I pause the video for a while to read the relevant section again, forget what was happening in the video, and unpause to hear "we live in a society." Brilliant timing on my part
Solidarity from Afghanistan. More power to IMT , long live international workers democracy. Down with nationalism, imperialism and religious extremism......
@@smoke1830 Please, PLEASE don't keep repeating this piece of idiocy. Marx's ideas have been hugely influential in economies all over the world, in cultural studies and in all the arts. I can't think of theoretical body of work that's been more important in forming modern consciousness. To say "Marx has been tried" - whatever that even means! - just proves that you're completely ignorant of the subject, and are trying to score some kind of ideological point with other know-nothings.
Yes! My students are always amazed that Marx is actually FUNNY. I love that! But yes: it's hard to read the Big Books on your own. When I was in grad school, we formed a Capital reading group, and that really helped.
Thanks Professor Harvey for this lecture: "Rise, like lions after slumber In unvanquishable number! Shake your chains to earth, like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you: Ye are many-they are few!"
Thank you for making these lectures widely accessible and helping the masses understand such an important text. I’ve always been too intimidated to read capital but these lectures make the text enjoyable and that much more enlightening.
@@billybudd8225 Not really, it is a very complicated book that requires a lot of political and economic knowledge to be properly dissected, which is good to have a specialist to help with that
Wow another go at Capital. I had listened to the previous course religiously so I am happy to have another reading. I may have to break out the text and follow along
After reading the relevant chapter and listen to his lecture in audio form much fruitful to understand the the abstractions of Marx.whenever i repeatedly listen to the lecture new things crop up in mind.An excellent presentation.
I thought reading War and Peace was an achievement. Then I read Chateaubriand's Memories and thought so. Then I read Proust's Memories and thought so. But Nothing prepared me for Capital, Volume I, II, and III. Shakespeare is hard; Donne harder; Marx hardest.
I'm a millennial who is very excited to see the havoc your generation wreaks. I thought I was extremist - you guys are on a whole other level though, and I mean that in the best way possible. Give 'em hell. Don't compromise. No half-measures. Hopefully the planet doesn't completely cook before you all can turn the tables.
Take this advice from someone who attended the seminars: David Harvey, god bless him, simply rehashed what he has already published in his Companion to Marx books (so just go buy them). The only new information is in this video on his attempt to characterize the system Marx "discovered" as similar to that of a hydrological cycle. This analogy is especially apt since Wall Streeters think about money (movement) in terms of liquidity, at least for now.
10z20 That’s exactly my question: as far as I can say, the 2007 was better. The difference between terms “appear” and “is” in the first sentence of the Capital, in the 2007 version mentioned but in this new one, he just mentioned it when someone asked him a question.
I've watched video 1-3 of the 2007 talks, and in my opinion this version is better because it gives more of a complete overview at the beginning, whereas the 2007 talks are more cumulative and it took me a while to understand where you are / what's the argument.
Since there are 12 parts to this video series, can someone let me know what chapters each part covers? I assumed it would be each part of Capital Vol. 1 for each video, but there's only 8 parts in the book if I remember correctly. Would really appreciate some guidance here! Love from Pakistan :)
A blackboard will help to lay out the theoretical concepts Dr. Harvey is speaking about. Visual aids are always a good learning tool. Verbally the lecture is fantastic and people should get a lot from this.
@@geedebored5108 Am reading it now. I wish I can discuss it in a group. I found the first chapters completely understandable against a back drop of writer’s who say the first three chapters are the hardest, but if skipped, and not understood I think the rest of the book is not understandable, because the method he uses is the method used in all other sections of the book. Anyway. My question had no other motive.
Love the irony of none of these videos being captioned :) I’ve luckily already had the opportunity to read Das Kapital in a class setting but it would be nice to learn more about it 🙃
The sound quality is awful. Compared to the original youtube lectures it is actually worse.,someobe needs to sort it out as it is making understanding the material more difficult.
I am not sure if anybody have asked this before but I was wondering if you have the audio only version of your readings from Capitol almost like an audiobook? Thank you!
@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 Michael Hudson doesn't get what Marx lays out in the first chapter of Volume 1 of Capital, how the hell would he be an authority on Volume 3?
Посоветовал всем, Политэкономия, учебник. Островитянов, 1954 г. Есть в сети на русском и даже на ютубе в аудиоверсии. Он основан на трудах Маркса, Ленина, на опыте прошедшей революции, на опыте построения социалистической экономики.
@@alandoane9168 do you think I should go through part 1 of the earlier one, then part one of this one and so on? Or should I completely finish the earlier course first, then come back and go through it again with this course?
1:11:50 Społecznie niezbędnym czasem pracy jest czas pracy potrzebny do wytworzenia jakiejś wartości użytkowej w istniejących społecznie normalnych warunkach produkcji i przy społecznie przeciętnym stopniu umiejętności i intensywności pracy.
How do you explain the degree to which Marx overlooks the fact that different commodities are worth different things (exchange value) to different people depending on the situation? He seems to jump right into exchange value on page 1 and say that this is equal to that, end of story. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Do you mean with his specific examples of cloth = coats and the like? In which case these are simply examples that change. In fact, considering the relationship between value (as affected by labor) and exchange value, the value can very much change based on what the actors involved deem "socially valuable labor." Additionally, he doesn't mean value as price, as supply and demand still affect price in Marx's view (the difference arising that similar supplies and demands for different products will not necessarily create the same price, meaning there must be an underlying value). So essentially, he doesn't so much ignore this as it lies in implied details. Your evaluation of the value involved, as well as the other party's, will change it because it is a social thing, and the spatial-personal details will affect demand, and therefore the price in that instance that is born from the value. Exchange any problems in my articulation of this, I'm dealing both with understanding Marx myself, and Marx's problem of putting down complicated jumbles of thought in simple terms.
Marx is talking about value in the sense of classical economics, the same kind of value that Smith wrestled with. Marx was perfectly aware of supply and demand, but supply and demand doesn't tell us why different commodities exchange at different rates under perfect market conditions. So yes, there could be a hypothetical situation where a person would exchange a diamond for a loaf of bread, but that doesn't reflect the normal prices of either diamonds or bread. The question is: why _in general_ does a loaf of bread cost less than a diamond. The answer for Marx (and I'm oversimplifying slightly) is that less labour power goes into making bread than extracting diamonds. This is why we're talking about value rather than price. Prices fluctuate according to conditions of supply and demand, value is the point around which they fluctuate. Value itself fluctuates according to the prevailing methods of production used to create any given commodity.
@@monkeymox2544 Thanks for your reply, that clears it up. though I wonder under current conditions whether we can still say that the definition holds? I'll have to think more about it
@@michaelthomheadley you're welcome! When you refer to "current conditions", what are you wondering about precisely? I ask because Marx sees the prevailing conditions of production as determining value. Value is determined by the average amount of labour time it takes to produce any give commodity, with the average degree of skill required to make it, using the methods and technologies which are prevelant. So if for example a new machine or technique is developed that allows commodity x to be produced in half the time, the value of that commodity halves. In other words, "current conditions" are built into the theory.
39:40 *Kapitał to pieniądze użyte w specyficzny sposób a mianowicie: to pieniądze użyte w celu pomnożenia pieniędzy. W kapitalizmie produkcyjnym pieniądze są użyte aby zakupić towary a w szczególności dwa rodzaje towarów: 1)siłę roboczą i 2)Środki produkcji. Te dwa rodzaje towarów są użyte w procesie produkcyjnym aby wytworzyć nowe towary: środki produkcji, towary luksusowe i towary kupowane za płacę roboczą*
3 года назад
1:39:00 Value is in contant change do to many things: productivity, technoogy, demand, etc...
I've been tempted by a perhaps heretical reformulation of Marx's immortal introductory statement about capitalist production appearing as a great agglomeration of commodities; I'm tempted, and would love to hear Prof. Harvey's(whom I've met, read, and admired) response to this, especially regarding the environmental nightmare, to recast it as follows: now, capitalist production appears as a great accumulation of externalities (more, perhaps, than commodities). I would love to hear Prof.Harvey speak on this.
Thank you for the compliment. Externalities is economist-speak for costs of production that are not borne by the producer, but transferred to others, such as consumers or the general public. As such, these costs are not reflected in the price of the commodity offered by the producer. The classic example is pollution: the producer creates the mess and dumps it in the river, or emits it in the air, and the damage will cost the local population in medical bills (or even funerals), and the commodity sold by the producer would cost much more if the costs of cleaning up the pollution were included in the price of the commodity. There are positive externalities, too: being able to watch a sporting event for free if your apartment contains a balcony that overlooks the stadium, for example. So I was saying that, especially given the unbelievable dependence on fossil fuel extraction of virtually all production over several generations, the accumulated and exponential expansion of externalities in this regard alone might overwhelm all the other cost dynamics in the pricing of just about all important commodities and services. But I think I was being too glib here: the commodity, for Marx, as Prof. Harvey would surely insist, is the locus of the central contradictions of capitalist production in a way that, without much reflection, the generation of externalities is not. So I'm not so sure this line of thought is going to be as helpful as I did on the whim that inspired my comment.
What about “capitalism production appears as a great accumulation of commodities that cast shadows of externalities that are inescapable.” Because the externalities seem to be the shadows cast by commodity production, but the mode of production seems central.
@@MarvinRoman Hi Marvin, thanks for the interesting comment. In response, I would return to Marx's use of the word "appears". As Prof. Harvey has often said, when Marx uses words like this, which Marx does repeatedly at important points, he is trying to prepare us for a certain movement in his analysis. In this case, the reference to appearances should prepare us to watch Marx attempt to develop, with all relevant contradictions, a structural process that involves far more than the mere appearance might suggest in isolation. By doing so, Marx then is able to approach the production process theoretically without remaining focused on the mere appearance of bourgeois market functioning, where most conventional economists are happy to languish. Where things get dicey is my suggestion that capitalist production no longer appears to us so much as an immense collection of commodities, but is beginning to appear to us in the accumulation of externalities that are so rapidly and thoroughly taking hold, and perhaps encroaching on the very appearance of commodities in everyday life. My comment was not a theoretical suggestion so much as a playful invitation for people to try to tease meaning out of it, or to reject it.
@@laurencepeterson8466 I see, I can appreciate what it compels in me to consider. Like when Guy Debord rephrases it in Society of the Spectracle to be an "immense accumulation of spectacles". I would say it's a great way to start a dive into a specific piece of capitalism's effects. However, I guess I still see it downstream from commodity production though. But I am honestly not well grounded in theory which is why I am here trying to get through the MOB mother of all books. It's always intimidated me 😬
"And it was an Idealist conception that human beings have been alienated from their own potentiality and nature." This was Marx' subjective Idealist position, not the German Idealist trend culminating in Hegel. Ironically, in the Manuscripts, Marx makes the very move he falsely accuses Hegel of (the one you have mentioned in the quote above). The Objective Idealist conception of Alienation or Externalization (Entfremdung/Entäusserung) a la Hegel is what is now called "dialectical materialism". The split between thought and its object, between a subject and the objective world, marks an irreversible form of alienation which sets into motion the externalization of the spirit of a person/people to project onto and subsequently alter extended substance or what we now call Matter. However, Matter isn't merely this inert universal substance , as 'it' does not apply this Notion to "itself" (funny enough Marx sounds much more mystical to me on this point), but rather is subsequently elevated to thought after the instances of manifestations of material events are elevated to a general concept in thought which we call Matter. Late Marx, in his fully developed phase, is where he is truly Hegelian and understands this dialectical relation between the extended substance, matter, Being etc and thought which divides, unites, posits, particularizes and generalizes. Capital is Hegel's Logic applied to economics...A monumental feat!
typically within kapital, "developed form" addresses the nature of the market and industry. a developed form would exist in London, while it might not in South America. that being historic is also just an additive, think of this as the way we might use "historical document" or "historical commentary." to circle back, though we don't think of certain areas immediately outside London to be underdeveloped and without industry, but in that period of the late 19th century, it somewhat was, also, not in many other places was the empirical evidence of capitalism and it's functions available, certainly not publicly. hope this helps, solidarity!
a fun side dish for Harvey's class, or a great way for newbies to get an overall pic of Marx's ideas in layman's terms is this vid someone shared with me a few years back - ruclips.net/video/qJuuZoF9WT8/видео.html Enjoy!
2 года назад
1:20:50 Productos que no tienen valor de mercancia o valor de uso por "otros". Ejemplos
3 года назад
1:24:08 need a want, a need and desire for the commodity. If it isn´t it has no value.
At 19:00 ish…"Free Gifts Of Human Nature." This caught me by surprise. In relation to the establishment of the "Socially Necessary Value of Something", this caught me by surprise. Question: What might be an example of "Free Gifts Of Human Nature" in this Marxist context?
I'm very disappointed to hear Harvey spread such a view on the issue of Deng Xiaoping's transformation of China. What he seems to have said, if I hear him correctly, is that Deng simply let China pass into a new, necessary stage of development. In fact, it's clear that China passed through the capitalist phase of development during the period of New Democracy, that is, the period of the coalition of the four revolutionary classes, and by the time of Deng's rise, had passed into (or at the very least was passing into) socialism. What the Dengist conception of things consists of, then, is the idea that it was necessary in China to return to capitalism from socialism. What basis does this have in Marxism, which has established that the contradictions of capitalism are resolved as socialism forms, and that only under socialism can productive forces be developed not on the basis of profit, but on the basis of democratic planning preceding free association of producers? None! Dengism is anti-Marxism.
Marx was right about historical materialism. Was right about the contradiction of keeping salaries down and the expecting salaried employees to buy more and more goods and services to grow the GDP forever more and more. He was right about capitalism being based on the tyranny of the few owners over the many workers.He was right about the antisocial effects of selfish capitalism. But he was partially wrong about the labor theory of value and totally wrong about the inevitable revolutionary destruction of capitalism.
I pause the video for a while to read the relevant section again, forget what was happening in the video, and unpause to hear "we live in a society." Brilliant timing on my part
Solidarity from Afghanistan. More power to IMT , long live international workers democracy. Down with nationalism, imperialism and religious extremism......
This man was my professor during my PhD - He's brilliant and was the best lecturer I ever experienced.
Just remember every time Marx has been tried it failed.
@@smoke1830 Please, PLEASE don't keep repeating this piece of idiocy. Marx's ideas have been hugely influential in economies all over the world, in cultural studies and in all the arts. I can't think of theoretical body of work that's been more important in forming modern consciousness.
To say "Marx has been tried" - whatever that even means! - just proves that you're completely ignorant of the subject, and are trying to score some kind of ideological point with other know-nothings.
@@profe3330 Name a country where Marx was tried and it is a success? Just name it?
@@profe3330 Idiot is a key word associated with ancient Greece, or Alexander the Great, do you know what it means.
@@smoke1830 Pretty much EVERY country has been influenced by Marx and Marxism in one form or another.
Look it up. I dare ya.
The beginning of the video at first led me to believe that it was literally about watching Harvey read Capital.
lol
same lol. I was like, "buckle up!"
that would be so beautiful
And the misleading title
very grateful to everyone except the sound technician for this fantastic video
to the gulag!
"the revolution will not be televised" etc. etc. 😂
Being a sound technician can be hard 😔 besides, the real screw up here is the editor not cutting the first ten minutes
Nice mic, mic stand, good position. And completely wrecked by having terrible processing.
Just needs a high-pass filter.
I remember reading all 3 volumes of Capital in grad school and using Harvey's videos. They helped alot and gave me greater appreciation for Marx.
What were you using them for?
@@user-kt3uv7nf7i I'm doing the same and it helps me understand the text more by listening to Davids lectures.
What in the world is wrong with you
I ve started reading volume one, is a great experience
Lecture starts at 11:45
Thank you :)
A guy scratches his nose at 1:00:46
Thank you.
@@kitlangton Thank you, saved me a lot of time
Kit Langton thank you so much for keeping us updated - I'd been looking for this
Thank you for allowing us to access information for free! Lets keep fighting for education
Best to read it as a student before your life necessitates reading it.
True. In order to resist Marxist nonsense, it's best to be familiar with this stupidity.
I am in the process of reading Capital It is a tough read at times but very humourous and others are very enjoyable read plus educational
Yes! My students are always amazed that Marx is actually FUNNY. I love that! But yes: it's hard to read the Big Books on your own. When I was in grad school, we formed a Capital reading group, and that really helped.
Brilliant summary diagram explaining the whole from 39:28; great for visual learner, enhances his verbal explanation.
Thanks Professor Harvey for this lecture:
"Rise, like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number!
Shake your chains to earth, like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you:
Ye are many-they are few!"
Thank you for making these lectures widely accessible and helping the masses understand such an important text. I’ve always been too intimidated to read capital but these lectures make the text enjoyable and that much more enlightening.
1:04:00 HE SAID IT
based
We doooooo
Chapter one begins at 1:01:27
Lmao 1 hour of intro
Maxine 28Ve Only a true Marxist spends an hour on an introduction
If you're going to skip the intro, you might as well skip the whole lecture series and just read the book, you're missing the point
@@maxine3978 the intro is actually very interesting
@@billybudd8225 Not really, it is a very complicated book that requires a lot of political and economic knowledge to be properly dissected, which is good to have a specialist to help with that
Вижу Девида Харви ставлю лайк! Пролетарии всез стран объединяйтесь! Hello from Russia!
I cannot thank you enough for making this available
I love all the subtle context you add to the text, there's a lot of stuff that just goes over your head when reading the book
Wow another go at Capital. I had listened to the previous course religiously so I am happy to have another reading. I may have to break out the text and follow along
you listened religiously? marx would be ashamed. listen _critically_
After reading the relevant chapter and listen to his lecture in audio form much fruitful to understand the the abstractions of Marx.whenever i repeatedly listen to the lecture new things crop up in mind.An excellent presentation.
Hi. Free market capitalist here trying to learn Marx. Maybe when I'm done ill come back and say what I learned.
I thought reading War and Peace was an achievement.
Then I read Chateaubriand's Memories and thought so.
Then I read Proust's Memories and thought so. But
Nothing prepared me for Capital, Volume I, II, and III.
Shakespeare is hard; Donne harder; Marx hardest.
Have you tried Hegel... ?:)
@@GianPietroFarina88 I am convinced even Hegel didn't understand himself
Have you tried yoga?
@@GianPietroFarina88 A helluva drug.
And then there is Hegel and Phenomenology of Spirit...
GEN Z FOR MARX!!! ANYONE? ✊🏾✊🏽✊🏼✊🏻
✊✊✊
GEN Z FOR MARX
VIVE L'INTERNATIONALE!
I'm a millennial who is very excited to see the havoc your generation wreaks. I thought I was extremist - you guys are on a whole other level though, and I mean that in the best way possible.
Give 'em hell. Don't compromise. No half-measures. Hopefully the planet doesn't completely cook before you all can turn the tables.
@@roseredflechette-vidya No there won't be any compromise.
Hell yeah!✊🏻
I have watched 4 hour lectures, and took notes on them! So Bring it on!
Marx is a challenging thinker, so becoming a scholar of his works is a serious business.
Critics of capitalism studies how capitalism works. Critics of Marxism never even read his book.
Thank you last question guy! Harvey's response was hella interesting and clarifying.
Take this advice from someone who attended the seminars: David Harvey, god bless him, simply rehashed what he has already published in his Companion to Marx books (so just go buy them). The only new information is in this video on his attempt to characterize the system Marx "discovered" as similar to that of a hydrological cycle. This analogy is especially apt since Wall Streeters think about money (movement) in terms of liquidity, at least for now.
So thrilled that I stumbled on to this series!!
I'm a chinese translator，Could I upload my subtitle？
Sure thing!
@@PeoplesForum Yeah!I still need to complete it,after then I will unplod,thank you
@@linyou5844 this is amazing! international workers' solidarity!
@@NewAgeNomad93 YES!
@@PeoplesForum I have uploaded Bilingual subtitles.for english version，there are some mistakes，because it from youtube auto submit
big up comrades! from Perú!
Long forum is growing online with the youth, the idea of bite sized blahs blahs blahs it's not true. ♡ love this thank u!
Harvey does make Capital more accessible.
Which one is preferable, the 2007 or the 2019 edition?
10z20 That’s exactly my question: as far as I can say, the 2007 was better. The difference between terms “appear” and “is” in the first sentence of the Capital, in the 2007 version mentioned but in this new one, he just mentioned it when someone asked him a question.
I've watched video 1-3 of the 2007 talks, and in my opinion this version is better because it gives more of a complete overview at the beginning, whereas the 2007 talks are more cumulative and it took me a while to understand where you are / what's the argument.
That was amazing, I'm excited to hear the rest.
Since there are 12 parts to this video series, can someone let me know what chapters each part covers? I assumed it would be each part of Capital Vol. 1 for each video, but there's only 8 parts in the book if I remember correctly. Would really appreciate some guidance here!
Love from Pakistan :)
Class 1, Introduction
Class 2, Chapter 1
Class 3, Chapters 2 & 3
Class 4, Chapters 4, 5 & 6
Class 5, Chapters 7, 8 & 9
Class 6, Chapters 10 & 11
Class 7: Chapters 12, 13 & 14
Class 8: Chapter 15 (first part)
Class 9: Chapter 15 (second part)
Class 10: Chapters 23 & 24
Class 11: Chapter 25
Class 12: Chapters 26-33
Happy studying comrade!
@@MattWrafter thank you so so much!
A blackboard will help to lay out the theoretical concepts Dr. Harvey is speaking about.
Visual aids are always a good learning tool.
Verbally the lecture is fantastic and people should get a lot from this.
He uses a blackboard in the other version of this class you can find on RUclips!
@@geedebored5108 Have you read Capital?
@@MrDXRamirez yes, a couple times, why?
@@geedebored5108 Am reading it now. I wish I can discuss it in a group. I found the first chapters completely understandable against a back drop of writer’s who say the first three chapters are the hardest, but if skipped, and not understood I think the rest of the book is not understandable, because the method he uses is the method used in all other sections of the book. Anyway. My question had no other motive.
Don't be so demanding. Are you paying for this lecture? Just be grateful.
42:58 volume 1 concentrates on money capital trhrough commodities and realization of value, 2.- circulations and 3.- distribution
A genuine question, will you guys be able to provide an english subs for all these videos?
Thank you for bringing that up. For the moment, we recommend turning on the Auto-generated captions that RUclips provides.
There should be subs for every living language on earth
@@PeoplesForum that's a terrible recommendation
Love the irony of none of these videos being captioned :) I’ve luckily already had the opportunity to read Das Kapital in a class setting but it would be nice to learn more about it 🙃
Presently there is a complete transcript in the description. On a phone this feature is more easily read.
The sound quality is awful. Compared to the original youtube lectures it is actually worse.,someobe needs to sort it out as it is making understanding the material more difficult.
I am not sure if anybody have asked this before but I was wondering if you have the audio only version of your readings from Capitol almost like an audiobook? Thank you!
We have added most Episodes to our new Podcast. Please visit tpf.link to check it out.
@@PeoplesForum this link doesn't seem to work? has it moved or gone offline?
has anyone got any idea why prof. Harvey doesn't teach vol.3?
Harvey dealt with Grundresse and Capital v. 3 in his lectures on Capital vol. 2.
@Rabble Repository where does michael hudson talk about it?
@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 Michael Hudson doesn't get what Marx lays out in the first chapter of Volume 1 of Capital, how the hell would he be an authority on Volume 3?
Посоветовал всем, Политэкономия, учебник. Островитянов, 1954 г. Есть в сети на русском и даже на ютубе в аудиоверсии. Он основан на трудах Маркса, Ленина, на опыте прошедшей революции, на опыте построения социалистической экономики.
A question to the Hosts; what is the exact copy of Capital that David Harvey is reading from there? Thankyou
the copy he's reading here is the penguin classic version, hope this helps sorry im late!
A wonderful and much needed video.
Thanks Prof. Harvey
"What Is Socially Necessary?" Quite the question, this.
Sorry. At 1:13 ish.
should I watch this series or the 2010 version that takes place in a classroom?
Both.
@@alandoane9168 do you think I should go through part 1 of the earlier one, then part one of this one and so on? Or should I completely finish the earlier course first, then come back and go through it again with this course?
@@SocialCreditScore I would watch the newer one first and then go back and see if the earlier version has added value for you.
56:14 dialectical motion of value: idea production, comodity, circulation, distribution, money form= value. Thats what causes work...the processs
So glad I found this.
1:11:50
Społecznie niezbędnym czasem pracy jest czas pracy potrzebny do wytworzenia jakiejś wartości użytkowej w istniejących społecznie normalnych warunkach produkcji i przy społecznie przeciętnym stopniu umiejętności i intensywności pracy.
La meilleure solution pour un monde meilleur climat
So you're telling me...that Marx's writing had a lot of...Engles *Badum tiss*
Alright, ill be quiet for the lecture now.
😂
Jordan Peterson disliked this video
Here, i m the first one from the next generation to comment here . Viva
How do you explain the degree to which Marx overlooks the fact that different commodities are worth different things (exchange value) to different people depending on the situation? He seems to jump right into exchange value on page 1 and say that this is equal to that, end of story. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Do you mean with his specific examples of cloth = coats and the like? In which case these are simply examples that change. In fact, considering the relationship between value (as affected by labor) and exchange value, the value can very much change based on what the actors involved deem "socially valuable labor." Additionally, he doesn't mean value as price, as supply and demand still affect price in Marx's view (the difference arising that similar supplies and demands for different products will not necessarily create the same price, meaning there must be an underlying value). So essentially, he doesn't so much ignore this as it lies in implied details. Your evaluation of the value involved, as well as the other party's, will change it because it is a social thing, and the spatial-personal details will affect demand, and therefore the price in that instance that is born from the value. Exchange any problems in my articulation of this, I'm dealing both with understanding Marx myself, and Marx's problem of putting down complicated jumbles of thought in simple terms.
Marx is talking about value in the sense of classical economics, the same kind of value that Smith wrestled with. Marx was perfectly aware of supply and demand, but supply and demand doesn't tell us why different commodities exchange at different rates under perfect market conditions. So yes, there could be a hypothetical situation where a person would exchange a diamond for a loaf of bread, but that doesn't reflect the normal prices of either diamonds or bread.
The question is: why _in general_ does a loaf of bread cost less than a diamond. The answer for Marx (and I'm oversimplifying slightly) is that less labour power goes into making bread than extracting diamonds. This is why we're talking about value rather than price. Prices fluctuate according to conditions of supply and demand, value is the point around which they fluctuate. Value itself fluctuates according to the prevailing methods of production used to create any given commodity.
@@monkeymox2544 Thanks for your reply, that clears it up. though I wonder under current conditions whether we can still say that the definition holds? I'll have to think more about it
@@michaelthomheadley you're welcome! When you refer to "current conditions", what are you wondering about precisely? I ask because Marx sees the prevailing conditions of production as determining value. Value is determined by the average amount of labour time it takes to produce any give commodity, with the average degree of skill required to make it, using the methods and technologies which are prevelant. So if for example a new machine or technique is developed that allows commodity x to be produced in half the time, the value of that commodity halves. In other words, "current conditions" are built into the theory.
Marx uses the assumptions of classical economics, i.e., perfect competition making the price of a commodity constant in all cases
if you can't buy Harveys companion books then check out libgen
39:40
*Kapitał to pieniądze użyte w specyficzny sposób a mianowicie: to pieniądze użyte w celu pomnożenia pieniędzy. W kapitalizmie produkcyjnym pieniądze są użyte aby zakupić towary a w szczególności dwa rodzaje towarów: 1)siłę roboczą i 2)Środki produkcji. Te dwa rodzaje towarów są użyte w procesie produkcyjnym aby wytworzyć nowe towary: środki produkcji, towary luksusowe i towary kupowane za płacę roboczą*
1:39:00 Value is in contant change do to many things: productivity, technoogy, demand, etc...
Guys, is anybody interested in modification of the subtitles? If anyone can do 5 minutes it will be done in a week. Let’s do a collective work!
1:01:40 is where he starts discussing Chapter 1.
Chapter 1: 1:01:13
1:01:37 se da cuenta que todo comienza con una inmenza cantidad de mercancías.....ésa será su prioridad para estudiar el sistema del capital
Great conference
bookmark / commodities section 1 lecture - 1:01:23
thanks for posting! can you attend these sessions in person?
Hey Comrade Ana👋
1:01:24 ¿Porqué comenzó con el análisis de la mercancía?
Thanks
where is the superplus?
does anyone know what edition of Capital he is citing from?
Penguin
1:15:17 socially necesary labor times depends on productivity
I've been tempted by a perhaps heretical reformulation of Marx's immortal introductory statement about capitalist production appearing as a great agglomeration of commodities; I'm tempted, and would love to hear Prof. Harvey's(whom I've met, read, and admired) response to this, especially regarding the environmental nightmare, to recast it as follows: now, capitalist production appears as a great accumulation of externalities (more, perhaps, than commodities). I would love to hear Prof.Harvey speak on this.
That's an interesting idea. What do you mean by externalities?
Thank you for the compliment. Externalities is economist-speak for costs of production that are not borne by the producer, but transferred to others, such as consumers or the general public. As such, these costs are not reflected in the price of the commodity offered by the producer. The classic example is pollution: the producer creates the mess and dumps it in the river, or emits it in the air, and the damage will cost the local population in medical bills (or even funerals), and the commodity sold by the producer would cost much more if the costs of cleaning up the pollution were included in the price of the commodity. There are positive externalities, too: being able to watch a sporting event for free if your apartment contains a balcony that overlooks the stadium, for example. So I was saying that, especially given the unbelievable dependence on fossil fuel extraction of virtually all production over several generations, the accumulated and exponential expansion of externalities in this regard alone might overwhelm all the other cost dynamics in the pricing of just about all important commodities and services. But I think I was being too glib here: the commodity, for Marx, as Prof. Harvey would surely insist, is the locus of the central contradictions of capitalist production in a way that, without much reflection, the generation of externalities is not. So I'm not so sure this line of thought is going to be as helpful as I did on the whim that inspired my comment.
What about “capitalism production appears as a great accumulation of commodities that cast shadows of externalities that are inescapable.”
Because the externalities seem to be the shadows cast by commodity production, but the mode of production seems central.
@@MarvinRoman Hi Marvin, thanks for the interesting comment. In response, I would return to Marx's use of the word "appears". As Prof. Harvey has often said, when Marx uses words like this, which Marx does repeatedly at important points, he is trying to prepare us for a certain movement in his analysis. In this case, the reference to appearances should prepare us to watch Marx attempt to develop, with all relevant contradictions, a structural process that involves far more than the mere appearance might suggest in isolation. By doing so, Marx then is able to approach the production process theoretically without remaining focused on the mere appearance of bourgeois market functioning, where most conventional economists are happy to languish. Where things get dicey is my suggestion that capitalist production no longer appears to us so much as an immense collection of commodities, but is beginning to appear to us in the accumulation of externalities that are so rapidly and thoroughly taking hold, and perhaps encroaching on the very appearance of commodities in everyday life. My comment was not a theoretical suggestion so much as a playful invitation for people to try to tease meaning out of it, or to reject it.
@@laurencepeterson8466 I see, I can appreciate what it compels in me to consider. Like when Guy Debord rephrases it in Society of the Spectracle to be an "immense accumulation of spectacles". I would say it's a great way to start a dive into a specific piece of capitalism's effects. However, I guess I still see it downstream from commodity production though. But I am honestly not well grounded in theory which is why I am here trying to get through the MOB mother of all books. It's always intimidated me 😬
1:01:40 Comienza explicacion capitulo 1
"And it was an Idealist conception that human beings have been alienated from their own potentiality and nature." This was Marx' subjective Idealist position, not the German Idealist trend culminating in Hegel. Ironically, in the Manuscripts, Marx makes the very move he falsely accuses Hegel of (the one you have mentioned in the quote above).
The Objective Idealist conception of Alienation or Externalization (Entfremdung/Entäusserung) a la Hegel is what is now called "dialectical materialism". The split between thought and its object, between a subject and the objective world, marks an irreversible form of alienation which sets into motion the externalization of the spirit of a person/people to project onto and subsequently alter extended substance or what we now call Matter.
However, Matter isn't merely this inert universal substance , as 'it' does not apply this Notion to "itself" (funny enough Marx sounds much more mystical to me on this point), but rather is subsequently elevated to thought after the instances of manifestations of material events are elevated to a general concept in thought which we call Matter.
Late Marx, in his fully developed phase, is where he is truly Hegelian and understands this dialectical relation between the extended substance, matter, Being etc and thought which divides, unites, posits, particularizes and generalizes.
Capital is Hegel's Logic applied to economics...A monumental feat!
You are right, the problem is the transitioning from idealism to materialism. Something is evidently going to be lost, on a scientifically viewpoint.
Marx’s new world in practice would be pretty crude in respect to the past.
Plz tell Edition year he is reading
At 51:00, what is a "historically developed form"? Can anyone explain/expound on what that means, please?
typically within kapital, "developed form" addresses the nature of the market and industry. a developed form would exist in London, while it might not in South America.
that being historic is also just an additive, think of this as the way we might use "historical document" or "historical commentary." to circle back, though we don't think of certain areas immediately outside London to be underdeveloped and without industry, but in that period of the late 19th century, it somewhat was, also, not in many other places was the empirical evidence of capitalism and it's functions available, certainly not publicly.
hope this helps, solidarity!
1:34:00 Suply and demand
47:00 Marxs dialectical method
I love David Harvey but this audio quality is so bad 😢 I’ll continue to watch but damn… the static hurts my ears.
a fun side dish for Harvey's class, or a great way for newbies to get an overall pic of Marx's ideas in layman's terms is this vid someone shared with me a few years back - ruclips.net/video/qJuuZoF9WT8/видео.html
Enjoy!
1:20:50 Productos que no tienen valor de mercancia o valor de uso por "otros". Ejemplos
1:24:08 need a want, a need and desire for the commodity. If it isn´t it has no value.
46:00
*Metoda prezentacji musi się różnić od metody badawczej*
*Posłowie do wydnia drugiego*
Why there is not subtitles
Whoa 2 hours each and there's 12 of them heck this is a LOT of marx but it's still easier than reading. Ok. Let's get a coffee and crack on
There's more volumes? o.o
At 19:00 ish…"Free Gifts Of Human Nature." This caught me by surprise. In relation to the establishment of the "Socially Necessary Value of Something", this caught me by surprise.
Question: What might be an example of "Free Gifts Of Human Nature" in this Marxist context?
From the chart you can see free gifts of human nature flows to reproduction of labour power which happens by reproduction of humans
Thank you for this videos, so can you make the subtitres on French ?
Please, we need spanish subtitules pleeease. Marx's Capital is not a easy language to beginners XD
1:07:09 Use value versus exchange vaue
Could you please fix the hiss in the audio?
He should deliver a lecture on Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tse Tung thought too.
Lmao.
@@irineogomezdon't you mean.... "LMao"???? Eh? Eh?
I'm very disappointed to hear Harvey spread such a view on the issue of Deng Xiaoping's transformation of China. What he seems to have said, if I hear him correctly, is that Deng simply let China pass into a new, necessary stage of development. In fact, it's clear that China passed through the capitalist phase of development during the period of New Democracy, that is, the period of the coalition of the four revolutionary classes, and by the time of Deng's rise, had passed into (or at the very least was passing into) socialism. What the Dengist conception of things consists of, then, is the idea that it was necessary in China to return to capitalism from socialism.
What basis does this have in Marxism, which has established that the contradictions of capitalism are resolved as socialism forms, and that only under socialism can productive forces be developed not on the basis of profit, but on the basis of democratic planning preceding free association of producers? None! Dengism is anti-Marxism.
which Version of capital should I choose?
the one you see him reading here is the Penguin classic version. hope this helps!
great and exhaustive speech
1:01:04 Empieza Capítulo I
30:45 law of motion in the capitalist mode of production
2:25 Marx's Capital has so many Engels... That one thing is true.
22:03 Purpose according to Marx
Marx was right about historical materialism. Was right about the contradiction of keeping salaries down and the expecting salaried employees to buy more and more goods and services to grow the GDP forever more and more. He was right about capitalism being based on the tyranny of the few owners over the many workers.He was right about the antisocial effects of selfish capitalism. But he was partially wrong about the labor theory of value and totally wrong about the inevitable revolutionary destruction of capitalism.