# David Harvey to do Capital Vols 2 and 3 videos



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2010)

If he can raise the funds

http://davidharvey.org/2010/03/support-more-capital-video-lectures/


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2010)

10 grand! I wish them luck but 10 grand! How?


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 30, 2010)

> Inspired by the overwhelming interest in the Volume I lectures, which according to Google Analytics have logged over 700,000 page views from 10,884 cities in 187 countries since June 2008, we are happy to announce the next stage of this project.



10,884 cities. If one person from each of those donates $1 they're there. 

Or $1 from 2% of the total number of page views (assuming each pv is also a unique user...I would assume that the number of UUs is about 1/3 total page views, so $1 from 4% of the total number of people who've seen it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2010)

I mean how can it cost 10 grand? It's one camera filming a bloke talking for an hour. One edit on the first lecture to include a pre-discussion talk.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 30, 2010)

I'd chip in a couple of quid, but, like butchers, am a bit puzzled about the costs...


----------



## gorski (Mar 30, 2010)

> film, edit, and post a new set of free    online videos to this site



Everything costs, including websites and traffic generated etc.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

Bandwidth?  Video uses loads.


----------



## gorski (Mar 30, 2010)

Yeah but what does that mean to BA? And then there's BA's mum... 

[]


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

British Airways?  Eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Bandwidth?  Video uses loads.



That's what i was thinking - there's ways round that though, torrents, Internet Archive, youtube etc. I guess they'd like to keep all the material in one place and stream-able.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That's what i was thinking - there's ways round that though, torrents, Internet Archive, youtube etc. I guess they'd like to keep all the material in one place and stream-able.



It's ludicrous - it could be torrented perfectly legally- can someone who knows about these things please email his team.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2010)

Will do.

This might interest some people:

*The Enigma of Capital

Date: Monday 26 April 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue:  Old Theatre, Old Building. LSE. (Map #1 - map #2)
Speaker: Professor David Harvey
Cost: sweet FA*



> He examines the vast flows of money that surge round the world in daily volumes well in excess of the sum of all its economies. He looks at the cycles of boom and bust in the world's housing and stock markets and shows that periodic episodes of meltdown are not only inevitable in the capitalist system but essential to its survival.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 31, 2010)

I've just asked someone who works in TV if this is a reasonable amount for 2hrs worth of talking head shot.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2010)

Tbf it's about 50 hours. But of course, we can just multiply the answer i suppose.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 31, 2010)

Please note this comes with lots of caveats about being off the hoof and not a 'proper' quote etc etc (every mention of 'I' is from my mate):

50 hours of talking head footage is a lot to shoot. For this hypothetical I'm going to assume that you're hiring one camera operator at a low rate and you're hiring the camera, tripod and lights (also at a low rate) - ie. you have no resources. Let's also say that you're filming maybe approximately 7 hours of talking head footage per shoot day (which is a LOT if it's just one person doing the talking, not so much if it's different people being interviewed).

So for a 7 day shoot that's:

Cam op @ £ 150 per day    = 1,050
Equipment @ £220 per day = 1,540

The the edit costs, these cost a fortune if you don't have access to your own kit. We're going for the cheapest possible quote here so let's say the cam op also had Final Cut Pro on his laptop at home and could edit it for you. He'd charge the same daily rate plus a bit for using his equipment - so let's say £200 per day (£1000 for a 5 day week). Then how many days do you need? Well that depends on the edit - if it's nothing fancy it wouldn't take too long but like I said, 50 hours of footage is a hell of a lot. Just to watch it all through once (assuming you do 8 hour days) is over 6 days worth. I'd say you'd need 4 or 5 weeks which would also include time to titles, graphics and DVD authoring if required (making usable menus which takes time). 

5 weeks @ £1,000 per week = £5,000

Total approx cost = £7,590 (or £6,590 for 4 weeks of post-production, not 5 weeks)

I have to say that the rates for equipment, editor and cam op I've used are very low and if you had to hire a professional edit suite to do this in it would cost a small fortune! 

I think that's pretty reasonable to be fair - like I say, 50 hours of footage is loads. And if they want 2 different camera angles for the talking heads - then you've got to get 2 camera operators and tripods and cameras, or film the whole thing twice, which will add to the shooting time required

So $10K bucks for the production on current exchange rate is about £6,500 - altho as stated, this is bargain basement stuff that makes a lot of assumptions about kit, edit costs etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2010)

Have you seen the original vids - they're not professional. They're just a static cameras dumped on a tripod, low quality, filming a scheduled uni lecture. They could could have been done on a phone.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2010)

assume the 10k is for bandwith for streaming vids.  Ok torrenting would be cheaper - but might limit audience?


----------



## tonyharkney (Mar 31, 2010)

*Capital Filming Project*

Hi all,

I just stumbled across this thread via Google. I was part of the team that put together the Volume I lectures, and I think I could shed some light here.  

We used two identical camera kits for each lecture: Panasonic DVX100 cameras mounted on tripods, with both a wireless lav mic and shotgun mics.  In addition we used a Marantz digital audio recorder with an omnidirectional mic to try to pick up the sound from student questions. 

Professor Harvey gave 13 two-hour lectures, and we filmed an additional interview with Neil Smith and David Harvey. We ended up with over 55 hours of tape.  Aside from the costs of renting the equipment (plus lighting), the major expense was getting that amount of tape edited.  So, the budget for the second project is based on what the Volume I project actually cost.

In terms of streaming, when we started the project we were using Google Video.  Unfortunately, after the 6th video, Google Video refused to accept any more uploads from us, with no warning and no explanation. (In retrospect, it seemed to have been a part of their abandoning Google Video after they bought YouTube.) So, we scrambled to find another solution and we ended up paying Blip.tv to stream the videos.  We are not entirely happy with this solution, and they are not as high quality as we would like, so if people have suggestions of a better way to go, that would be great.  

We then released the videos in a number of formats (high quality QuickTime, low quality QuickTime, and the iPod friendly .m4v format), as well as two audio formats (mp3 and ogg).  The high quality QuickTimes are big - just under 1 gig per class, and our web hosting company can't really handle them, so they are currently only available on our Archive.org mirror site (http://www.archive.org/details/Davidharvey-newClass01ReadingMarxsCapital908-2). 

We have wanted to make the files available, especially the larger high quality ones, on bit torrent, but no one on our team has any experience with this.  Any help on the best way to go about this would be great.  We want them to be available to as many people as possible.

Tony


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2010)

Hi Tony, thanks for posting - i'll contact  you tomorrow with some ideas about torrenting and other methods for getting as wide a  distribution as possible.


----------



## JimW (Feb 5, 2011)

Long essay/review of Enigma of Capital/Companion to Marx at LRB.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2011)

I was going to post that the other day, it's got the clearest explanation of the central role of credit in overcoming (at least temporarily) the problem of the realisation of total capital and what problems that throws up.


----------



## love detective (Feb 11, 2011)

Pretty good essay, but found one part of it a tad simplistic and even incorrect at the abstract level

This is the premise of a capitalist economy that supposedly can _only_ realise it's surplus value through credit. Any reading of marx's reproduction schema in volume II of capital shows this not to be the case. Fair enough the reproduction schema is fairly fragmented, incomplete, relies on fragile proportionality under anarchaic conditions and abstracts away a lot of niggly issues - but they certainly don't rely on credit/ficticious capital to show in essence how value (and the underlying use values) are produced/realised/consumed/reproduced - which is pretty much what the writer seems to be suggesting  

Whilst the credit system is obviously crucial for the development and maintenance of capital in practice - the underlying abstract basis for reproduction & circulation of total social capital that marx puts forward in his reproduction schema does not have credit at its fundamental core (this probably appears as something fairly counter-intuative), and therefore positing that it does, doesn't really help in the understanding of it

Also the example of the economy which consists of a single firm - and that firm needing to find the extra $10 to realise their surplus value (which at that stage exists as $10 of value in the form of a commodity product) is a daft one from the point of view of trying to logically demonstrate the assertion about realisation/reproduction _only_ being possible through credit. If they are the only firm in the economy, the only place they could spend that $10 once converted from commodity product to money (as in spend in either consuming the surplus value as revenue or investing it in expanded reproduction) would be with themselves, because by definition they are the only producer and supplier of (non-labour) commodities in the economy

So in that particular example there is no need for money to mediate the transformation between Commodity product and Money and then back into either Productive Capital (for expanded reproduction) or Means of Consumption (for simple reproduction) because that firm already owns the entire available commodity product stock in the first place (as it's the only producer in the economy) - they can therefore just skip the transformation into money stage and directly consume/productively consume the product it needs directly. And even if it wanted to spend the entire $10 on additional labour (the only thing it doesn't already directly own) it still wouldn't need to realise it's surplus value into money to buy that labour as it, as the only producer & supplier of commodities in the economy, would already own the means of consumption that that variable capital would ultimately be spent on, so again the nature of the example chosen dispenses with the need of the mediating step of monetising the surplus value. The only way the example case put forward would make 'sense' would be if that single company wanted for some reason to hold $10 in cash and never throw it back into circulation as capital - but in that case it would cease to be capital anyway so it becomes an even more absurd example


----------



## N_igma (Feb 16, 2011)

He's trying to make a profit...to prove some anticapitalist point no less.


----------



## love detective (Feb 16, 2011)

who is?


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2011)

Vol 2 being edited right now.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 31, 2011)

I've been looking forward this since it was announced that the next two volumes were to be done. You involved in the process somehow butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2011)

Nope, just know people that are.


----------



## love detective (May 31, 2011)

I re-read both Volume II and Accumulation of Capital again earlier this year - and was once again struck by how underrated and overlooked Volume II and the topics it touch upon are 

It's amazing how little this kind of thing has been progressed/built upon in the last 100 years or so. Just seems completely ignored yet fundamentally central to the reproduction of capitalist social relations and human beings - yet intellectuals and so called political economists, both marxist and non/anti marxist seem happy to devote huge amounts of time & effort to fairly irrelevant crap like the transformation problem. Things like this though are laregly ignored (or at least I never see them). Would also say the same about things like the section on surplus profits/rent in Volume 3.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 31, 2011)

I wish they would pull their finger out with the editing. I mean, how long can it possibley take ffs?

Commie inefficiency I tell ya; 'they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work' etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 31, 2011)

N_igma said:


> He's trying to make a profit...to prove some anticapitalist point no less.



The hilarious irony of it all, well done.


----------



## tonyharkney (Oct 31, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The hilarious irony of it all, well done.



Yeah, so "ironic" that he is working to make available two entire semesters of graduate level instruction for free...


----------



## tonyharkney (Oct 31, 2011)

love detective said:


> Pretty good essay, but found one part of it a tad simplistic and even incorrect at the abstract level



Check out Harvey's _Limits to Capital_ for a sustained discussion of this issue. Hardly fair to dismiss someone's take on an issue as fraught as the reproduction schemas by relying on a secondary source written for a popular audience.


----------



## love detective (Oct 31, 2011)

i've read it a couple of times and it's a good book and very helpful in a lot of areas. However, despite being nearly 500 pages long, it focuses on the reproduction schema for only a handful of those pages, and even then is just a very brief, fairly bog standard, high level overview of marx's reproduction schema, luxembourg's criticism of it etc.. (and it certainly doesn't engage with them directly in the context of the credit system) - which ties in with what i said in a previous post, i.e. marx's work on the reproduction schema & social reproduction, which to me seem to be incredibly important in the context of his overall project, does seem to be an area that is often overlooked by marxists and non-marxists critics alike.

Which is why Rosa Luxembourg's engagement with it, despite its flaws (while at the same time having many valid critiques of marx's schema), still remains probably the most useful marxist analysis & engagement with marx's reproduction schema to date (whether you agree or disagree with her ultimate position on it, you can't take away from the usefulness and uniqueness of the book in explaining, exploring, analysing,critiquing, historically situating and attempting to build on what Marx had started with it)

David Harvey is incredible useful and has been great in opening up a proper understanding of Marx through his books and seminar series, but that doesn't mean we can't critically engage with some of the things he comes out with (for example his knowledge of the specifics of modern financial instruments and derivatives etc.. seems to be fairly poor, however that is compensated for by his strong knowledge of the wider structural frameworks in which they are used within)


----------



## tonyharkney (Oct 31, 2011)

love detective said:


> i've read it a couple of times and it's a good book and very helpful in a lot of areas.



I agree that Volume II is an under-appreciated treasure. Professor Harvey is currently writing a 'A Companion to Vol II' based on the lectures which will probably be published next year - so, more to come on this.  I certainly don't think that Harvey is beyond criticism, but if you are familiar with _Limits_, I can't see how you would say that Harvey's take on the reproduction schema is "simplistic" or "standard". One of the main projects of _Limits_, in addition to re-thinking the three volumes of _Capital_ as if geography mattered, was to re-integrate credit/interest-bearing capital into the core of Marx's argument.  One of the recurrent themes in Vol II is Marx saying over and over again, well we really need to discuss credit to resolve this or that issue, but I don't want to deal with that here... He continually tries to put it off, but it continually intrudes again and again. Harvey interprets Marx's reproduction schema - contra Luxemburg- to be saying that it is only the expansion of production tomorrow that creates the demand for yesterday's suplus product, and that credit is the only way to bridge that temporal gap and keep capitalist production turning over. By putting credit back into the center of the story, it allows Harvey's take on the current crisis in the _Enigma of Capital_ to see the seizing up of credit markets not as some epiphenomenal distraction as many Marxists do, but central to the dynamics of crisis formation. I think this is why Harvey's take on the current crisis is so compelling, while the more traditional Marxist explanations that rigidly cleave to the falling rate of profit theory fall flat.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

tonyharkney said:


> Yeah, so "ironic" that he is working to make available two entire semesters of graduate level instruction for free...


Tony, you're missing the dramatic irony,which your entry provides.

I've never got why 'marxist economist' have had a problem with credit - it's there, it extends the contradictions into the future.The schemas demand it. I say i don't know why, but i do,it's because they stopped at vol1.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

tonyharkney said:


> I agree that Volume II is an under-appreciated treasure. Professor Harvey is currently writing a 'A Companion to Vol II' based on the lectures which will probably be published next year - so, more to come on this. I certainly don't think that Harvey is beyond criticism, but if you are familiar with _Limits_, I can't see how you would say that Harvey's take on the reproduction schema is "simplistic" or "standard". One of the main projects of _Limits_, in addition to re-thinking the three volumes of _Capital_ as if geography mattered, was to re-integrate credit/interest-bearing capital into the core of Marx's argument. One of the recurrent themes in Vol II is Marx saying over and over again, well we really need to discuss credit to resolve this or that issue, but I don't want to deal with that here... He continually tries to put it off, but it continually intrudes again and again. Harvey interprets Marx's reproduction schema - contra Luxemburg- to be saying that it is only the expansion of production tomorrow that creates the demand for yesterday's suplus product, and that credit is the only way to bridge that temporal gap and keep capitalist production turning over. By putting credit back into the center of the story, it allows Harvey's take on the current crisis in the _Enigma of Capital_ to see the seizing up of credit markets not as some epiphenomenal distraction as many Marxists do, but central to the dynamics of crisis formation. I think this is why Harvey's take on the current crisis is so compelling, while the more traditional Marxist explanations that rigidly cleave to the falling rate of profit theory fall flat.


Don't say   Professor Harvey please.


----------



## love detective (Oct 31, 2011)

tonyharkney said:
			
		

> I agree that Volume II is an under-appreciated treasure. Professor Harvey is currently writing a 'A Companion to Vol II' based on the lectures which will probably be published next year - so, more to come on this.



that's good to hear



> I certainly don't think that Harvey is beyond criticism, but if you are familiar with _Limits_, I can't see how you would say that Harvey's take on the reproduction schema is "simplistic" or "standard".



Been a while since I read _Limits_, but just going from my memory of it at the time - certainly if read together/compared with Luxembourg's Accumulation of Capital I think the description of standard & simplistic bears out (although appreciate the two things were not necessarily comparable in terms of focus/scope etc..). I say simplistic & standard because it doesn't seem to do much more than give an outline of Marx's schema along with a couple of very short perspectives on it. As i said I don't think the coverage of the schema in total took up more than a handful of pages (10 at the most probably?) - so in light of that I don't see how it could be anything other than simple or standard - there's simply not the space/time allocated to it to go beyond that in say the way that Luxembourg did. And in his (Harvey's) introduction to the section on the reproduction schema he pretty much states that this is all he is going to do in terms of covering it, so to an extent Harvey and I are on the same side here in that the coverage of it in _Limits_ wasn't intended to be a full on critical engagement with the reproduction schema (and in addition to his comment in the introduction I also recall him saying something along the lines of him not doing justice to the schema overall and the issues it raises)



> One of the main projects of _Limits_, in addition to re-thinking the three volumes of _Capital_ as if geography mattered, was to re-integrate credit/interest-bearing capital into the core of Marx's argument. One of the recurrent themes in Vol II is Marx saying over and over again, well we really need to discuss credit to resolve this or that issue, but I don't want to deal with that here... He continually tries to put it off, but it continually intrudes again and again.



Yep can appreciate this, but at the same time one of the reasons that Marx was so dogmatic about excluding credit (and other things) in various areas was that it got in the way of the core of his argument and that there was a danger of it obscuring the underlying essence as to what he was trying to get across. So there is a tension between excluding and abstracting away from things to give a better view/outline of the fundamental essence and then bringing them back in later to build on that fundamental analysis. I think you're right that throughout the three volumes of capital there's a tendency to do the former and put off the later - but again this needs to be thought about in the context of Marx's overall project and the various other books/volumes that he intitially intended to write - so to give him the benefit of the doubt, the reintroduction of these things were probably seen as fitting in better in the works/books that he never got round to writing. So we can blame him for not completing his project, but not for being disciplined about deciding where is and where is not the right area to cover things (or you can disagree with him as to the specifics of where things should be introduced/re-introduced but conceptually the approach seems fairly solid to me)



> Harvey interprets Marx's reproduction schema - contra Luxemburg- to be saying that it is only the expansion of production tomorrow that creates the demand for yesterday's suplus product, and that credit is the only way to bridge that temporal gap and keep capitalist production turning over. By putting credit back into the center of the story, it allows Harvey's take on the current crisis in the _Enigma of Capital_ to see the seizing up of credit markets not as some epiphenomenal distraction as many Marxists do, but central to the dynamics of crisis formation. I think this is why Harvey's take on the current crisis is so compelling, while the more traditional Marxist explanations that rigidly cleave to the falling rate of profit theory fall flat.



Can't really argue with most of that (although as i said previously he doesn't engage with the role of credit in the reproduction schema directly in context ,i.e. in relation to the section covering/analysing the reproduction schema - other than to say that money and credit should be more fundamental to the analysis - then in the analysis of money, credit, and the financial system it seems (imo) to be somewhat disconnected from the reproduction schema itself)

ps - i don't know what epiphenomenal means, but it's a nice word to say - rolls of the tongue very smoothly


----------



## tonyharkney (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Tony, you're missing the dramatic irony,which your entry provides.



Please explain the "dramatic irony" to me.


----------



## tonyharkney (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't say Professor Harvey please.



Why not?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

tonyharkney said:


> Please explain the "dramatic irony" to me.


It's irony where the audience know what's coming but that characters -the actors- don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

tonyharkney said:


> Why not?


I'm not in class.


----------



## tonyharkney (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's irony where the audience know what's coming but that characters -the actors- don't.



If you are saying that N_igma and Spanky Longhorn have no idea what they are talking about, then I agree.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 31, 2011)

tonyharkney said:


> If you are saying that N_igma and Spanky Longhorn have no idea what they are talking about, then I agree.



Fuck off you nob, I was taking the piss out of N_igma, are you really that unaware?


----------



## tonyharkney (Oct 31, 2011)

love detective said:


> that's good to hear


 
Yes - I think we are in basic agreement on these points. And perhaps things are less explicitly stated in _Limits_ than I remember. The one thing I would add is that Harvey sharply disagrees with Luxemburg at several points around the schemas, although he does draw on her thinking elsewhere. Luxemburg (rightly, imho) finds Marx's explanation of where the demand comes from to mop up the surplus in expanded reproduction wanting - Marx says it comes from owning class consumption in Vol II - and proposes imperialism/colonialism as the answer. Harvey, as already said, thinks credit has a major role to play here.  Also, Luxemburg complains that Marx's schemas make it seem like capitalism can happily expand forever, while Harvey sees Marx saying in the schemas that the conditions for the stable expansion of capitalism are actually quite precarious and crisis-prone.


----------



## N_igma (Nov 1, 2011)

tonyharkney said:


> If you are saying that N_igma and Spanky Longhorn have no idea what they are talking about, then I agree.



Yeh like I was being serious. Fucking tit!


----------



## revol68 (Nov 1, 2011)

is the IRSP flag a joke too?


----------



## rekil (Nov 1, 2011)

revol68 said:


> is the IRSP flag a joke too?


Their online "shop" certainly is.


----------



## love detective (Nov 1, 2011)

tonyharkney said:


> And perhaps things are less explicitly stated in _Limits_ than I remember.



I had a quick flick through earlier and that's reinforced my opinion that I gave above

Coincidentally, there are a number of David Harvey 'themed' sessions at the Historical Materialism conference next week in London - one of them specificaly on Limits to Capital (although not sure if this means the book itself or the general topic)

(amusingly, and somewhat coincidentally related to some of my comments above, there is also another paper at another 'Spaces of Marxism' session at the event called _The Limits To Harvey)_


----------



## tonyharkney (Nov 1, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Fuck off you nob, I was taking the piss out of N_igma, are you really that unaware?





N_igma said:


> Yeh like I was being serious. Fucking tit!


Charming.  I apologize for offending your delicate sensibilities by failing to detect the keen sarcasm of your one line posts.


----------



## tonyharkney (Nov 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> I had a quick flick through earlier and that's reinforced my opinion that I gave above



I looked through _Limits to Capital_ and well and the way I read it, beginning with section II (Accumulation Through Expanded Reproduction) of Chapter 6, The Dynamics of Accumulation, he begins a sustained discussion of the reproduction schema that continues to explicitly inform his thinking through the rest of chapter 6, throughout Chapter 7, Overaccumulation, Devaluation and the 'First-cut' Theory of Crisis, and into the first few sections of Chapter 8, Fixed Capital. He's clearly writing in dialogue with the schemas and continues to explicitly reference them after the section you mentioned which starts on page 166 through at least page 220, where he is talking about the implications of the reproduction schemas for fixed capital formation.

Should be a good conference. He's also giving the Deutscher Memorial Lecture on Friday, 11 November at another event in London.


----------



## love detective (Nov 2, 2011)

tonyharkney said:


> I looked through _Limits to Capital_ and well and the way I read it, beginning with section II (Accumulation Through Expanded Reproduction) of Chapter 6, The Dynamics of Accumulation, he begins a sustained discussion of the reproduction schema that continues to explicitly inform his thinking through the rest of chapter 6, throughout Chapter 7, Overaccumulation, Devaluation and the 'First-cut' Theory of Crisis, and into the first few sections of Chapter 8, Fixed Capital. He's clearly writing in dialogue with the schemas and continues to explicitly reference them after the section you mentioned which starts on page 166 through at least page 220, where he is talking about the implications of the reproduction schemas for fixed capital formation.
> 
> Should be a good conference. He's also giving the Deutscher Memorial Lecture on Friday, 11 November at another event in London.



Not really worth arguing about, but I'd say that's a very generous reading - there's really only around 10 pages that engages with the Reproduction Schema in the way that I was talking about, i.e. a Rosa Luxembourg type analysis & engagement - this takes place from pages 166 to 176.

Then from there up until page 190 it's fairly standard falling rate of profit stuff (which is very much volume 3 stuff - productivity, technological & organisational change, organic/technical composition of capital, production sphere type stuff). Then from page 190 onwards it largely continues the themes of, and a dialogue with, not the Reproduction Schema as you claim, but the falling rate of profit analysis (in terms of the falling rate of profit being a signifier/manifestation of over-accumulation, impending criss, and the resultant devaluation/destruction that will come etc..) which as i've pointed out before always seems to be the shiny thing that marxists are attracted to like magpies - to the detriment and neglect of other areas. And then the subsequent parts on Fixed capital circulation that you refer to are more analogous to sections 1 & 2 of Volume 2 of capital, not section 3 where the meat of the social reproduction and the reproduction schema are dealt with.

Your points about Fixed capital formation & circulation etc.. to me seem more of an engagement by Harvey with the earlier parts of Volume 2 of Capital, not the social reproduction part, i.e. the reproduction and circulation of total social capital. And I think a couple of the comments made by Harvey in the small section of the book that he does focus on this area backs up what i'm saying.

For me there is a big switch/leap forward in analysis & perspective between sections 1&2 of Volume 2 of Capital and section 3 of Volume 2 (i.e. the reproduction and circulation of total social capital and the reproduction schema) - and it's this area that is usually neglected and overlooked in marxist analysis. This is not a specific criticism of Harvey itself, just a general observation that it's an area that is very poorly and rarely engaged with by people who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on other areas.

(obviously none of any of this exists in a vacuum in isolation and anything can be connected to any other part which is part of the strength of Marx's integrated framework/approach overall)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 3, 2011)

tonyharkney said:


> Charming. I apologize for offending your delicate sensibilities by failing to detect the keen sarcasm of your one line posts.



It was fairlly obvious from me, but I wouldn't expect an autistic ivory towered intellectual to get it.


----------



## tonyharkney (Nov 4, 2011)

love detective said:


> Not really worth arguing about, but I'd say that's a very generous reading



And I would say that yours is a very narrow reading. You seem to have an axe to grind on this topic for some reason.

We'll just agree to disagree then. In any case, as I said, Harvey's book length treatment of Vol II will be out next year.


----------



## love detective (Nov 4, 2011)

I've no axe to grind - i'm merely discussing _Capital_ and exploring people's writings/developments on it

Isn't this something that Harvey, through his lecture series, tries to encourage?

Are you an academic by the way?


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 28, 2011)

Hope these discussions carry on, I'm finding them most interesting


----------



## tonyharkney (Jan 24, 2012)

New videos starting to roll out this Friday: http://davidharvey.org/2012/01/reading-marxs-capital-volume-ii-videos-to-debut-on-friday-january-27/


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 24, 2012)

tonyharkney said:


> Charming. I apologize for offending your delicate sensibilities by failing to detect the keen sarcasm of your one line posts.



Tony, don't let the way people here express themselves put you off.

I think the mods may intervene in the case of plausible death threats and obvious racism, but that's about it as far as I know, which results in a lot of rude words being tossed around. It means nothing.

Thanks for the great work you and your colleagues have done getting David Harvey's stuff online so far. It's a tremendously valuable resource.

Wish there were more transcripts though, I personally prefer words to video. I recognise that I'm an old fart in this respect though and many, many more people prefer the video versions.


----------



## tonyharkney (Jan 24, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Tony, don't let the way people here express themselves put you off.



Thanks, Bernie. Although I did play a small role in the Vol 1 taping, I have since had to move out of NYC and wasn't able to participate in the Vol 2 filming at all. Though I have stayed in touch with some of the folks involved.

Transcripts of the Vol 1 class are available here:

http://harvey-capital-lectures.wikidot.com/

The first four English classes have been corrected by humans, but the rest are machine generated (awaiting human correction for now). Plus folks are working on translating the transcripts into 20+ languages...


----------



## gawkrodger (Jan 27, 2012)

someone really should release them as a book


----------



## tonyharkney (Feb 2, 2012)

gawkrodger said:


> someone really should release them as a book


 


They did. It's called _A Companion to Marx's Capital_ by David Harvey. Verso Press. 2010.


----------



## Riklet (Feb 2, 2012)

good you've managed to raise the money, well done on getting part 2 filmed n sorted! hope your crew has worked out how to use torrents now tony(!!), the capital lecture vids should be more popular than they are! really good stuff anyway, respect.

they seemed to do well on youtube too, so would probs be good getting them up there in good quality at some point.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 6, 2012)

tonyharkney said:


> New videos starting to roll out this Friday: http://davidharvey.org/2012/01/reading-marxs-capital-volume-ii-videos-to-debut-on-friday-january-27/


 
Tony, sorry if I'm being really dim but I can only see the Vol1 lectures via the link you've provided?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 6, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Tony, sorry if I'm being really dim but I can only see the Vol1 lectures via the link you've provided?


 


You're being really dim.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 7, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You're being really dim.


----------



## JimW (May 8, 2012)

Just seen he's going to be speaking at the LSE on Thursday, though says tickets are all gone: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2012/05/20120510t1830vOT.aspx Will be a videolink then later a podcast, it says.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 9, 2012)

I watched that video in two bites. It gives lots of food for thought. I have not read Capital Vol 2. This encourages me to do that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

Nice little thing here - haven't read the rebel cities book yet.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 15, 2012)

Reading it currently. Like all Harvey stuff, well worth reading


----------



## love detective (Jul 19, 2012)

Wasn't sure where to put this so here is as good as anyplace

After many years of waiting, there's finally an english translation been released off Michael Heinrich's An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital




			
				blurb said:
			
		

> Heinrich’s modern interpretation of Capital is now available to English-speaking readers for the first time. It has gone through nine editions in Germany, is the standard work for Marxist study groups, and is used widely in German universities. The author systematically covers all three volumes of Capital and explains all the basic aspects of Marx’s critique of capitalism in a way that is clear and concise. He provides background information on the intellectual and political milieu in which Marx worked, and looks at crucial issues beyond the scope of Capital, such as class struggle, the relationship between capital and the state, accusations of historical determinism, and Marx’s understanding of communism. Uniquely, Heinrich emphasizes the monetary character of Marx’s work, in addition to the traditional emphasis on the labor theory of value, thus highlighting the relevance of Capital to the age of financial explosions and implosions.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 19, 2012)

It's out of stock already on Amazon, which is pretty impressive.

You know a poster on libcom is responsible for the translation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2012)

In the spirit of sort of related, Robert Kurz died yesterday.


----------



## love detective (Jul 19, 2012)

revol68 said:


> It's out of stock already on Amazon, which is pretty impressive.


 
Don't think it has ever been in stock there



> You know a poster on libcom is responsible for the translation.


 
Angelus?


----------



## revol68 (Jul 19, 2012)

love detective said:


> Don't think it has ever been in stock there
> 
> 
> 
> Angelus?



Aye.


----------



## yield (Jul 19, 2012)

revol68 said:


> It's out of stock already on Amazon, which is pretty impressive.


The bookdepository says 30th October for the paperback?

Thanks love detective I'll get a copy. I found capital heavy going.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 19, 2012)

Amazon said June back in March I think, odd for them to say out of stock rather than not available yet.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 20, 2012)

Thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2012)

Translated German review of Henrich - not read book or review yet:

How not to do another New Reading of Marx’s Capital

From the group/journal GegenStandpunkt

(on a quick skim, their two pieces on finance capital could help a few people here...)


----------



## revol68 (Aug 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Translated German review of Henrich - not read book or review yet:
> 
> How not to do another New Reading of Marx’s Capital
> 
> ...


 




> *The New Reading of Capital after the end of the workersʼ states*
> 
> 
> ...Heinrich by contrast finds it “decisive how exploitation and class rule function in a society” without considering this fact worth proving. He does not want to highlight exploitation as the decisive scandal, but what he considers _the amazing functioning of this system_. His attention is not so much the absurdity of the economic system and its harmfulness for the great majority, but capitalism _as a functioning system_. He wants to explain how this system, despite its “destructive potential,” integrates its (human) elements and secures its existence in the world. Criticism of capitalism is for him not the clarification of arguments as to why this system of exploitation deserves to be abolished, but remarks that take the _stability_ of capitalist society as the topic: He is concerned with uncovering mechanisms of unconscious preformation of thought and action by the “system” that ensure that its inhabitants function reliably and don’t arrive at any critical thoughts. “The system” is for him the all-ruling subject of the capitalist world.
> ...




Very odd criticisms, they seem like a more intellectual Class War.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2012)

I had pretty much forgot about them to be honest, but  they seem (on what i admit are pretty quick investigations) sort of a cross between the SPGB and the more marxist oriented end of german/dutch style autonomism. Their historical roots were/are actually pretty much the opposite of CW's form of personalising capital relations according to a few things i read earlier anyway.


----------



## love detective (Aug 1, 2012)

had a quick skim and looks like they are trying to much to be contrary - it's like a big post on a message board


----------

