Study course of Marx's "Capital" ....

[C. Flower]

Perhaps there are two type's of 'mainstream' economists, the ones who can't explain are the ones who wholeheartedly believe in the capitalist system, believe that it is unbreakable! hence are at a loss to explain 'the breakdown' , a bit like the owners of the titanic, they too will only realise their folly when they are up to their necks in the water! (this group are very much in the minority)
The second group are the ones that have read Marx and understand it, but will deny it all, hence you have the likes of Smith, Hayek and Friedman, and they use this and other stuff like libertarianism to set up the 'anti-thesis', e.g they use Marxist concepts but use a different label, i.e return to competitiveness = equivalent to Marx 'restoring the rate of profit'.

It's not a case of not being able to explain the current crisis, they know full well what caused it and will continue to cause more recessions, its a case of them refusing to explain it, because if they did, they would be exposed for the hypocrites they are ...
e.g how many times have you heard David McWilliams et al say " there will be more recessions, we know that recessions do happen", of course Marx said the same, but he did not say they 'just happened' , he explained in Capital , how and why recessions happen! Of course lamestream media will never question them on this!

So in essence its not a case of them not been able to explain , its a case of them refusing to explain and aided and abetted by the media, who don't ask the 'hard questions' !!!

p.s good luck with DAS KAPITAL, its a brain breaker and a head wrecker all in one lol

Yes - they know there will be crises, driven by the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall as capitalism develops, but also know how to combat them - cut wages, longer working hours, for workers and take over more territory. Until the point of breakdown or until they are stopped.

Just came across this letter from Marx to Engels, in which he explains Capital (3 Volumes of it) in one page with family gossip at the end. It is technical in parts but a great whizz through the whole thing.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...s/68_04_30.htm

[riposte]

Yes - they know there will be crises, driven by the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall as capitalism develops, but also know how to combat them - cut wages, longer working hours, for workers and take over more territory. Until the point of breakdown or until they are stopped.

Just came across this letter from Marx to Engels, in which he explains Capital (3 Volumes of it) in one page with family gossip at the end. It is technical in parts but a great whizz through the whole thing.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...s/68_04_30.htm

It's easy to see why Marx was deemed a failure as a poet after reading that.

[C. Flower]

It's easy to see why Marx was deemed a failure as a poet after reading that.

Marx was a political economist

Of carbuncles only a very small trace on the right thigh, but will probably vanish without trace.

How could you say that isn't poetic ?

[riposte]

Marx was a political economist



How could you say that isn't poetic ?

Yeah ...... but is this?

[C. Flower]

Yeah ...... but is this?

Better in the original German ?

It seems that you agree with Marx about something -

Marx was very critical of the literary qualities of his early poems but he believed that they conveyed his warm and sincere feelings. Later on, his view of them grew even more critical. Laura Lafargue, for example, wrote, “My father treated his verses very disrepectfully; whenever my parents mentioned them, they would laugh to their heart’ content.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...x/1836-jen.htm

Marx is better known as a political economist.

[riposte]

Better in the original German ?

It seems that you agree with Marx about something -

I gave him a mention in my poem ........

"Things Fall Apart"

We're living in a makeshift world.
Repairs, reforms, revolutions
all are ephemeral.
New constructs
are even less durable.

Karl Marx was wrong!
The duty of the Philosopher
is to interpret the world
not to mend it.

Now the poets and scientists have joined in.
Einstein and Derrida tell me
that everything is relative,
even the hard facts
are malleable.

Heraclitus was wise when he said,

" The way up and the way down are the same"

but neither Hawking nor Dawkins
can show me
how to negotiate
these fragmented
wholes.

© Michael O'Flanagan 1998

[C. Flower]

[quote=riposte;264395]I gave him a mention in my poem ........

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
"Theses on Feuerbach" (1845), Thesis 11, Marx Engels Selected Works,(MESW), Volume I, p. 15; these words are also engraved upon his grave.

Exactly. Capital was written as a guide to action, not a tract.

[fluffybiscuits]

Can I ask can anyone recommend a Marx for idiots guide, I have a grasp of the basics but need to know a bit more

[C. Flower]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...ranat/ch03.htm

Lenin wrote a some handy short guides to Marxism. One of them "Karl Marx - A Brief biographical sketch with an exposition of Marxism" has a good piece on "Marx's Economic Doctrine."

It's worth noting that economics is only one part of Marxism, the other parts being philosophical (dialectical) materialism - "theory of knowledge," and materialist (evolutionary) history - of which the class struggle and the economic base of society areimportant 'drivers.'

Lenin points out, in the section of Economic Doctrine, that Marx was not trying in Capital to set out fixed for all times rules for how economies work, he was "laying bare the economic law of motion of modern society" - i.e. capitalist society.

He is investigating "the relations of production a given, historically-defined society," in its origins, development and decline.

As the production of commodities is the main feature of capitalism, Marx starts out in Capital by "dissecting" the various different aspects of commodities, relating to exchange, value and production etc. - starting with value.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...ranat/ch03.htm

Value

This might be OK for that, fluffy. Lenin really got Marx, and wrote some very good clear pamphlets. The Communist Manifesto is short and good, too.

[fluffybiscuits]

This might be OK for that, fluffy. Lenin really got Marx, and wrote some very good clear pamphlets. The Communist Manifesto is short and good, too.

Thanks for that. Weekend reading

[Kev Bar]

It sounds like Karl's Ma and me Ma share the same frustration:

I can say: half a century on my shoulders, and still a pauper. How right my mother was: ‘If only Karell had made capital instead of etc.'

[C. Flower]

It sounds like Karl's Ma and me Ma share the same frustration:

Lol! I know. It's a great letter - I only spotted it yesterday. One of the top 100 letters of all time, I'd say. It's the political economy equivalent of a one-page precis of Ulysses, written by Joyce, with a few ps's about what Nora just said, and his carbuncles.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...s/68_04_30.htm

[Kev Bar]

Lol! I know. It's a great letter - I only spotted it yesterday. One of the top 100 letters of all time, I'd say. It's the political economy equivalent of a one-page precis of Ulysses, written by Joyce, with a few ps's about what Nora just said, and his carbuncles.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...s/68_04_30.htm

Indeed.
Need to read it again. Maths not my forte.

[parvathy]

Dear All,
My knowledge of economics is very limited. But I am able to follow the explanation of Marx's Capital although I would not have got this mcuh clarity had i struggled with him. I have not yet listened to David Harvey. I think soon I will do.
I am really happy to associate myself with this study group.

P.veeman

[Spectabilis]

Welcome Parvathy. Enjoy the site.