das kapital

[hairyben]

So, with both my own impression, and the opinions of many far more qualified than I, that a resurgence in a form of neo-marxism is behind a lot of todays politics, I was curious to find out more of what this is all about. As this work seems to have respect from across political and social spectrums it seems a good representation.

While I ate books and read at adult level as a kid I left school at 16, havent read all that much in the intervening 20 years, but recently decided to turn this around. Perhaps then a bold choice, but by god, was he paid by the word? Why a sentance when a chapter will do? The labouring of the point over and over makes me wonder if some form of indoctrination is being attempted rather than simple informing. Im about a tenth in. Do we ever get past coats and linen equations, into the meat of an actual ideology?

[glazbagun]

Kapital is a bit of a monster that I've given up on a few times. Wealth of Nations is a pamphlet by comparison.

A political philosophy prof I chat with on occasion recommended that I first read Critique of Political Economy of 1859, then his Value, Price and Profit speech before hitting Kapital volume 1. Apparently the first edition is in english with an appendix for value forms which I've been told makes it an easier read than later editions which lump the whole lot together.

TBH I have trouble keeping up with the wiki these days. It really saddens me how, with the passing of not that many years, my desire to roll up my sleeves and get stuck into some hard thinking seems to have evaporated.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Don't forget the Marx / Engels Communist Manifesto. That's fun too, and relatively (and mercifully) brief.
For a real hoot, try and wrap your head around the Three Laws of Dialectics and Dialectical materialism.

As this is a book thread, 'Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault' by Stephen Hicks is highly rated.
I will admit I've not read it myself, but I have watched and listened to some of his lectures, and a fascinating discussion between Jordan B Peterson and Stephen Hicks on the subject of postmodernism and the connections with Marxism. He is a very clever and well educated expert, with a supremely well ordered and logical mind.

Charlatans all of them (Marx, Engels, Postmodernists), but 'know your enemy' and all that.

They all (the charlatans) make some interesting observations in their writings, but all ultimately fail to connect the dots and see the ultimate outcomes of their ideological doctrines.

[hairyben]

I guess I could have asked for an easier "in" first. Given its rep I feel there'll some satisfaction is completing it, especially when the allways-bashing-the-tories-on-facebook sect of my social circle seem not to have managed it either. I don't think I'd call it essential reading though.

I want to finish the book and give it it's chance before summarising too much but I'm a little disappointed so far, which is 27% on the kindle so maybe 40% by vol less references. I came to it looking for explanation and insight to the leftist mentality, that I can appreciate even if beg to differ, why many otherwise kind and intelligent people are deadset in view yet all they can muster is bile and name calling. But all I find are some pretty blatantly flawed concepts from someone with an obvious chip, he's not even trying to hide his contempt for the capitalist through the language he employs so how can you treat it as an analysis rather than a piece of propaganda?

At the part of reading about the actual working conditions and exploitation of the time and I can understand why anyone would loath the ruling classes and/or the capitalists, but being or representing the victim doesn't make your solution automatically best, (and not sure working conditions of 150+ years ago has much relevance in today's politics.)

I'll give it some more. Who knows, maybe I'll be along tomorrow rousing everyone to lets go burn some tories?

[Goaty Bill 2]

hairyben said:

I guess I could have asked for an easier "in" first. Given its rep I feel there'll some satisfaction is completing it, especially when the allways-bashing-the-tories-on-facebook sect of my social circle seem not to have managed it either. I don't think I'd call it essential reading though.

I want to finish the book and give it it's chance before summarising too much but I'm a little disappointed so far, which is 27% on the kindle so maybe 40% by vol less references. I came to it looking for explanation and insight to the leftist mentality, that I can appreciate even if beg to differ, why many otherwise kind and intelligent people are deadset in view yet all they can muster is bile and name calling. But all I find are some pretty blatantly flawed concepts from someone with an obvious chip, he's not even trying to hide his contempt for the capitalist through the language he employs so how can you treat it as an analysis rather than a piece of propaganda?

At the part of reading about the actual working conditions and exploitation of the time and I can understand why anyone would loath the ruling classes and/or the capitalists, but being or representing the victim doesn't make your solution automatically best, (and not sure working conditions of 150+ years ago has much relevance in today's politics.)

I'll give it some more. Who knows, maybe I'll be along tomorrow rousing everyone to lets go burn some tories?

Excellent comprehension and reviewing, if I may say so in my amateur opinion.
A little Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (okay, neither is 'little'), and much later even Orwell (notably Road to Wigan Pier), should be enough to give one enormous sympathy for the condition of the peasant and working classes of Marx and Engels' time. Horrific living conditions and imbalance of power / human rights. Serfs were still the property of landowners in Russia until the emancipation of the 1860s.

But yes, hatred and the politics of envy throughout.
The consistent demand that change must come about by violent and bloody revolution.
"The last capitalist we hang will be the one who sold us the rope"

One can be a socialist without Marx; one cannot be a Marxist without bloodshed and murder.

[hairyben]

Finished it!

Pretty tedious going, he really does labour his observations over and over. As a historical document its interesting though, ironically those with the most to learn might be those preachy lefties who'd do well to educate themselves in just how badly the common man in england has been treated before spouting about "our" white privilege and ascribed guilt...

Without diving too deep into the politics (this is the book forum) , I think Marx makes the all too common mistake of ascribing the ruthlessness of man to some external factor, in this case the system of economics we employ, and that if you change the tool available you can change the mindset behind it.

[Goaty Bill 2]

hairyben said:

Finished it!

Well done sir.

hairyben said:

Pretty tedious going, he really does labour his observations over and over. As a historical document its interesting though, ironically those with the most to learn might be those preachy lefties who'd do well to educate themselves in just how badly the common man in england has been treated before spouting about "our" white privilege and ascribed guilt...

And more to the point, to realise that the conditions under which the common man lived, and the oppressing laissez faire capitalism of Marx's day.
He was writing in an entirely different social context. Likely he would have seen our modern day, lives with all the imperfections, as something very near his utopian vision.
Orwell's 'The Road to Wigan Pier', if you haven't read it, is eye opening in regards living conditions of miners and their families in the early part of the twentieth century.

hairyben said:

Without diving too deep into the politics (this is the book forum) , I think Marx makes the all too common mistake of ascribing the ruthlessness of man to some external factor, in this case the system of economics we employ, and that if you change the tool available you can change the mindset behind it.

Simple minds seek simple solutions, which is the appeal of Marxism to (some of) the masses.
We all have relatively simple minds. Anyone who is honest with themselves will admit that they have, from time to time, agreed with ideas or solutions that were far to simplistic for the problem at hand.
Post-modernism performs a slight of hand swapping of power for class in a reworking of Marxism. And again the overly simplified solutions flourish as ideas.

ETA
What I mean to say is; excellent summary and analysis.

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Sunday 15th April 11:16

[hairyben]

Why thank you.

You're not the first to suggest the road to Wigan pier, I did read several of Orwells as a kid, found him to be a depressing bd but maybe a revisit is in order.

As for Marx, being brought up on pride in hard work and personal freedom values I was unlikely to call for revolution, but I'm empathatic, I like to try to see what makes people tick, and I was hoping to find some charisma lurking within this that explains the wide popularity and uptake of his ideas. But we see little of Marx himself, more a load of moaning about unfairness that pretty direct lines to today's SJWs. And then in the communist manifesto the colossal leap to a centralised system of politics that can only be achieved with total authoritarianism with no justification or working out or demonstration of how it will overcome the flaws of capitalism and democracy, just a conviction that this is our saviour from tyranny.

Jordan Peterson can sumarise in ten minutes the flaws in post modernism/Marxism and there's nothing here to feed the intellectual curiosity of wanting to look beyond his brief summary. I understand a little of why people run marathons though; you expend a vast amount to end up back where you began with little really to show for it but the fact you did it.