short-term profits, not long-term investment or even the viability of a venture. Investing in ventures can be a way to circulate money, but that assumes that it is used to grow the company or increase wages or other things, instead of being put into the financial markets (which produce nothing while being stupidly profitable. Hoarding debt instead of money is part of that. Yanis Varoufakis talks about debt transfer, hoarding and commodifying a lot. I suggest listening to his stuff if you haven't).
Full disclosure, I'm not a financial expert, so I might be wrong on some details, but on the whole that's how stock and stock trading works. The investment stops at "we'll sell you shares of our company so that we can use that money to build it up." Everything after that (including buy-backs) is all about profits for the majority share holders (CEOs are handsomely rewarded for their efforts to that end), not the venture. That's what Harvey is describing with them buying back stocks.
I love old David Harvey, the best most bourgeoisie character on you tube. Truly great … social media’s own Thurston Howell the III, but now as a devote Marxist.
Funny, sad, yet touchingly poignant. Listening to David is like watching the tragedy of someone slipping on a banana peel, you really want to save them …. But it’s all to late to do anything but laugh.
The reality is that the nutty kooky-ville nonsense of Marxism that Davis is fully engrossed in , is best understood as pathological projection of those cultivating social authority as a form of Narcissistic Projection.
Marxism is a primitive identity guise, and defensive strategy to distort reality and ignore social functionality as the “invisible hand” of a culture based in respecting the rights of all … including property rights.
Unlike David , Marx lived a squalid, horrid life - never a job, always a drink and rarely a bath.
Narcissists like Marx live in a fantasy world, they refuse to see their own faults and failures, and blame and hate others, for their functionality, their freedom their success which the Narcissistic only seek to destroy in their “revolution based reform” … sad but true.
All informed people know Karl Marx was a nut and a very twisted Racist Bigot. He really hated Jewish people, ( and Christians), as well as African, Latinos, Asians, his racism knew no bounds. Marxist “ Theory” is nothing but the irrational contradictions of a racist bigot, old fashion anti-Semitism updated in social -economic mumbo -jumbo.
Today the leftist term “The 1%” , underscores this toxic bigotry , the term is best exposed if rephrased as “The 1% disproportionately represents the Jews” - go ahead look up the statistics yourself . Better yet read the book “Karl Marx Racist” by Nathaniel Weyl for a full understanding of Karl Marx’s well documented RACISM.
The narcissism of Marx and his nutty theories reflect his excessive self-involvement that today leads his sad followers to ignore the rights and realities of others. They just hate the truth of a GREATER REALITY ( the invisible hand- that is God ) and so hate the Jews ( and Christians- as they are of the Jewish faith ).
Marxism is just political narcissism , the sad need to control others for the sake of their ego projections.
How anyone could fall for Karl’s nutty writings which model a rhetorically closed self-justifying system, subjective definitions, an absence of natural economic or independent price signals, lack of internal consistency, the pagan wackiness of “historical materialism”, sectarian intolerance, racism, anti-Semitism a series of rather glaring epistemological problems and so on.
IT IS HARD TO understand outside an understanding of Narcissistic Delusions of Grandeur (like the sad old Pharaoh).
Narcissists like Marx and his sad followers live in a fantasy world, they refuse to see their own faults and failures, and blame and hate others and always the Jews and Christians .... sad but true.
But anyway Marxist screwball or not I still love old David Harvey, and in the absence of Jim Backus or Thurston Howell the III, I would have Dave over for a drink anytime.
Marx was ethnically Jewish.
@@cameronrobson1218 Hi Mr, C. Robson .... Yes he was Jewish , that is very well established , but also a sadly unwell person. Some say spoilt by his parents early on ... anyway very few would say his "life style choices" indicate good mental health ... indeed the inverse ....Karl Marx, was sadly emotionally a very unwell person.
Unfortunately mental health help was limited in his 19th century Britain and Karl’s only refuge was the British Museum Reading Room. The Reading Room operated as a kind of de facto mental ward for a host of London’s marginally functional and emotional ill, as long as they were quiet and behaved they could stay there out of the cold and Dickensian world just outside its doors. Karl was a regular “patient” but sadly showed little progress in any meaningful recovery, he died as he lived, a narcissist kook.
Karl’s mental illness manifested in a diversity of expressions including, drunkenness, poor personal hygiene, anger, intolerance, adultery, fiscal incompetence, racism and complete failure at everything he touched. Karl’s life course and moral failure as a husband, father, provider, employer, friend and citizen is more that adequately documented. Even the most committed “believers” in the Marxist materialist (pagan) faith acknowledge his troubled and failed life.
Unfortunately most of Karl’s time at the British Museum was not spent reading good books (which might of helped) but wasted on writing self-indulgent, faux coherent journalistic rants. Sadly even after extensive editing by his cult like supporters his writings make no sense as serious economic or cultural commentary.
Karl’s kooky writings model a rhetorically closed self-justifying system, subjective definitions, an absence of natural economic or independent price signals, lack of internal consistency, the pagan wackiness of “historical materialism”, sectarian intolerance, racism, anti-Semitism a series of rather glaring epistemological problems and so on. It was just so much egocentric nuttiness.
Karl’s overarching characteristics stand out as the emphatic symptoms of poor mental health, symptoms that further place Karl’s “writings” in the category not of serious commentary but a unique variant of hypergraphia, a common expression of mental illness. Hypergraphia can present with a variety of styles or content, and varying degrees of meaning or coherence. Self-indulgent, ego-aggrandizing faux coherence was Karl’s unique writing style, and he excelled at, indeed he may be the most successful in his field.
Karl’s hypergraphia cultivated and profiled a psychological unwarranted sense of ego grandiosity buttressing the deep denial of the horrid life he subjected himself and family to. Sadly his compulsive ego-gratifying pathology went unchecked and led not only to his own continuing failure as a person but the destruction of his family. The greater tragedy is that once his faux coherent writings, were published by his early cult followers in their pollicised ‘vanity” press, his writings became in effect an “ego contagion” to the emotionally susceptible. It is through the theses new converts to his narcissistic politics that countless others have been hurt.
Karl’s faux coherent ego-aggrandizing prose and corresponding denial of the failed self still attracts the psychological vulnerable today. Those seeking the ego gratifications of a rhetorically closed and so “unassailable” premise for denying their own problems by blaming others have always found Marx irresistibly appealing. Sad but True.....
@@williamforrestall2161 wow... talk about hypergraphia...
@@cameronrobson1218 yea ... i know :-) all the best !!
This is a huge load of crap. When someone can't win an argument (or in this case discredit an idea), the first thing that they do is try to destroy their opponent's character. You would have been more honest in your post if you just called him a "poopie head," because at least you wouldn't have rambled about how Marx was wrong because he kicked puppies and hated unicorns.
Put in the words of another:
"Karl Marx did not describe his personal feelings about capitalism. His works describe the scientific nature of the capitalist system. His personality has no relevance whatsoever with the validity of his work."
It's not "best understood" in whatever way you want to assassinate Marx's character. It's best understood in exactly the way it was written: a critique of capitalism based on the observable reality of capitalist systems around the world. You don't need to study Marx the man to understand that the behaviors and realities he described of people living in a capitalist system, and the reasons behind them, have been proven true countless times regardless of whether it was him or Mickey Mouse who did the describing; it's not a matter of "he was a kooky Jew-hating narcissist," but of "we can actually see that these things happened as he said they did, and progressed in ways that he said they would (not perfectly, but closely)." If his writings were part of a narrative to "justify" genocide or some other heinous act, your position of Marx the Puppy Kicker would have at least a little bit of merit...but that was never the case. It was always only about critiquing the existing capitalist system, including explaining its history (he read plenty of "good books." He read Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and a host of others. He DID have a job as a journalist and later co-editor. Reading a biography of the man you're trying to smear would do you some good, but that assumes you wouldn't cherry-pick to support your attacks...which appears to be exactly what you did here.)
Engels finished the books after Marx died...so if Marx was so intellectually destitute and nutty, why the heck did Engels work so hard to support him even after Marx died? Religious loyalty to the man despite being his patron? Ego? You can't give an answer without showing you're just regurgitating the ramblings of other people doing exactly what you're doing here: trying to focus attention on the individual and away from the ideas, because you can't beat the ideas honestly, and instead only convince people that the individual was a puppy-kicker so that they won't take the ideas seriously.
It's really hard to have actually read Marx and not say that a lot of what he wrote is still perfectly valid today. The first time I read the Communist Manifest, I wasn't a Marxist. I saw a lot of the modern day reality in what he described of his own time. Many millions of people have had similar "wait a minute, that's happening here, right now" moments after reading his works, and not just his, but the many others of that stripe. That's got nothing to do with his character, or any mystical religiosity surrounding him. He wasn't describing his feelings, but the realities of capitalism, and outlining things to do about it, such as outlaw child labor (which is still a thing today, and Republicans in the States are pushing for a return of below-minimum wage child labor "to save the economy").
So rather than do what people who can't beat an argument do and try to say "he's a poopie head, so I win," have some respect for people with minds of their own, who HAVE read Marx, who HAVE seen the things he described play out on a daily basis, who DO NOT hide their heads in the sand to avoid engaging the actual ideas being discussed in good faith (intending to understand them first, then judge them on their own merits). Again, your "analysis" of Marx and Marxism was a load of crap that has been peddled in right wing circles for a long time for the exact same reason: trying to convince people not to take the ideas seriously in support of a narrative. Condescendingly love "doddering old Harvey" all you want, but critique the ideas in good faith, or not at all.
(And no, I won't entertain a debate. I see nothing but dishonesty in your writings. Whether that's intentional or a product of uncritical belief in a narrative you're desperate to hold onto doesn't really matter. The only things of value is to point out the most glaringly obvious issues with your posts, which I have.)