I notice Harry Cleaver's website now covers up to chapter 33. So whoever knows how to work this whole internet malarkey might want to add the extra chapters to Libcom.
We begin with Part VIII of Capital instead of Part I for two reasons. In the first place, Part VIII is a lot easier to read, being less abstract and richer with historical detail. The chapters of Part I, which deal with "value" and money, tend to be very abstract and terse. In the second place, the study of Part VIII, which shows how the capitalist system originated, i.e., how capital originally created the working class and imposed its system on it, provides a very useful point of reference for the careful dissection of value in Part I.
All right, real question because I genuinely don't know: has Part VIII actually held up against scrutiny among historians? If that section is empirical rather than abstract, I'm wondering if it's good to use Marx as a historical reference rather than a philosophical/sociological one.
Comments
I notice Harry Cleaver's
I notice Harry Cleaver's website now covers up to chapter 33. So whoever knows how to work this whole internet malarkey might want to add the extra chapters to Libcom.
So that's done now. There…
So that's done now. There are probably a few stray links in there and some images are missing from Harry's site so are also not here.
Great stuff!
Great stuff!
Why does Cleaver start out…
Why does Cleaver start out of order re: Primitive Accumulation? ELI5
We begin with Part VIII of…
All right, real question…
All right, real question because I genuinely don't know: has Part VIII actually held up against scrutiny among historians? If that section is empirical rather than abstract, I'm wondering if it's good to use Marx as a historical reference rather than a philosophical/sociological one.