Class 1 Korean

Once you have translated a line of English text, replace the English text with the new translation.
Please do not change the time codes.

Class 1

0:00:01.569,0:00:02.840
» 닐 스미스:음, 여러분 오늘 기쁜날입니다.

0:00:02.840,0:00:07.259
데이비드 하비와 얘기나눌건데요.

0:00:07.259,0:00:08.809
그가 하고있는 강의로,

0:00:08.809,0:00:11.300
이제 거의 40년이나 된듯한데,

0:00:11.300,0:00:13.919
자본론으로 말이지요. 제이름은 닐 스미스입니다.

0:00:13.919,0:00:19.019
저는 뉴욕시립대학에서 인류학과 지리학을 가르치고 있습니다.

0:00:19.019,0:00:21.640
그리고 데이비드는 이곳에 온이후로 제 동료뻘이지만,

0:00:21.640,0:00:25.199
그전에, 오래전인 30여년 전에,

0:00:25.199,0:00:30.009
저는 볼티모어시에 있는 존스 홉킨스 대학에서 데이비드의 수강생이었지요.

0:00:30.009,0:00:33.180
그곳에서, 처음엔,

0:00:33.180,0:00:37.580
자본론을 책으로서 알고있었던게 아니지만, 처음으로 통독했고,

0:00:37.580,0:00:41.620
실제로, 데이비드와 그렇게 했던거죠. 데이비드! 어떤 계기로

0:00:41.620,0:00:44.570
자본론을 다시금, 읽고싶어진거죠? 그것도,

0:00:44.570,0:00:46.830
1970년대 이른 초반때 말입니다.

0:00:46.830,0:00:48.790
» 데이비드 하비: 그때가, 자본론 읽기엔

0:00:48.790,0:00:50.480
역사적인 시점으로서

0:00:50.480,0:00:53.360
딱이었죠.

0:00:53.360,0:00:56.320
내가 떠난곳은 영국이었고,

0:00:56.320,0:00:59.770
[19]69년도 여름날, 이주왔어요.

0:00:59.770,0:01:01.670
볼티모어시에 도착했는데,

0:01:01.670,0:01:07.250
1968년도에, 그곳에서 엄청난 폭력분출이 일어났거든요.

0:01:07.250,0:01:11.240
마틴 루터 킹 목사 암살직후였죠.

0:01:11.240,0:01:14.660
인권문제도 떠들석했고,

0:01:14.660,0:01:17.750
노골적인 인종차별주의에다

0:01:17.750,0:01:20.530
베트남전쟁 중이었고,

0:01:20.530,0:01:21.970
온갖 전쟁시위가

0:01:21.970,0:01:24.030
치열해지고 있었고

0:01:24.030,0:01:27.620
정말 극도로 혼란한 시기였어요…

0:01:27.620,0:01:29.560
그리고, 내기억으로,

0:01:29.560,0:01:32.330
69년 12월일텐데

0:01:32.330,0:01:36.530
프레드 햄튼이 시카고에서 암살당했어요,

0:01:36.530,0:01:37.920
그는 흑표범당 지도자였어요.

0:01:37.920,0:01:39.489
이후 얼마 안 있어,

0:01:39.489,0:01:41.700
1970년 5월엔

0:01:41.700,0:01:44.740
켄트 주에서 사망사건이 있었죠.

0:01:44.740,0:01:48.020
대규모 학생데모, 그러니까 전국적으로 수백만 학생들이

0:01:48.020,0:01:52.100
동맹휴교에 들어갔고 그 다음엔, 잭슨 주에서 사망사건이 일어났죠.

0:01:52.100,0:01:57.970
말 그대로 아주 많이 혼란스러운 시기였어요.

0:01:57.970,0:01:59.009
내 생각에,

0:01:59.009,0:02:03.119
어쨌든,나로선, 어떤 의미에선, 이 상황을 어떻게 다루어야 할지 잘 몰랐던 것도 있어요

0:02:03.119,0:02:07.290
어떻게 해석해야할지를 말이죠.

0:02:07.290,0:02:11.800
그리고, 사회현상을 숙고하는 일종의 사회과학자로 훈련받은 나는, 어떤 체계를 발견할 수 없었어요,

0:02:11.800,0:02:13.499
정말, 무슨일이 벌어지고 있는지를 아우를 수 있는 것 말이에요.

0:02:13.499,0:02:17.539
그래서, 몇몇 동기들에게 말했죠. '이봐, 자본론을 읽어보는게 어떨까?'

0:02:17.539,0:02:18.770
'읽어보지 않은 책이고,'

0:02:18.770,0:02:20.669
'아마, 뭔가가 있을지몰라'

0:02:20.669,0:02:21.980
'적용할 수 있는 뭔가가.'

0:02:21.980,0:02:25.829
그리하여, 몇몇이 앉아 독서클럽을 운영했어요.

0:02:25.829,0:02:30.779
그렇게 시작된거였죠. 일단 한번하고나서 완전히,

0:02:30.779,0:02:32.599
그 책을 오해했죠

0:02:32.599,0:02:35.059
지금 돌아보면 오해를 해도 단단히 했던거죠.

0:02:35.059,0:02:38.499
이 책에 대해 말했던 걸 다시 들어보면 부끄러울거에요.

0:02:38.499,0:02:42.679
거 알죠, 장님이 장님 길 인도하는거, 그것도 그 방대한 책을 말이에요.

0:02:42.679,0:02:45.509
우린 우리가 뭘 하고 있는지도 몰랐어요.
그리고 생각했죠. "일단 한 번 했으니까,

0:02:45.509,0:02:49.189
한번 더 해보는 게 어떨까. 확실히
이걸 제대로 이해하진 못했잖아."

0:02:49.189,0:02:51.799
그러나 그 때 제가 확실히 배운건

0:02:51.799,0:02:56.359
당신이 자본론을 끝까지 보더라도,
그땐 그걸 막 이해하기 시작할 뿐이라는 거에요.

0:02:56.359,0:02:58.950
그 책을 처음부터

0:02:58.950,0:02:59.979
닐 스미스: 예

0:02:59.979,0:03:02.049
데이비드 하비: 완전히 깔끔하게 이해하긴 정말 어려워요

0:03:02.049,0:03:04.449
그래서 2년째 되던 해에, 우리는 그 책을 다시 읽기로 결심했고

0:03:04.449,0:03:05.800
정말로 자본론을 다시 읽었어요.

0:03:05.800,0:03:08.009
그리고 전 이렇게 생각했죠.

0:03:08.009,0:03:10.700
'아, 이거 재미있는데? 이제 사회현상을
설명하는데 도움이 될 체계가

0:03:10.700,0:03:15.739
보이기 시작하는 것 같아.'
그래서 전 생각했죠. '그래, 계속 읽어봐야겠다.'

0:03:15.739,0:03:18.010
그리고 제 주변에도

0:03:18.010,0:03:21.079
저처럼, 사회현상을 설명할 체계가
필요하다는 것을 공감하는 사람들이 있었고

0:03:21.079,0:03:22.829
그래서 조금씩 조금씩

0:03:22.829,0:03:26.049
전 이렇게 생각하기 시작했죠.
'그래, 이걸 매년 읽어야겠다.'

0:03:26.049,0:03:29.609
물론 이런 종류의 일을 하게되면
일어나는 것 중 하나가 바로

0:03:29.609,0:03:33.289
사람들이 갑자기 당신을
맑스주의자라고 부르게 된다는 거에요.

0:03:33.289,0:03:37.059
난 맑스주의자가 뭔지도 몰랐어요.
그리고 전

0:03:37.059,0:03:40.139
애초에 그런 것에 신경을 쓰지도 않았는데,
갑자기 그 책을 읽는다고 해서

0:03:40.139,0:03:42.289
그리고 그것을 진지하게 받아들이고

0:03:42.289,0:03:45.709
이 관점을 통해 세상을 보는 법에 대해
더 알고싶어한다는 이유로

0:03:45.709,0:03:49.349
저는 갑자기 맑스주의자라는 정치적
입장을 가진 사람이 되버린거죠.

0:03:49.349,0:03:54.649
그리고 시간이 좀 지나면 이렇게 말하게되요.
"만약 내가 맑스주의자로 불리고 있으면,
그게 나란 사람이겠지."라고요.

0:03:54.649,0:03:56.979
닐 스미스: 제 생각엔 이제 강의가 시작되니

0:03:56.979,0:03:59.859
하비씨께서 생각하시는 자본론 1권의

0:03:59.859,0:04:02.680
개략적인 내용과

0:04:02.680,0:04:04.249
어떤 것이 중요한 포인트인지에 대한

0:04:04.249,0:04:11.290
토론거리를 제공해주시는 것도
유익할 것 같은데요

0:04:11.290,0:04:15.229
데이비드 하비: 제가 생각하기에
가장 좋은 방법중 하나는,

0:04:15.229,0:04:16.359
그것은 제가 이 강좌를 이런 방식으로

0:04:16.359,0:04:20.750
가르치면서 아주 많은 기쁨을 얻는
이유 중 하나이기도 한데요

0:04:20.750,0:04:24.639
그건 바로 많은 사람들이 맑스를 조금씩 다루고

0:04:24.639,0:04:28.870
또 베버, 뒤르켐 같은 것들을 조금씩 다루고 또,
맑스 원문 같은 것에서 발췌한 내용만을 다루는 수업을 들었지

0:04:28.870,0:04:31.620
자본론을 책으로써 읽지는 않았다는 거에요

0:04:31.620,0:04:36.430
자본론은 문학적으로 아주 좋은 구조를 갖고 있어요.

0:04:36.430,0:04:38.139
그러니까 제가 강조하고 싶은건

0:04:38.139,0:04:40.349
그걸 읽는 게 매우 즐겁다는거에요!

0:04:40.349,0:04:44.919
일단 책에 쓰이는 언어의 어려움이나
개념들과의 씨름을 극복하고나면

0:04:44.919,0:04:50.120
이건 정말, 정말,
놀라운 책인걸 알 수있고, 또 술술 읽혀요.

0:04:50.120,0:04:54.840
책의 도입부부터 원활히 흘러가는데,
도입부는 상품에 대한 간단한 개념으로 시작해요.

0:04:54.840,0:04:59.190
당신은 슈퍼마켓에 가서, 상품을 발견하고,
그 상품을 사서, 집에 가져와서, 그걸 먹습니다.

0:04:59.190,0:05:03.629
그걸 입을 수도 있고요. 어쨌든

0:05:03.629,0:05:08.710
그리고 그 시작과 함께, 우리가 이미 잘 알듯이
그 책은 우리를 단계적으로

0:05:08.710,0:05:10.649
어떻게 자본주의 경제가 작동하는지를

0:05:10.649,0:05:14.499
알 수 있는 길로 인도하죠

0:05:14.499,0:05:20.509
그리고는 왜 실업이 발생하는지,
혹은 왜 시간에 대한 투쟁이 존재하고

0:05:20.509,0:05:24.150
자본가들은 왜 항상

0:05:24.150,0:05:26.290
당신의 시간을 빼앗으려하는지,

0:05:26.290,0:05:28.309
우리는 왜 일종의

0:05:28.309,0:05:30.529
세속성이라는 개념 주변으로

0:05:30.529,0:05:33.270
모든것이 돌아가는 세계속에서

0:05:33.270,0:05:35.050
살아가는지,

0:05:35.050,0:05:39.090
그리고 이 모든것과 함께 존재하는
탄압이나 학대가 뭔지에 대한

0:05:39.090,0:05:43.150
통찰을, 그것도 매우 놀라운 통찰을
쌓아나가요. 그래서 전 이 책이 하는 일이

0:05:43.150,0:05:46.979
정말 눈을 번쩍 뜨이게 하는거라 생각해요.

0:05:46.979,0:05:53.979

0:06:05.360,0:06:09.099
그래서 이 강의의 목적은

0:06:09.099,0:06:14.189
당신이 자본론을 읽게 하고

0:06:14.189,0:06:18.189
그 책을 최대한 마르크스
고유의 언어로 읽게 하는거죠

0:06:18.189,0:06:20.869
멍청한 소리처럼 들릴 수도 있어요

0:06:20.869,0:06:22.789
왜냐면 당신이 이 책을 읽지 않았다면

0:06:22.789,0:06:24.779
그의 언어가 정확히 뭔지

0:06:24.779,0:06:26.749
알 수가 없거든요.

0:06:26.749,0:06:31.630
하지만 결국 당신이 읽는 것이 그의 언어니까

0:06:31.630,0:06:35.479
정해진 부분을 수업에 오기 전에
미리 읽어본다면

0:06:35.479,0:06:38.349
그냥 와서 듣는 것보다

0:06:38.349,0:06:42.029
더 많은 것을 얻어갈 수 있을거에요.

0:06:42.029,0:06:46.080
또 한가지 이유는

0:06:46.080,0:06:49.729
당신이 뭔가를 이해하기 위해선

0:06:49.729,0:06:52.990
항상 그것과 씨름을 해야한다는거에요.

0:06:52.990,0:06:56.190
그리고 스스로 씨름을 해 봐야만

0:06:56.190,0:06:58.379
당신 스스로

0:06:58.379,0:06:59.880
마르크스가 뭘 의미하는 지, 당신에게

0:06:59.880,0:07:04.520
어떤 의미를 주는지 알 수 있어요.
그러니 제가 권장하는 것은

0:07:04.520,0:07:06.969
당신이 이 책에 참여하고

0:07:06.969,0:07:07.860
이 텍스트와

0:07:07.860,0:07:11.699
친해지는 겁니다.

0:07:11.699,0:07:13.749
근데, 그렇게 하면서

0:07:13.749,0:07:18.099
복잡한 문제가 발생하는데,
그것은 이 작업을

0:07:18.099,0:07:22.659
배경지식없이는 접근하기가
매우 어렵다는 거에요. 모든사람이

0:07:22.659,0:07:25.050
칼 마르크스에 대해 들어봤고

0:07:25.050,0:07:30.209
모든 사람이 '막시즘'과
'막시스트'라는 단어와,

0:07:30.209,0:07:33.379
거기에 담긴 함축된 의미는

0:07:33.379,0:07:35.509
알고 있습니다.

0:07:35.509,0:07:41.370
그래서 제가 제안하고 싶은 것은,
그러한 수많은 선입견들을 배제하고

0:07:41.370,0:07:43.689
시작하려고 노력해보는 거에요.

0:07:43.689,0:07:47.289
당신이 아는 모든 마르크스에 대한 것들을
버리고 그냥 원문 그 자체를 읽으려 노력하면서

0:07:47.289,0:07:52.179
그가 진짜로 말하려 했던 것이
무엇인가를 알아내려고 하는거죠.

0:07:52.179,0:07:55.229
물론 그건

0:07:55.229,0:07:59.270
많은 이유때문에
쉽지는 않은 작업이에요.

0:07:59.270,0:08:03.679
그것들을 이 소개 강의를 통해
알려드리려고 하는거구요.

0:08:03.679,0:08:06.870
이러한 텍스트를 접근할 때
우리가 흔히 갖는 선입견이

0:08:06.870,0:08:09.680
때로는 우리가 가진 특정한

0:08:09.680,0:08:13.610
지성사나 지적 교육에서
생겨납니다.

0:08:13.610,0:08:17.449
예를 들면 대학원생들과
같은 사람들에게는

0:08:17.449,0:08:21.009
이러한 지적 교육이

0:08:21.009,0:08:26.249
아카데믹한 방식으로 훈련된

0:08:26.249,0:08:27.530
체계나 사고, 관심사에 의해

0:08:27.530,0:08:30.169
이뤄지게 되죠.

0:08:30.169,0:08:32.580
그렇기 때문에 많은 사람들은

0:08:32.580,0:08:37.050
텍스트를 교육받은(아카데믹한)
관점에서 읽으려는 경향이 있습니다.

0:08:37.050,0:08:42.720
그런데, 마르크스의 대단한 점 중 하나는
그가 어떤 학과에도 교직을 갖지 않았다는 겁니다.

0:08:42.720,0:08:46.090
그러니 그의 책을 제대로 읽고 싶다면
각자의 전공에서 교직을 맡겠다는 생각에서

0:08:46.090,0:08:48.130
벗어나야합니다.

0:08:48.130,0:08:51.600
장래에 까지는 아니더라도
최소한 이 강의를 시작할때만이라도요.

0:08:51.600,0:08:53.350
이제는 당신이

0:08:53.350,0:08:54.430
어떠한 것에 대해

0:08:54.430,0:08:58.400
생각할 때 이용했던

0:08:58.400,0:09:03.270
아카데믹한 체계들에 의존하지 않고
그가 말하는 것들에 대해 생각해봐야 합니다.

0:09:03.270,0:09:07.800
(자본론을 읽어야 한다고 말하는) 또 다른 이유는
이 책이 사실 참조(레퍼런스)의 측면에서

0:09:07.800,0:09:10.660
매우 풍부한 소스를 갖고 있기 때문이죠.

0:09:10.660,0:09:14.550
셰익스피어, 그리스 고전,
발자크에서부터

0:09:14.550,0:09:17.740
수많은 정치 경제학자, 철학자,
인류학자,

0:09:17.740,0:09:21.100
그리고 그 밖에 다양한 많은 부분을
끌어오고 있습니다. 다시 말해

0:09:21.100,0:09:22.920
마르크스는 아주 방대한

0:09:22.920,0:09:25.950
소스를 참조했고,

0:09:25.950,0:09:29.980
그가 그렇게 했기 때문에
그 출처들에 대해 알아내는

0:09:29.980,0:09:32.140
작업이 무척 재미있어지죠.

0:09:32.140,0:09:36.700
사실 몇몇은 출처를 알아내기가 매우 어렵기도 하고,
저도 오랜 기간동안 그것에 대해 연구해왔어요.

0:09:36.700,0:09:41.250
그러나 당신이 몇몇 연결고리를
찾기 시작하면 진짜 재미가

0:09:41.250,0:09:42.589
시작되죠.

0:09:42.589,0:09:45.259
일례로, 제가 처음 자본론을
읽기 시작했을때 전 발자크의

0:09:45.259,0:09:48.850
소설을 별로 읽어보지 않았거든요.
근데 그걸 읽기 시작하면서 혼자 이렇게

0:09:48.850,0:09:51.690
말하곤 했죠. '아! 마르크스가 여기서 따왔구나!'

0:09:51.690,0:09:55.550
그러고는 갑자기 마르크스가
그 모든 경험적 세계를 그렸던 방법을

0:09:55.550,0:09:57.400
볼수 있게 되죠.

0:09:57.400,0:10:00.570
괴테와 셰익스피어 등으로 가득찬
그 나머지들까지도요.

0:10:00.570,0:10:01.510
그래서, 이렇게

0:10:01.510,0:10:04.710
참조적인 면에서 풍부한 책이므로
여러분이 이걸 알기 시작하면

0:10:04.710,0:10:06.359
제 생각에 여러분은

0:10:06.359,0:10:08.860
자주 이렇게 생각하게 될거에요.

0:10:08.860,0:10:11.660
'흠, 이건 무슨 역사를 암시하는거지?'

0:10:11.660,0:10:14.380
혹은 '그가 지금 어떤 경제학자를 암시하는거야?'
이런식으로요.

0:10:14.380,0:10:17.260
(책을 읽으며) 겪게될 또 다른 일은,
여러분들이 이런 방식으로 읽으면서,

0:10:17.260,0:10:19.930
사실 자본론이 매우 재미있는
책이라는 걸 알게 된다는 겁니다.

0:10:19.930,0:10:22.460
매력적인 책이죠.

0:10:22.460,0:10:25.980
물론 여기서도 우리는 또 다른
선입견을 발견하게 될거에요. 왜냐면

0:10:25.980,0:10:28.660
여러분 중 많은 분들이 벌써
마르크스에 대한 것들을

0:10:28.660,0:10:31.020
읽어보셨을 거니까요.

0:10:31.020,0:10:34.620
어쩌면 고등학교때 공산당
선언을 읽었을수도 있구요.

0:10:34.620,0:10:37.710
어쩌면 ‘사회학 개론’이라 불리며,
2주동안 마르크스

0:10:37.710,0:10:40.880
2주는 베버, 그리고 몇주는
뒤르켐 등등을 다루는

0:10:40.880,0:10:46.460
** 훌륭한(!) 수업들에서
그를 만났을 수도 있죠.**

0:10:46.460,0:10:48.910
아니면 자본론의 일부를
읽어보셨을수도 있어요.

0:10:48.910,0:10:54.000
하지만 자본론의 일부를 읽는 것과
한 권의 책으로 읽는 건 완전히 다른 작업입니다.

0:10:54.000,0:10:58.269
왜냐면 전체를 읽으면 그 일부들이
더 포괄적이고 넓은 흐름에서

0:10:58.269,0:11:02.270
어떤 역할을 하는 지 볼 수 있게
되거든요. 그리고 제가

0:11:02.270,0:11:05.430
여러분들이 꼭 알아야 한다고
생각하는 것도, 그 포괄적인 흐름이 뭔지,

0:11:05.430,0:11:11.170
더 넓은 개념이 뭔지 감을
잡는 겁니다. 왜냐면 제 생각엔

0:11:11.170,0:11:14.040
그것이 마르크스가 읽히기
원하는 방식이라고 보거든요.만약 누가

0:11:14.040,0:11:15.230
‘야, 이 챕터를
발췌해야되’라거나

0:11:15.230,0:11:19.000
‘이 챕터를 읽으면 되’라고 말하며
그런 방식으로 마르크스를
이해할 수 있다고 했다면

0:11:19.000,0:11:20.080
그가 싫어했을 겁니다.

0:11:20.080,0:11:23.680
또 만약 자신이 사회학 개론 강의에서
3주의 시간을 할애받는 다는 걸 알면

0:11:23.680,0:11:25.290
좋아할리가 없을테죠.

0:11:25.290,0:11:27.440
그리고 전 여러분도 그러한 것들을
싫어하셔야 한다고 생각해요.

0:11:27.440,0:11:30.280
왜냐면 그런 방식으로
마르크스에 대한 개념을 잡는 건

0:11:30.280,0:11:32.070
자본론 같은 책을 읽으며

0:11:32.070,0:11:35.290
이해하는 방식과는

0:11:35.290,0:11:38.600
천지차이거든요.

0:11:38.600,0:11:43.120
이제 아카데믹한 관점에서
발생하는 또 다른 일은,

0:11:43.120,0:11:49.320
사람들이 자신이 이해한 것을
아카데믹한 관점을 기준으로

0:11:49.320,0:11:52.930
다시 재조합하기
시작한다는 겁니다.

0:11:52.930,0:11:56.380
예를들면, 이렇게 말하는 거죠.
‘흠, 난 경제학은 잘 못해.
여기서 경제학에 대해 얻을 것도 없고.

0:11:56.380,0:11:59.190
그러니 경제학적 얘기들엔 신경끄고,

0:11:59.190,0:12:00.200
걍 철학적인 얘기만

0:12:00.200,0:12:01.819
따라가야겠다.’

0:12:01.819,0:12:02.819
그리고 사실

0:12:02.819,0:12:04.830
이런 관점으로 마르크스를

0:12:04.830,0:12:07.460
읽는 것도 재밌는 일이긴 해요.

0:12:07.460,0:12:11.290
지금까지 제가 이 강의를
1971년부터 한번 빼고

0:12:11.290,0:12:12.780
매년 해 왔는데요.

0:12:12.780,0:12:17.240
어떤 해에는 두 번 가르쳤고,
3번까지 가르쳐본 적도 있어요.

0:12:17.240,0:12:20.880
그리고 초반에는 꽤 다양한
그룹의 사람들에게 이것을

0:12:20.880,0:12:22.310
가르치곤 했어요.

0:12:22.310,0:12:23.670
한 번은 철학과

0:12:23.670,0:12:27.430
학생 전체를 가르쳤어요. 그땐
모간 스태이트 콜리지였는데

0:12:27.430,0:12:29.949
지금은 모간 스태이트
유니버시티로 바뀌었죠.

0:12:29.949,0:12:33.690
또 한번은 존스 홉킨스대 영어 프로그램에
참여한 대학원생들을 가르쳤구요.

0:12:33.690,0:12:34.579
어떤 해에는

0:12:34.579,0:12:38.960
경제학자들을 가르치기도 하고, 그랬었죠.
여기서 제게 진짜 매력적이었던 건,

0:12:38.960,0:12:43.170
다른 그룹과 책을 읽을 때 마다 거기서
다른 것을 발견한다는 거에요.

0:12:43.170,0:12:46.540
사실 저도 이렇게 다양한 학문적 출신의
사람들과 책을 읽으면서

0:12:46.540,0:12:49.670
엄청나게 많은 걸 배웠어요.

0:12:49.670,0:12:52.680
가끔은 힘들어 미칠 것 같기도 했는데,
엄청 많은 걸 배우기도 했죠.

0:12:52.680,0:12:55.100
한 번은,

0:12:55.100,0:13:00.930
존스 홉킨스대의 비교문학 과정에
있는 사람들과 자본론을 읽었는데

0:13:00.930,0:13:03.630
7명 정도였죠.

0:13:03.630,0:13:07.290
자본론 1장을 읽기 시작했는데

0:13:07.290,0:13:11.040
한 챕터에 한 학기를 다 써버렸어요.

0:13:11.040,0:13:14.710
미치겠더라고요. 전 이렇게 말했죠.
'여러분 강의 진도는 나가야될 거 아니에요.'

0:13:14.710,0:13:17.029
왜 그런거 있잖아요. 중요한 요점 같은 거요.
그럼 그 사람들은 이렇게 말했죠.

0:13:17.029,0:13:20.690
'아니 아니, 이 부분을 제대로
이해해야죠.' 왜 있잖아요.

0:13:20.690,0:13:23.870
'가치의 정확한 의미가 뭐지?
'상품 화폐'가 실제로 어떤 의미야?

0:13:23.870,0:13:26.070
페티시는 뭐야? 이게 정말 무슨 뜻이야?'
이런거요.

0:13:26.070,0:13:27.270
그래서 결국엔

0:13:27.270,0:13:30.830
제가 말했죠. '왜 이런 짓을 하는거에요?'
대답하길 '아, 우리는 지금 어떤 사람의

0:13:30.830,0:13:33.679
전통적 방식을 따르는 거에요.' 그 사람을
전 들어본 적도 없었고

0:13:33.679,0:13:37.430
그땐 그가 머저리일거라 확신했죠.
이런 방식을 만들어내고 있었으니까요.

0:13:37.430,0:13:39.980
그는 바로 자크 데리다였고

0:13:39.980,0:13:44.240
그는 60년대 후반과 70년대 초반
홉킨스에서 많은 시간을 보내고 있었어요.

0:13:44.240,0:13:47.460
또 그는 당연히

0:13:47.460,0:13:50.890
비교문학 프로그램에서 상당한
영향력이 있었구요.

0:13:50.890,0:13:53.100
지금와서 그 일을 떠올리며

0:13:53.100,0:13:55.150
깨닫게 된건…

0:13:55.150,0:14:00.080
그들이 제게 마르크스의 언어에 대해
아주 신중한 주의를 기울여야 한다는 걸

0:14:00.080,0:14:05.040
알려줬다는 거에요. 그가 무슨 말을 하는지,
어떻게 하는지, 무엇을 의미하는지, 또 무엇을 놓치는지

0:14:05.040,0:14:08.160
그리고 그게 얼마나 중요한지 말이죠.

0:14:08.160,0:14:12.800
그러니, 사실 전 많이 배웠고,
그 그룹에 매우 감사하게 생각해요.

0:14:12.800,0:14:16.530
일단 제가 자크 데리다를
모른다고 말하는 멍청한 실수를

0:14:16.530,0:14:19.270
저지르지 않게 되었다는
것도 있구요.(ㅋㅋ)

0:14:19.270,0:14:23.380
또 챕터 하나를 갖고 매우 세밀한 빗으로
머리를 빗듯이

0:14:23.380,0:14:28.170
모든 단어, 문장, 문장간의 관계와
같은 것들을

0:14:28.170,0:14:30.100
하나하나 살펴보는

0:14:30.100,0:14:33.360
경험을 갖게 해준 그 그룹과
함께 한 것이

0:14:33.360,0:14:34.910
제게 많은 영향을 미쳤어요.

0:14:34.910,0:14:38.860
네, 물론 여러분과는 강의 계획대로
가길 바라고 있어요.

0:14:38.860,0:14:41.629
당연히 책을 다 읽길 바라구요.
강의 내내 한 챕터에 시간을

0:14:41.629,0:14:43.090
소비하진 않을 거에요. 하지만

0:14:43.090,0:14:46.580
다른 학문적 관점이 이러한
결과를 낳을 수는 있죠.

0:14:46.580,0:14:51.300
왜냐면 마르크스가 이 책을

0:14:51.300,0:14:55.890
제가 앞에서 말한 다양한 관점을
염두에 두고 썼기 때문이죠.

0:14:55.890,0:14:56.610
그리고 전

0:14:56.610,0:14:58.280
우리들도 텍스트에서

0:14:58.280,0:15:03.330
어떤 다양한 관점들이 교차하는지
이해해야 한다고 생각해요.

0:15:03.330,0:15:06.130
사실 거기엔 세가지 주요한

0:15:06.130,0:15:08.430
영감을 주는 부면들이 있어요.

0:15:08.430,0:15:10.550
이작업들을 위해서 말이죠.

0:15:10.550,0:15:13.790
그리고 그건 모두가

0:15:13.790,0:15:18.940
깊은 책무로 이끌죠, 맑스의 경우에

0:15:18.940,0:15:22.540
중대한 이론과 중요한 분석들로요.

0:15:22.540,0:15:27.890
맑스는 다소 젊었을 때 그의 편집동료중 한명에게 짧은 글을 썼어요.

0:15:27.890,0:15:30.070
독일저널(German journal)에 있는 사람이었는데"

0:15:30.070,0:15:35.360
그 제목은 ‘모든 존재하는 것들에 대한 통렬한 비판을 위하여’ 였어요.

0:15:35.360,0:15:40.440
어렵지 않은 글이니 여러분 모두가 실제로 읽어보기를 권합니다.

0:15:40.440,0:15:42.780
왜냐하면 매우 흥미로운 내용이기 때문입니다.

0:15:42.780,0:15:45.640
그가 그 글에서 말한 것은

0:15:45.640,0:15:46.680
모든 사람이

0:15:46.680,0:15:50.800
바보같아서, 모두를 맹렬히 비난하고,

0:15:50.800,0:15:51.790
없애 버리겠다 는 것이 아니라,

0:15:51.790,0:15:53.760
그가 말한 것은

0:15:53.760,0:15:57.050
세상에 대해 실제로 생각하는 신중한 사람들이 아주 많다는 것이었습니다.

0:15:57.050,0:15:58.760
매우 열심히 생각하는 사람들 말이죠

0:15:58.760,0:16:04.830
또한 그들은 세상에 대해 어떤 것들을 보아왔고, 그들이 보아온 것이 우리의 자원이라는 점이었습니다.

0:16:04.830,0:16:09.540
중요한 방법은 사람들이 보아온 것을 파악하고

0:16:09.540,0:16:15.080
그것들을 분석하여 뭔가 다른것으로 변환시키는것이죠.

0:16:15.080,0:16:18.200
그리고 맑스가 나중에 말한것들중 하나는, 제가 그의 방법을 포착한걸로 생각하는 점인데요

0:16:18.200,0:16:19.750
감탄스럽게도

0:16:19.750,0:16:24.220
맑스는 여러분이 취하여 변환시키는 것은

0:16:24.220,0:16:26.699
철저히 다른 개념적 블록들을 가지고

0:16:26.699,0:16:32.370
그것들을 한데 비비고 문질러서, 혁명의 불을 지피는것이라고 했습니다.

0:16:32.370,0:16:36.790
그리고 사실 그는 그런 방법을 취했죠. 맑스는 매우 다른 전통들을

0:16:36.790,0:16:38.340
하나로 모아

0:16:38.340,0:16:39.800
그것들을 문지르고

0:16:39.800,0:16:43.960
완전히 새로운 지식의 체계를 창조했습니다.

0:16:43.960,0:16:47.790
그리고 자신이 쓴 서문중 하나에서

0:16:49.670,0:16:52.350
이렇게 말했죠. 만약 당신이 새로운 지식 시스템을 만들고자 한다면,

0:16:52.350,0:16:55.790
개념적 장치들 전체를 재구성해야 한다.

0:16:55.790,0:17:00.590
그리고 전체 질문방식도 재구성해야 한다고 말입니다.

0:17:00.590,0:17:04.939
맑스가 자본론에서 비벼 문지른 세가지 이념적 블록이 있습니다.

0:17:04.939,0:17:07.110
그것들은 바로

0:17:07.110,0:17:09.579
첫번째로 개념적 블록입니다

0:17:09.579,0:17:12.180
정치적 경제에 대해서요.

0:17:12.180,0:17:17.640
18세기와 19세기 초반의 정치적 경제인거죠

0:17:17.640,0:17:20.010
주로 영국을 다루지만

0:17:20.010,0:17:22.600
또한

0:17:22.600,0:17:28.070
로크에서부터 홉스와 흄, 그리고 당연히 아담 스미스와 리카르도 및 맬서스에 이르기까지 다루게 됩니다.

0:17:28.070,0:17:32.180
그리고 스튜어트와 덜 중요한 인물들을 다루고 있습니다.

0:17:32.180,0:17:35.880
맑스는 이 모든 사람들에 대한

0:17:35.880,0:17:39.730
** 매우 심도 있고, 깊이있는 비평을**

0:17:39.730,0:17:45.040
‘잉여가치론’이라는 세권의 책에서 다루고 있습니다.

0:17:45.040,0:17:48.240
맑스는 복사기가 없었고, 인터넷이라든가

0:17:48.240,0:17:51.240
하는것이 없었기 때문에, 자필로 필사했죠

0:17:51.240,0:17:52.980
아담 스미스로부터 시작되는 긴 책들을요

0:17:52.980,0:17:54.770
그리고 자신의 코멘트를 덧붙였습니다.

0:17:54.770,0:17:59.290
스튜어트로부터의 긴 글들을 필사하고

0:17:59.290,0:18:03.390
다시 자신의 코멘트를 추가했습니다

0:18:03.390,0:18:07.990
사실, 그가 취한 방식은 현재 우리가 해체이론이라고 부르는 방식입니다.

0:18:07.990,0:18:10.210
제가 배운 한가지점은

0:18:10.210,0:18:12.950
그의 '잉여가치론'를 통해서요

0:18:12.950,0:18:16.170
그것은 논거들을 해체하여 분석하는 방법이었습니다.

0:18:16.170,0:18:18.340
사실, 맑스가 한것을 말하자면

0:18:18.340,0:18:19.979
'아담 스미스는 이 논거를 주장한다'

0:18:19.979,0:18:22.770
'그가 놓친점이 무엇인가?'

0:18:22.770,0:18:25.030
'뭐가 빠져있는가? 무엇을 놓쳤는가?'

0:18:25.030,0:18:26.400
'이 부분에서

0:18:26.400,0:18:28.299
모든것을 함께 고정시키는것을 정말로 돕고

0:18:28.299,0:18:32.390
또, 우리가 그것을 그자리에 둘때, 논거를 변형시키는가?' 하는겁니다

0:18:32.390,0:18:34.470
** 그래서 정치적 경제는**

0:18:34.470,0:18:37.750
** 정말 상당히 강한**

0:18:37.750,0:18:38.540
** 그러니까..**

0:18:38.540,0:18:42.760
** 전체 이야기의 한 부분인거죠**

0:18:42.760,0:18:46.429
이제 제가 정치적 경제에 대해 꽤 잘 알고 있고,
관련하여 많이 읽어 왔기 때문에

0:18:46.429,0:18:50.140
매우 익숙하게 된겁니다.
아마도 그렇게 된 이유는

0:18:50.140,0:18:53.260
그것이 영국의 전통에서 시작되었고, 나머지 부분들도
제가 매우 친숙하고 편하게 느끼는 것들이기 때문일 겁니다.

0:18:53.260,0:18:56.080
그렇기 때문에 우리가 이 강의를 계속해가면서

0:18:56.080,0:18:58.960
저는 여러분게 상당한 양의

0:18:58.960,0:19:00.850
소재와 재료들 예를들면

0:19:00.850,0:19:02.960
'맑스는 그의 영감을 어디로부터 얻었는지' 알려드릴텐데

0:19:02.960,0:19:05.240
맑스는 그런것들을 자본론에서 전부 인용하고 있지 않기 때문입니다.

0:19:05.240,0:19:06.789
한가지 아이디어가 떠오르면,

0:19:06.789,0:19:08.830
그것은 분명히 특정한 곳에서 유래한것이고,

0:19:08.830,0:19:10.400
또 매우 의미심장한것임에도

0:19:10.400,0:19:14.410
맑스는 그것을 항상 인용한것은 아니었습니다.

0:19:14.410,0:19:15.820
물론

0:19:15.820,0:19:21.420
다른 이론가들도 있습니다. 미국에도 그러하구요.
주로 프랑스에 많이 있죠.

0:19:21.420,0:19:25.230
그래서 정치적 경제에 대한 프랑스 전통 역시 있습니다.
매우 다르죠.

0:19:25.230,0:19:29.370
맑스도 언급했습니다. 한번요.
만약 여러분이 좋아한다면, 그런 방대한 부분들에 대해서요

0:19:29.370,0:19:32.920
맑스에 논의에 대해서 말입니다

0:19:32.920,0:19:36.460
두번째는

0:19:36.460,0:19:39.770
독일의 고전적인 비평철학입니다.

0:19:39.770,0:19:41.870
이것은 그리스 시대까지 거슬러 올라가는 역사를 가지고 있죠

0:19:41.870,0:19:45.660
맑스는 그의 논문을

0:19:45.660,0:19:50.040
에피쿠로스에 대해 썻고, 그리스의 사상에 매우 친숙했습니다.

0:19:50.040,0:19:52.750
그리고 당연히 그리스 사상에서

0:19:52.750,0:19:56.230
독일의 철학적 비평의 전통에 이르기 까지

0:19:56.230,0:20:01.340
스피노자, 라이프니츠 그리고 헤겔과

0:20:01.340,0:20:04.390
다른 많은 철학자들과

0:20:04.390,0:20:08.470
그러한 전통도 매우 중요하게 다뤘습니다.

0:20:08.470,0:20:13.390
그래서 그가 사용한 독일의 비평철할 전통의 많은 방법들은

0:20:13.390,0:20:17.310
정치적 경제와 관련이 있고, 맑스는 이것들을 하나로 통합했습니다.

0:20:17.310,0:20:19.200
맑스가 비중있게 다룬 사람은

0:20:19.200,0:20:21.980
여러 많은 방법에서, 칸트였습니다.

0:20:21.980,0:20:23.760
따라서 그러한 전통은

0:20:23.760,0:20:27.660
매우 중요하기도 합니다. 저는

0:20:27.660,0:20:31.320
그러한 전통에 매우 친숙하지는 않지만, 그렇다고
심도있게 교육받은것은 아니었어요. 그러니..

0:20:31.320,0:20:32.590
여러분 또한

0:20:32.590,0:20:36.620
그러한 분야에 저보다 심도있는 교육을 받았다면
아마 제가 놓치는 부분들을 찾아낼수 있을겁니다.

0:20:36.620,0:20:38.970
이것이 바로 제가

0:20:38.970,0:20:41.900
철학자 그룹과 작업할때 배운점인데요

0:20:41.900,0:20:45.600
** 이분들은 헤겔과 그런 것들 모두에 저명한 분들이라,
매우 헤겔적인**

0:20:45.600,0:20:49.720
시각을 갖을수 있게 되었고, 어떻게 맑스가
진행했는지, 일부는 알고 있었지만"

0:20:49.720,0:20:50.870
제가 강한 분야가 아니었어서

0:20:50.870,0:20:53.140
정말 제대로 알고싶었던 부분들에 대해 배울수 있었습니다.

0:20:53.140,0:20:57.170
그리고 솔직히 말해서,

0:20:57.170,0:21:00.700
일전에 영국 경제학자 조안 로빈슨이

0:21:00.700,0:21:06.880
막스의 작업에 대해서 자신과 리카르도 사이에
헤겔 끼어든 방식을 정말로 반대했었다고

0:21:06.880,0:21:09.130
말했을 때 저도 그 의견에

0:21:09.130,0:21:11.870
공감했었습니다.

0:21:11.870,0:21:15.929
그리고 헤겔에 친숙해지는 데 있는
몇몇 문제들에도

0:21:15.929,0:21:19.340
약간의 공감대를 갖고 있죠

0:21:19.340,0:21:23.760
솔직히, 농담반으로 하는 말이고,
이런 말을 한다면 헤겔 추종자들을

0:21:23.760,0:21:27.530
화나게 할 지도 모르니 조심해야겠지만,
사실 맑스를 읽기 전에 헤겔을 읽어서 좋은 점 중 하나는

0:21:27.530,0:21:32.730
그것이 맑스를 읽기 쉽게 만들어 준다는 거에요.

0:21:32.730,0:21:37.270
그러니까 맑스를 읽기 전에
헤겔 책을 몇권 읽어요. 그럼 만사 오케입니다.

0:21:37.270,0:21:38.990
세번째 전통으로

0:21:38.990,0:21:41.750
맑스가 사용하는것은, 그가 많이 강조하기도 한건데요

0:21:41.750,0:21:46.070
그것은 사회주의 유토피아 입니다.

0:21:46.070,0:21:48.570
지금은 주로 프랑스쪽인데요

0:21:48.570,0:21:52.460
로버트 오웬을 비롯한 몇몇 영국인과
토머스 모어가

0:21:52.460,0:21:54.100
있기는 합니다만

0:21:54.100,0:21:57.570
이들이 이제 돌연 등장하고, 다시금 텍스트속에
등장하고 있는데

0:21:57.570,0:21:59.900
그 유력한 사상가들은 - 사실 그건

0:21:59.900,0:22:10.180
1830~1840년대에 프랑스에서 유토피아적 사상이
엄청나게 터져나왔었죠

0:22:10.180,0:22:15.510
에티엔느 카베(Etienne Cabet)같은 사람들이
이카리안이라 불리는 모임을 조직하고, 이곳에 와서
정착했습니다

0:22:15.510,0:22:19.050
1848년이후 미국으로 온겁니다.

0:22:19.050,0:22:25.490
푸르동, 생시몽, 푸우리에

0:22:25.490,0:22:28.810
맑스는 이들과 아주 아주 친밀했고,
파리에서 얼마간 시간을 보냈습니다.

0:22:28.810,0:22:30.169
그리고 그들의 작업에도 매우 익숙했었죠

0:22:30.169,0:22:37.210
또한, 만약 여러분이 공산당선언을 읽는다면,
맑스가 그들의 작업에 매우 실망했다는것도 알게될겁니다.

0:22:37.210,0:22:40.780
맑스는 그들의 방식, 즉

0:22:40.780,0:22:46.800
**유토피아 주의자들이 실제로 이상적 사회를 구상하고,
그에 대한 어떤 방안 즉"

0:22:46.800,0:22:51.080
어떻게 이룩할수 있는지에 대한 방안이 없다는데에
실망했던겁니다

0:22:51.080,0:22:54.810
맑스로 말하자면, 그가 하고자한것은

0:22:54.810,0:22:58.270
유토피아적 사회주의 프로젝트를 사회주의 프로젝트로 전환해서

0:22:58.270,0:23:02.930
과학적 사회주의 프로젝트로 바꾸려했어요.

0:23:02.930,0:23:06.220
하지만, 그렇게 하기 위해서 그는

0:23:06.220,0:23:09.490
영국 경험주의, 영국 정치경제학,
그런 종류의 것들만을 취할수는 없었던 겁니다.

0:23:09.490,0:23:14.760
맑스는 재창조하고 변경해야만 했습니다

0:23:14.760,0:23:17.870
과학적 방법이 전부였던거죠.

0:23:17.870,0:23:21.970
그리고 그의 과학적 방법으로

0:23:21.970,0:23:25.780
근거를 둔것은

0:23:25.780,0:23:29.490
**질문하기 입니다, 여러분이 괜챦으면,그건 주로"

0:23:29.490,0:23:32.190
전통적인 정치경제학에 있어서의 영국전통인데요

0:23:32.190,0:23:36.000
주로 독일의 비판철학 전통과 함께

0:23:36.000,0:23:39.500
유토피아적 자극입니다.

0:23:39.500,0:23:42.559
이런 질문들이죠. '공산주의란 무엇인가?'
'사회주의적 사회란건 무엇인가?'

0:23:42.559,0:23:44.970
'어떻게 우리가 자본주의를 비평할수 있는가?'

0:23:44.970,0:23:49.660
여러분이 좋아한다면, 맑스를 전진하게 한 그 세번째
요소는

0:23:49.660,0:23:52.710
제게는 매우 익숙한

0:23:52.710,0:23:56.549
프랑스의 사회주의적 전통으로, 주로

0:23:56.549,0:23:58.440
유토피안 전통의 시기로

0:23:58.440,0:24:02.560
글로 씌여지기도 했죠..그리고 또..여러분도 알다시피
저는 푸르리에 같은 사람들

0:24:02.560,0:24:08.559
또, 생시몽과 푸르동 같은 사람들에 대해 특히 많이 읽었고,
제생각에는 실제로

0:24:08.559,0:24:14.280
일어난 일은 맑스가 종종 그가 인정하고 싶어하는것 이상으로
그려내는데,

0:24:14.280,0:24:18.940
왜냐하면, 그는

0:24:18.940,0:24:22.030
공공연한 유토피아 전통으로부터 거리를 두고자 했어요.

0:24:22.030,0:24:25.440
그 유토피아 전통은 1830년대와 1840년대에 있었죠.

0:24:25.440,0:24:31.330
**맑스는 파리에서 있었던 1848년 혁명의 끔찍한 실패를 봤고 **

0:24:31.330,0:24:35.330
그모든것들로부터 거리를 두고싶어 했기 때문에 그가 한것을 말하자면,

0:24:35.330,0:24:39.820
'그래, 나는 그것들을 전적으로 인정하진 않을거야' 였지만,
실제로 그는

0:24:39.820,0:24:44.049
그것(유토피아 전통)을 매우 중요하게 사용했는데,
특히 생시몽을 그랬죠.

0:24:44.049,0:24:50.390
하지만 또한, 부정을 통해 푸르리에도 중요하게 사용했어요.
실제로 맑스의 많은 아이디어는

0:24:50.390,0:24:52.490
푸프리에를 부정하는 종류의 것들이 이었습니다.

0:24:52.490,0:24:55.820
그러니까 여러분은 맑스가 부정하는것을 이해하지 않고서는
그를 진짜로 이해할수 없는것입니다.

0:24:55.820,0:24:57.850
맑스가 푸르리에를 부정하는것처럼

0:24:57.850,0:24:59.570
그가 부정한것은

0:24:59.570,0:25:03.470
몇몇 정치경제학자들, 특히 맬더스(Malthus) 인데요

0:25:03.470,0:25:05.220
맬더스는 맑스가 특별히

0:25:05.220,0:25:09.740
받아들이기 어려운 것이었습니다.

0:25:09.740,0:25:15.940
그래서 여러분이 좋다면, 이책에 나오는 (정치경제학의) 주요 맥락 몇가지를

0:25:15.940,0:25:18.610
읽어야한다고 제안합니다.

0:25:18.610,0:25:23.550
맑스 자신의 용어로요. 그리고 또

0:25:23.550,0:25:28.220
어려운점들 전체와 맑스 자신이 잘 알고있던 점들을 말입니다.

0:25:28.220,0:25:31.510
흥미롭게도 그는

0:25:31.510,0:25:33.850
서문 중 하나에서 이렇게 말한적이 있었습니다

0:25:33.850,0:25:41.900
특별히 불어판 서문에서 인데요.

0:25:41.900,0:25:46.029
불어판에는 당시에 권고같은게 있었죠

0:25:46.029,0:25:51.140
시리즈로 말에요, 아시죠? 프랑스 사람들은 (프랑스)신문의
문예란같은걸 내기 좋아하쟎아요

0:25:51.140,0:25:55.170
그런 식으로, 발간되면 처음 두 챕터에 싣고

0:25:55.170,0:26:00.370
그 다음주에 시리즈처럼 더 발간하구요.

0:26:00.370,0:26:04.220
맑스가 쓴것은(1872년인데)

0:26:04.220,0:26:08.270
"나는 자본론 번역본을 시리즈로 출간한다는 아이디어에
박수를 보냅니다"

0:26:08.270,0:26:11.570
"책을 그런 방법으로 발간함으로 노동자계층의 사람들이
더 쉽게 다가갈 수 있을것입니다."

0:26:11.570,0:26:17.540
"그점이 제게는 다른 무엇보다 더 대단한 일입니다."

0:26:17.540,0:26:20.460
"그점이 본 제안(시리즈로 발간)의 좋은면입니다만"

0:26:20.460,0:26:22.940
"다른 한 면으로는"

0:26:22.940,0:26:26.120
"제가 사용하는 분석방법이"

0:26:26.120,0:26:29.799
"이전에는 경제학적 주제에 적용해보지 않았던 것이기에"

0:26:29.799,0:26:31.960
"처음 챕터들을 읽을때"

0:26:31.960,0:26:37.310
"상당히 힘들겁니다. 프랑스인들에게 있어"

0:26:37.310,0:26:38.770
"(여러분한테도 그럴것이구요)"

0:26:38.770,0:26:42.690
"…항상 참을성 없이 결론을 빨리 내리려하고,
간절하게"

0:26:42.690,0:26:44.110
"상관관계를 알고 싶어하는데"

0:26:44.110,0:26:47.040
"일반적 원리와 그들의 열정을 불러일으키는 그 순간마다 떠오르는 질문들과의
상관관계를요"

0:26:47.040,0:26:51.870
허나 단번에 파악할 수 없음은 독자들을 좌절시키지 않을까 걱정됩니다.

0:26:51.870,0:26:54.659
그것은 내(마르크스)가 극복해내기에 무력함을 느끼는 불리함이라 해야겠습니다.

0:26:54.659,0:26:57.840
진실을 갈구하는 독자를

0:26:57.840,0:27:00.850
앞서서 경고하고 주의하지 않는 이상말입니다.

0:27:00.850,0:27:04.490
과학에는 왕도가 없고, 가파른 길을 오름에

0:27:04.490,0:27:06.759
피곤함을 느끼지 않는 자만이

0:27:06.759,0:27:08.150
빛나는 정상을 차지하는

0:27:08.150,0:27:12.710
기회를 얻을 것입니다. (인용 종료)

0:27:12.710,0:27:15.399
그럼 여러분들이 진실을 갈구함에

0:27:15.399,0:27:17.830
관계하고 있는 이상,

0:27:17.830,0:27:20.019
저도 경고를 해두어야겠군요.

0:27:20.019,0:27:25.870
실제로 첫챕터 독해는 특별히 힘들고 어려울겁니다.

0:27:25.870,0:27:28.740
거기에는 몇가지 이유가 있는데요.

0:27:28.740,0:27:32.320
그중의 하나가, 곧 다루게 될 것입니다만, 그의 방법입니다.

0:27:32.320,0:27:35.640
다른 하나는

0:27:35.640,0:27:40.010
그가 자신의 계획을 위치정하는 방식입니다.

0:27:40.010,0:27:42.700
그의 계획은

0:27:42.700,0:27:48.650
자본주의적 생산 방식이 어떻게 작동하는가를 이해하는 것입니다.

0:27:48.650,0:27:55.159
그리고 이것이 아주 거대한 계획이 될것이라 그는 마음먹고 있습니다.

0:27:55.159,0:27:59.290
그 계획을 성사시키기위해

0:27:59.290,0:28:05.850
그는 개념적 장치(apparatus)를 발전시켜야만 했습니다.

0:28:05.850,0:28:11.860
자본주의하에 존재하는 모든 복잡성을 이해하기 위해 말이죠.

0:28:11.860,0:28:16.900
반복해서, 그는 그의 서문에서

0:28:16.900,0:28:20.050
그것들을 어떻게 다룰까를 논합니다.

0:28:20.050,0:28:28.320
그는 말합니다. "제시(presentation)의 방법"

0:28:28.320,0:28:31.610
제시의 방법을 다뤄보기로 하죠.

0:28:31.610,0:28:34.450
다음은 제2판의 마지막 첨가부에 있는 내용입니다.

0:28:34.450,0:28:40.200
제시의 방법은 질문의 방법과 구분되어져야한다.

0:28:40.200,0:28:43.230
후자, 즉 질문의 진행(방법)은

0:28:43.230,0:28:47.210
상세히 자료들을 유용하여야하는데, 이는

0:28:47.210,0:28:52.510
발전하는 재료의 상이한 형태를 분석, 그것들의 내적 연관성을 추적하기 위해서이다.

0:28:52.510,0:28:57.580
오직 이 작업이 수행된 뒤에서야 실제적 움직임이 적절히 제시될 것이다.

0:28:57.580,0:28:59.950
만약, 그것이 성공적으로 완성된다면,

0:28:59.950,0:29:01.900
만약, 주제의 주기(life)

0:29:01.900,0:29:04.380
즉, 자본가적 생산 방식이 개념(idea)으로써 고찰된다면,

0:29:04.380,0:29:08.090
비로소 그것은 우리앞에 미리 주어진(a priori) 구성체처럼

0:29:08.090,0:29:13.910
나타나기 시작할 것이다.

0:29:13.910,0:29:15.809
막스가 여기에서 말하고자 하는 것은

0:29:15.809,0:29:21.120
그의 질문의 방법이 제시의 방법과 상이하다는 점입니다.

0:29:21.120,0:29:26.440
그의 질문의 방식응 모든 존재하는 것과 시작됩니다. 모든 작동하고 있는 것 말입니다.

0:29:33.660,0:29:36.440
현실의 묘사로부터 시작하는 것입니다.

0:29:36.440,0:29:40.669
정치경제학자로서, 소설가로서, 모두로서

0:29:40.669,0:29:42.919
모든 자료들과 시작하는 겁니다.

0:29:42.919,0:29:46.559
그리고 그 자료안에서 찾아내는 겁니다.

0:29:46.559,0:29:49.020
어떤 단순한 개념을 말이죠

0:29:49.020,0:29:51.380
이것이 그가 말하는 하강(descent)의 방법입니다.

0:29:51.380,0:29:53.040
하강의 방법

0:29:53.040,0:29:54.980
자신이 찾은 현실로부터의 하강

0:29:54.980,0:29:57.020
훓터 내려가서 탐색하는 겁니다.

0:29:57.020,0:30:00.440
어떤 기초적이고, 근본적인 개념을 말입니다.

0:30:00.440,0:30:06.060
그리고 그러한 근본 개념들을 들춰내고 발견하면

0:30:06.060,0:30:09.970
비로소 표면으로 되돌아오는 겁니다.

0:30:09.970,0:30:13.060
그리고 표면에서 무엇이 벌어지고 있는가를 보는 것이죠

0:30:13.060,0:30:16.980
그리고 자신이 시작한 표면, 즉 드러남의 세상의 뒤에서

0:30:16.980,0:30:22.670
그 표면에서 벌어지는 것에 대한 해석의 다른 방향을 찾는 겁니다.

0:30:22.670,0:30:26.070
사실상, 마르크스는 이러한 방법의 선구자라고 할 수 있습니다.

0:30:26.070,0:30:30.860
여러분이 정신분석학과 친근하다면 이를 이해할 수 있을 겁니다.

0:30:30.860,0:30:34.490
말하자면 표면의 행동에서 출발하여

0:30:34.490,0:30:37.380
마치 프로이드가 한 것처럼 개념적 장치를 발견하는 것이지요.

0:30:37.380,0:30:40.710
개념적 장치와 함께, 표면으로 돌아와서

0:30:40.710,0:30:46.210
‘아, 저 사람은 저렇게 행동하는구나. 하지만 저건 표면에서 이렇게 보이지만,

0:30:46.210,0:30:48.100
사실은 이면의 어떤 것을 재현하는 것이야’ 라고 설명하게 될 겁니다.

0:30:48.100,0:30:51.549
마르크스도 같은 것을 하고 있는 겁니다.

0:30:51.549,0:30:54.510
그는 사회 과학에 있어 이러한 방법의 선구자이지요.

0:30:54.510,0:30:58.120
표면의 드러난 것으로부터 시작해서 깊은 개념을 찾는 것입니다.

0:30:58.120,0:31:03.330
자본론에서, 그는 깊은 개념으로부터 시작합니다.

0:31:03.330,0:31:07.950
그의 질문에 대한 결론으로부터 시작하는 거지요.

0:31:07.950,0:31:11.580
‘무엇이 나의 기본 개념인가?’

0:31:11.580,0:31:14.480
그리고 다음의 기본 개념을

0:31:14.480,0:31:18.029
아주 단순히 또 직접적으로 꺼내 놓습니다.

0:31:18.029,0:31:21.860
실상, 그것은 미리 주어진 (a priori) 구성처럼 보입니다.

0:31:21.860,0:31:23.010
그것을 처음 접할때 아마

0:31:23.010,0:31:25.540
‘이게 다 어떻게 구해진 거야?’ 라고 묻고 싶을 겁니다.

0:31:25.540,0:31:29.720
‘어디서 나오고, 이것으로 뭘 하려는 거지?’

0:31:29.720,0:31:35.880
그리고 절반이상 여러분은 그가 이 개념들로 무엇을 말하는지 이해하지 못할 겁니다.

0:31:35.880,0:31:37.780
그러나 아주 조금씩

0:31:37.780,0:31:44.340
진전함에 따라서, 이 개념들이 어떻게 우리를 둘러싼 것들을 밝혀주는지 보게 될 겁니다.

0:31:44.340,0:31:47.250
그러면 곧, ‘아!’ 라고 끄덕이기 시작할 겁니다.

0:31:47.250,0:31:49.759
‘아 이것이 가치이론의 의미이구나’

0:31:49.759,0:31:52.390
‘이것이 가치 논쟁의 내용이구나’

0:31:52.390,0:31:56.799
‘아, 이것이 페티쉬(fetish)의 내용이구나’

0:31:56.799,0:31:57.720
‘이것이 이 개념들이

0:31:57.720,0:32:00.440
나에게 적용되고 있는 거구나’

0:32:00.440,0:32:04.110
그러나 실제 여러분은 이 책의 마지막에 가서야

0:32:04.110,0:32:08.250
이 개념들이 어떻게 작동하는지를 이해하게 될 것입니다.

0:32:08.250,0:32:10.460
이것은 매우 친숙치 않은 전략입니다.

0:32:10.460,0:32:14.050
대개 우리는 저자가 독자에게 주입하는 전략에 친숙합니다.

0:32:14.050,0:32:17.600
‘개념을 바르게 잡고, 다음으로 또 다음으로’

0:32:17.600,0:32:21.240
벽돌을 한장 한장 쌓아올리는 것처럼 말입니다.
0:32:21.240,0:32:23.250
허나 마르크스는 오히려

0:32:23.250,0:32:26.540
마치 양파껍질을 벗겨내듯이, 저는 이 은유를 사용하는데. 불행한 은유입니다.

0:32:26.540,0:32:27.960
왜냐하면 누군가 지적했듯,

0:32:27.960,0:32:31.530
양파껍질을 벗겨내는 작업은 눈물을 짓게 하기 때문이지요.

0:32:31.530,0:32:35.320
그가 하는 작업은 양파의 표면인 껍질에서 시작해서

0:32:35.320,0:32:38.610
양파의 중심에 도달하고, 무엇이 양파를 자라게 하나를 발견한 후에

0:32:38.610,0:32:41.210
표면으로 돌아오는 것입니다.
0:32:41.210,0:32:45.020
그러므로, 여러분은 마지막에 가서야, 마르크스에 대해

0:32:45.020,0:32:48.380
그가 표면으로 돌아왔을때에서야 이해할 수 있을 겁니다.

0:32:48.380,0:32:52.310
무엇이 그것을 자라게하는지에 대한 그의 논쟁

0:32:52.310,0:32:54.880
내부로부터 시작에서, 그러한 층들안에서 외부로 나아가는

0:32:54.880,0:32:58.280
그것이 여러분이 진행할 작업인 것입니다.
여러분은 그 개념들을 영속적으로 확장시켜나갑니다.

0:32:58.280,0:32:59.910
무언가
0:32:59.910,0:33:03.029
매우 황량하고 또 추상적인 개념같은 것이

0:33:03.029,0:33:06.780
여러분이 진전할수록 점점 풍성해질것입니다.

0:33:06.780,0:33:08.890
그것은

0:33:08.890,0:33:11.430
이러한 개념의 팽창입니다.

0:33:11.430,0:33:15.290
그것은 벽돌쌓기같은 접근이 아닌, 우리가 친숙한 것이 아닙니다.

0:33:15.290,0:33:19.520
그래서, 무엇이 전개될것인지에 대해 익숙해질 필요가 있습니다.

0:33:19.520,0:33:21.770
그것이 여러분에게 의미하는 것은

0:33:21.770,0:33:25.540
적어도 첫째장에 대해선 독하게 버텨내야 한다는 겁니다.

0:33:25.540,0:33:29.940
왜냐하면, 도대체 무슨 내용인지를 잘 파악할 수 없을 것이기 때문입니다.

0:33:29.940,0:33:31.039
여러분이
0:33:31.039,0:33:33.790
문장들에 깊게 파고들게 된다면,

0:33:33.790,0:33:34.950
이 개념들이 어떻게 작동하는지가 보이기 시작하고

0:33:34.950,0:33:37.570
또 어떻게,, 그런 후에

0:33:37.570,0:33:39.129
먹어봐야 푸딩을 알 수 있다는 말처럼

0:33:39.129,0:33:42.550
여러분은 실제로

0:33:42.550,0:33:45.440
마르크스가 제시한 것 결과들을

0:33:45.440,0:33:49.150
도출해낼 수 있을 겁니다. 그리고 물론

0:33:49.150,0:33:54.250
여러분은 어딘가에 도달해 있을 겁니다.

0:33:54.250,0:33:57.270
맑스가 자본에서 선택한 출발점 또한 푸딩을 먹는 비유와 연관해
생각해 볼 수 있습니다.

0:33:57.270,0:33:59.629
이제 곧 보게되겠지만, 맑스는 한 관점에서 시작합니다.

0:33:59.629,0:34:04.040

그 관점은 상품에 대한 개념입니다.

0:34:04.040,0:34:07.680
제가 보기엔 이것은 정말로 이상한 출발점 입니다.

0:34:07.680,0:34:10.970
여러분들은 보통 맑스를 생각 할때면
다음과 같은 문구가 떠오를 것입니다. '모든 역사는

0:34:10.970,0:34:13.089
계급투쟁의 역사이다'

0:34:13.089,0:34:17.499
그러므로 여러분은 이렇게 생각하겠죠.'뭐, 그럼
자본론도 계급투쟁으로 시작하겠지.'

0:34:17.499,0:34:21.789
실제로는, 자본론의 300페이지 정도 넘어가야 계급투쟁이 나옵니다.

0:34:21.789,0:34:24.589
이러한 사실은 절망스럽게 들립니다 특히나

0:34:24.589,0:34:27.889
'계급투쟁' 생각을 가지고 자본론을 읽기 시작한 분들에겐 말이죠.

0:34:27.889,0:34:30.789
왜 맑스는 돈이란 개념으로 부터 자본론을 시작하지 않았을까요?

0:34:30.789,0:34:33.349
자본론 서술에 앞선 준비과정 중에선, 맑스는

0:34:33.349,0:34:36.089
'돈'을 시발점으로 자본론을 쓰고 싶었습니다.

0:34:36.089,0:34:40.809
하지만, 맑스는 그것이 시간이 가면 갈수록 더 불가능
하다는 것을 알게됬습니다.

0:34:40.809,0:34:44.269
그렇다면 왜 맑스는 노동으로 시작하지 않았을까요?
맑스는 정말 다양한 개념으로부터 자본론을 쓸 수 있었습니다.
하지만 그는

0:34:47.739,0:34:49.109
'상품'이라는 개념으로 책을 쓰기 시작했습니다.

0:34:49.109,0:34:54.359
여러분들이 맑스가 자본론을 쓰기전 준비과정 글들을 보면,
긴 기간이 존재합니다,

0:34:54.359,0:34:57.519
20~30년 정도되는. 맑스는 그 기간동안
어떠한 개념으로 책을 쓸것인지 고민했었습니다.

0:34:57.519,0:34:58.859
무엇이 최상의 시발점 이었을까요?

0:35:00.479,0:35:03.439
What's at the centre of this
onion, if you want to call it that,

0:35:03.439,0:35:05.190
when I analyze it,

0:35:05.190,0:35:06.449
it really allows me

0:35:06.449,0:35:09.579
to understand how the whole thing works?

0:35:09.579,0:35:11.640
And he decided to start with the commodity.

0:35:11.640,0:35:13.859
It's an arbitrary starting point.

0:35:13.859,0:35:17.249
You don't get its logic. He doesn't
explain it. He doesn't even bother to

0:35:17.249,0:35:19.779
try and persuade you about it.
He just says:

0:35:19.779,0:35:23.639
'This is where I start. This is how I
start to think about it. These are the concepts

0:35:23.639,0:35:27.249
I'm going to use.'

0:35:27.249,0:35:31.979
Very cryptic kind of beginning to the whole
thing. He doesn't attempt any kind of persuasion at all.

0:35:31.979,0:35:35.619
At that point you kind of say: 'Well, you know, if
there's no justification for this, why don't I

0:35:35.619,0:35:37.069
lay the text aside?'

0:35:37.069,0:35:39.420
Then the thing starts to
get a little complicated.

0:35:39.420,0:35:44.209
By the time you get to chapter three, which
is where most people who read Capital stop reading it,

0:35:44.209,0:35:46.230
if they're trying to read it on their own,

0:35:46.230,0:35:49.970
by the time you get to chapter three,
you kind of say: 'This is impossible. This is not

0:35:49.970,0:35:50.909
going anywhere.'

0:35:50.909,0:35:55.239
So it's really hard,
for those kinds of reasons.

0:35:55.239,0:36:00.309
The other reason it's hard is because,

0:36:00.309,0:36:04.179
as I suggested, the
conceptual apparatus is meant

0:36:04.179,0:36:07.039
not just to deal with Capital Volume 1.

0:36:07.039,0:36:08.549
It's meant to

0:36:08.549,0:36:13.519
take him all the way, in terms of all the
other things he wanted to think about.

0:36:13.519,0:36:18.009
Now, you'll be distressed to know
that there are three volumes of Capital.

0:36:18.009,0:36:21.189
So if you really want to
understand the capitalist mode of production,

0:36:21.189,0:36:24.109
you have to read the three volumes of Capital.

0:36:24.109,0:36:28.229
Volume 1 is just one particular perspective on

0:36:28.229,0:36:30.199
the capitalist mode of production,

0:36:30.199,0:36:36.019
but even worse, the three volumes of Capital
are only about an eighth of what he had in mind.

0:36:36.019,0:36:39.849
Here's what he wrote in
a text called the Grundrisse,

0:36:39.849,0:36:44.389
which is a preparatory text, where
he's setting out various designs for Capital.

0:36:44.389,0:36:45.649
He says: 'Okay,

0:36:45.649,0:36:50.229
what I'm going to do is to go through

0:36:50.229,0:36:51.719
the analysis as follows:

0:36:51.719,0:36:55.999
We're going to deal with: "1) The general
abstract determinants which obtain more

0:36:55.999,0:37:01.049
or less in all forms of society.

0:37:01.049,0:37:04.599
2) The categories which make up the
inner structure of bourgeois society,

0:37:04.599,0:37:08.079
and on which the fundamental
classes rest: capital,

0:37:08.079,0:37:12.899
wage labor, landed property, their interrelation.

0:37:12.899,0:37:14.669
Town and Country.

0:37:14.669,0:37:17.409
The three great social classes;

0:37:17.409,0:37:19.299
exchange between them.

0:37:19.299,0:37:20.519
Circulation.

0:37:20.519,0:37:22.599
The credit system."

0:37:22.599,0:37:24.489
Good topic right now.

0:37:24.489,0:37:27.759
"Private.

0:37:27.759,0:37:31.650
3) Concentration of bourgeois society in
the form of the state,

0:37:31.650,0:37:34.249
viewed in relation to itself.

0:37:34.249,0:37:36.909
The unproductive classes.

0:37:36.909,0:37:38.160
Taxes,

0:37:38.160,0:37:39.499
State debt.

0:37:39.499,0:37:41.059
Public credit.

0:37:41.059,0:37:42.709
The population.

0:37:42.709,0:37:44.180
The colonies.

0:37:44.180,0:37:47.699
Emigration.

0:37:47.699,0:37:50.969
4) The international relations of
production,

0:37:50.969,0:37:52.869
international division of labor,

0:37:52.869,0:37:54.589
international exchange,

0:37:54.589,0:37:56.039
export and import,

0:37:56.039,0:37:57.230
rate of exchange,"

0:37:57.230,0:38:01.359
another good topic.

0:38:01.359,0:38:02.209
"Fifth," excellent topic,

0:38:02.209,0:38:07.759
"The world market and crises.'"

0:38:07.759,0:38:08.440
So this is, if you like,

0:38:08.440,0:38:12.330
the panorama he laid out in the
Grundrisse of what it was he wanted to do.

0:38:12.330,0:38:14.799
This is what he had in mind,

0:38:14.799,0:38:17.779
that he was going to do,

0:38:17.779,0:38:20.489
when he wrote Capital.

0:38:20.489,0:38:22.279
He never finished it.

0:38:22.279,0:38:24.259
He never took up

0:38:24.259,0:38:26.390
most of those topics.

0:38:26.390,0:38:27.940
So what you have in Capital

0:38:27.940,0:38:29.999
is the beginning

0:38:29.999,0:38:33.449
of this massive kind of project,

0:38:33.449,0:38:35.639
a massive project which

0:38:35.639,0:38:37.360
he hinted at in lots

0:38:37.360,0:38:41.950
of places about, you know, how to
understand the state, how to understand

0:38:41.950,0:38:46.849
civil society, how to understand
emigration, how to understand

0:38:46.849,0:38:52.759
currency exchanges, and things like that.

0:38:52.759,0:38:56.979
So, here too, we have to understand both that

0:38:56.979,0:39:00.109
the conceptual apparatus

0:39:00.109,0:39:02.119
at the beginning, is…

0:39:02.119,0:39:06.709
he's really trying to design it in such
a way that it bears the burden of all of that,

0:39:06.709,0:39:08.890
but in fact, what it then does,

0:39:08.890,0:39:12.699
is it provides the
framework within which Volume 1

0:39:12.699,0:39:14.020
operates, and Volume 1

0:39:14.020,0:39:17.569
is just one single piece of this whole

0:39:17.569,0:39:19.719
puzzle that he's laid out.

0:39:19.719,0:39:24.229
Volume 1 is really essentially
looking at the capitalist mode of production

0:39:24.229,0:39:27.839
from the standpoint of production,

0:39:27.839,0:39:29.659
not of the market,

0:39:29.659,0:39:34.279
not of global trade, but
the standpoint of production.

0:39:34.279,0:39:37.149
So you're going to have to recognize
that what you're going to get out of this

0:39:37.149,0:39:41.190
course is an analysis, by Marx,

0:39:41.190,0:39:46.949
of a capitalist mode of
production from the perspective of production.

0:39:46.949,0:39:50.459
Volume 2 does the perspective of exchange.

0:39:50.459,0:39:55.099
Volume 3 does materials about crisis formation,

0:39:55.099,0:39:59.959
and also rules of distribution,

0:39:59.959,0:40:02.829
interest, rent, taxes,

0:40:02.829,0:40:08.419
those kinds of issues.

0:40:08.419,0:40:10.929
But then comes the method,

0:40:10.929,0:40:12.839
the other part of the method,

0:40:12.839,0:40:18.259
which is very important in terms of the
method of presentation and the method of inquiry.

0:40:18.259,0:40:23.809
And that is Marx's use of dialectics.

0:40:23.809,0:40:27.999
What he says, again in his preface,

0:40:27.999,0:40:32.190
is that in dialectics we find

0:40:32.190,0:40:34.999
a completely different

0:40:34.999,0:40:38.189
concept of analysis.

0:40:38.189,0:40:45.189
You'll find hardly any causal language
in Marx. Marx doesn't say, 'This causes that.'

0:40:45.219,0:40:47.119
He nearly always says that

0:40:47.119,0:40:51.679
'This is dialectically related to that.'

0:40:51.679,0:40:55.119
And a dialectical relation

0:40:55.119,0:40:56.529
is an inner relation,

0:40:56.529,0:41:01.069
not a causative external
relation. It's an inner relation.

0:41:01.069,0:41:05.259
And he talks about this dialectical method

0:41:05.259,0:41:09.509
again in the postface
to the second edition.

0:41:09.509,0:41:11.619
He says: 'Okay,

0:41:11.619,0:41:21.209
I took up some ideas from Hegel.

0:41:21.209,0:41:24.900
"But," he says, "my dialectical
method is, in its foundations, not only

0:41:24.900,0:41:29.479
different from the Hegelian,
but exactly opposite to it."

0:41:29.479,0:41:31.029
There are ways in which, I think,

0:41:31.029,0:41:34.579
we're going to find that's not exactly true.

0:41:34.579,0:41:38.109
That, in fact, Marx revolutionized

0:41:38.109,0:41:42.269
the dialectical method;
he didn't simply invert it,

0:41:42.269,0:41:45.189
as is sometimes said.

0:41:45.189,0:41:49.069
He then goes on to say this: "I criticized
the mystificatory side of the Hegelian

0:41:49.069,0:41:53.160
dialectic nearly thirty years ago."

0:41:53.160,0:41:58.689
What Marx is referring to here is

0:41:58.689,0:42:01.719
his tract called A Critique
of Hegel's Philosophy of Law,

0:42:01.719,0:42:05.159
Critique of Hegel's Philosophy
of Right, whichever the title is,

0:42:05.159,0:42:06.989
and I think that that critique

0:42:06.989,0:42:09.999
played a very foundational

0:42:09.999,0:42:12.819
moment in which Marx

0:42:12.819,0:42:17.169
defined his relationship to the Hegelian dialectic.

0:42:17.169,0:42:19.959
So he goes on talking about

0:42:19.959,0:42:22.809
this mystificatory aspect.

0:42:22.809,0:42:27.739
And the way in which this
mystified form of the dialectic

0:42:27.739,0:42:29.789
as purveyed by Hegel,

0:42:29.789,0:42:34.729
became the fashion in Germany,

0:42:34.729,0:42:39.759
and why it was that he had to reform it

0:42:39.759,0:42:43.619
in such a way as so it could take account

0:42:43.619,0:42:50.619
of every historical developed
form as being in a fluid state, in motion.

0:42:51.039,0:42:53.779
He had to re-figure it
so that it could grasp

0:42:53.779,0:42:59.910
the transient aspects of
a society as well.

0:42:59.910,0:43:04.859
And he then goes on to
talk about this as being,

0:43:04.859,0:43:09.099
"This dialectical method does not
let itself be impressed by anything, being

0:43:09.099,0:43:14.749
in it's very essence critical and revolutionary."

0:43:14.749,0:43:18.999
Now, what he's talking about here is,

0:43:18.999,0:43:22.639
he's going to use a
version of dialectical method

0:43:22.639,0:43:27.679
to establish relations between

0:43:27.679,0:43:29.979
elements within his system.

0:43:29.979,0:43:32.479
but he is going to do it in such a way

0:43:32.479,0:43:37.299
as to capture fluidity and motion.

0:43:37.299,0:43:41.959
Marx above all is incredibly, incredibly

0:43:41.959,0:43:44.419
impressed with the fluidity

0:43:44.419,0:43:48.739
and the dynamics of capitalism.

0:43:48.739,0:43:51.939
Now this is very weird,
because Marx is often

0:43:51.939,0:43:53.959
talked about as if he is a

0:43:53.959,0:43:57.979
static, structural analyst.

0:43:57.979,0:44:03.309
The weird thing is, when you read Capital,
you realize he sees the motion.

0:44:03.309,0:44:06.369
He sees the movement all of the time.

0:44:06.369,0:44:09.609
He is constantly talking about

0:44:09.609,0:44:14.939
that movement and that
movement is a dialectical movement.

0:44:14.939,0:44:16.710
So one of the ways in which

0:44:16.710,0:44:22.729
also you have to read Marx in Marx's
own terms is to try to grapple with

0:44:22.729,0:44:26.119
what he means by dialectics.

0:44:26.119,0:44:28.589
Because the problem is he never wrote

0:44:28.589,0:44:31.939
a tract on dialectics.

0:44:31.939,0:44:33.259
He never said:

0:44:33.259,0:44:35.499
'Okay, this is my dialectical method'.

0:44:35.499,0:44:36.630
There are hints of it.

0:44:36.630,0:44:38.800
If you really want to
understand his dialectical method,

0:44:38.800,0:44:42.259
you read Capital.

0:44:42.259,0:44:45.739
That's the best place to get it.

0:44:45.739,0:44:49.469
And when you've read
Capital very carefully you will come out

0:44:49.469,0:44:53.140
with a sense of how dialectical method works.

0:44:53.140,0:44:56.769
But again, this is going
to be a bit confusing because

0:44:56.769,0:45:01.249
you're probably not yet used
to dialectical reasoning, and the curious thing about

0:45:01.249,0:45:04.009
academia is that the more
well trained you are in a discipline,

0:45:04.009,0:45:06.549
probably less used you are

0:45:06.549,0:45:08.280
to dialectical method.

0:45:08.280,0:45:10.329
In fact young children are very dialectical.

0:45:10.329,0:45:12.449
They see everything in motion.

0:45:12.449,0:45:15.709
They see contradiction everywhere
and they are quite contradictory about everything.

0:45:15.709,0:45:18.609
Every contradiction goes
into everything else and

0:45:18.609,0:45:19.649
your kids say all kinds of

0:45:19.649,0:45:22.469
wondrous contradictory things to you.

0:45:22.469,0:45:25.819
And you kind of say 'Now you stop
thinking about that. You have to think rationally'.

0:45:25.819,0:45:28.619
So, actually, we train people

0:45:28.619,0:45:33.460
out of being good
dialecticians almost from day two.

0:45:33.460,0:45:38.519
But in fact dialectical method
is intuitively very, very powerful.

0:45:38.519,0:45:42.489
And in a sense what
Marx is doing is recovering

0:45:42.489,0:45:48.069
that incredibly intuitive
dialectical method and putting it to work,

0:45:48.069,0:45:51.400
both in terms of an
analytic schema, as we will see,

0:45:51.400,0:45:53.900
but also in terms of understanding

0:45:53.900,0:45:56.440
that everything is in process.

0:45:56.440,0:45:58.759
Everything is in motion.

0:45:58.759,0:46:01.889
Everything is defined in those terms.

0:46:01.889,0:46:03.879
He doesn't talk about labor.

0:46:03.879,0:46:07.900
He talks about the labor process.

0:46:07.900,0:46:09.289
Capital is not a thing;

0:46:09.289,0:46:13.549
it is a process; it is in motion.

0:46:13.549,0:46:18.209
Value does not exist unless it is in motion.

0:46:18.209,0:46:22.589
When things stop, value disappears,

0:46:22.589,0:46:27.269
and the whole system comes tumbling down.

0:46:27.269,0:46:28.769
And those of you who

0:46:28.769,0:46:32.410
remember very well what
happened in the aftermath of 9/11.

0:46:32.410,0:46:38.619
Most things stopped. Motion stopped.

0:46:38.619,0:46:41.869
Planes stopped flying. You
couldn't get through the bridges,

0:46:41.869,0:46:43.770
everything, and then in three days

0:46:43.770,0:46:47.099
suddenly everybody realized that
capitalism would collapse

0:46:47.099,0:46:50.420
if things didn't get in motion again,
so suddenly, you know, Giuliani

0:46:50.420,0:46:51.099
comes on and says:

0:46:51.099,0:46:54.299
'For god's sake, get out
your credit cards and go shop.

0:46:54.299,0:46:58.019
Go back to Broadway. Go back
and do this kind of stuff; go back.'

0:46:58.019,0:47:01.599
Bush even appeared on a TV
ad for the airline industry, saying:

0:47:01.599,0:47:04.509
'Get back and start flying.

0:47:04.509,0:47:07.719
Get back in motion.' You know.

0:47:07.719,0:47:12.919
In other words, capitalism is, as
Jack Kerouac would say, 'perpetually on the road.'

0:47:12.919,0:47:17.069
And if it's not always
on the road, then it's nothing.

0:47:17.069,0:47:21.650
So Marx is incredibly
appreciative of that. And it's very

0:47:21.650,0:47:25.559
strange to find him so
often depicted as this static

0:47:25.559,0:47:30.119
figure who's got it all worked out.
No, it's in motion and it's changing,

0:47:30.119,0:47:33.929
perpetually in motion.

0:47:33.929,0:47:35.609
So here, I think, too,

0:47:35.609,0:47:39.699
what Marx is trying to do
is to find a conceptual apparatus

0:47:39.699,0:47:44.640
that would help you to understand that motion.

0:47:44.640,0:47:47.329
And so, some of his concepts

0:47:47.329,0:47:49.539
are formulated in such a way

0:47:49.539,0:47:55.450
that they're about relations;
they're about transformative activity.

0:47:55.450,0:48:00.459
This is like this at this moment;
and it's like that in the next moment.

0:48:00.459,0:48:03.369
And this can get quite confusing,

0:48:03.369,0:48:06.599
but what he's trying to do is to get
behind the confusion, come up with a

0:48:06.599,0:48:08.130
conceptual apparatus,

0:48:08.130,0:48:10.089
a deep structure, if you like,

0:48:10.089,0:48:12.180
which is going to help you understand

0:48:12.180,0:48:15.959
all of that motion which
is going on around us perpetually.

0:48:15.959,0:48:20.029
And, particularly, the way in which motion is

0:48:20.029,0:48:27.029
actually instantiated within a
capitalist mode of production.

0:48:27.569,0:48:29.579
So, one of the ways
in which I think you have to

0:48:29.579,0:48:33.119
try to understand Marx is by appreciating

0:48:33.119,0:48:37.209
his dialectical method.

0:48:37.209,0:48:44.069
Now there are a lot of people, including
many Marxists, who really don't like his dialectics.

0:48:44.069,0:48:45.430
There is a whole sphere

0:48:45.430,0:48:48.189
called 'analytical Marxism,' for example,

0:48:48.189,0:48:50.819
which kind of says:
'You know, all of that dialectics…'

0:48:50.819,0:48:52.699
They actually like to call themselves

0:48:52.699,0:48:55.479
'no bullshit Marxists,'

0:48:55.479,0:49:02.599
because they just basically say:
'All that dialectics is just B.S.'

0:49:02.599,0:49:04.030
And then there are actually

0:49:04.030,0:49:09.390
other people who want to somehow or other
take something that's very dialectical and turn it into

0:49:09.390,0:49:12.809
a causative structure.

0:49:12.809,0:49:20.749
And in fact there's a whole positivist version
of what Marx says; that is, strip away the dialectics.

0:49:20.749,0:49:23.959
Now, this may be perfectly correct; I mean,
I'm not making an argument, saying, you know,

0:49:23.959,0:49:27.579
the analytical Marxists are wrong.

0:49:27.579,0:49:31.049
I'm not going to make an argument,
saying that people who turn it into

0:49:31.049,0:49:34.109
a positivist mathematical model are wrong.

0:49:34.109,0:49:36.779
Maybe they're right.

0:49:36.779,0:49:41.029
But what you have to do if you're
going to understand Marx's text in Marx's terms.

0:49:41.029,0:49:45.759
you're going to have to
grapple with the dialectic.

0:49:45.759,0:49:49.139
And it's fine afterwards
if you want a say 'Marx is wrong

0:49:49.139,0:49:52.239
the dialectic is wrong, I don't like it,
it doesn't work', this kind of thing.

0:49:52.239,0:49:53.309
That's fine.

0:49:53.309,0:49:57.619
But before you say that you've got to
understand what it is and how it is working.

0:49:57.619,0:50:01.410
So part of what we want to do

0:50:01.410,0:50:05.229
is to spend some time

0:50:05.229,0:50:08.659
recognizing that dialectical aspect of Marx,

0:50:08.659,0:50:14.269
and seeing how it works.

0:50:14.269,0:50:16.189
Now there is one

0:50:16.189,0:50:19.259
final point before we get to the break.

0:50:19.259,0:50:25.709
I asked to try to read Marx in
Marx's own terms but obviously I am your guide.

0:50:25.709,0:50:27.259
And so you going to read it

0:50:27.259,0:50:32.119
with my help and my terms
are going to be very important.

0:50:32.119,0:50:37.669
So one of the things I want to
say here is that of course my interest

0:50:37.669,0:50:41.339
in urbanisation, in uneven
geographical development, imperialism

0:50:41.339,0:50:44.059
and all those kinds of things,

0:50:44.059,0:50:48.549
that my interests have actually

0:50:48.549,0:50:53.529
become very, very important in terms of

0:50:53.529,0:50:55.659
affecting the way in
which I read this text.

0:50:55.659,0:50:56.549
In other words,

0:50:56.549,0:51:01.529
I've been through 30 odd years
of dialogue between me and this text.

0:51:01.529,0:51:04.949
And one of the reasons
I like to teach it every year is:

0:51:04.949,0:51:09.309
every year I ask to myself: 'How I'm
going to read it differently this year?

0:51:09.309,0:51:15.549
What about will strike me
that I didn't notice before?'

0:51:15.549,0:51:19.439
And new things strike me because
new events crop up, that is history

0:51:19.439,0:51:22.910
and geography change.

0:51:22.910,0:51:27.109
And so, there are certain things which arise,
and I can come back and I can look at Marx and say:

0:51:27.109,0:51:30.400
'Well, does he have anything to say about this?',
and sometimes you find something really acute

0:51:30.400,0:51:32.369
which he has to say about it,

0:51:32.369,0:51:35.239
sometimes not at all.

0:51:35.239,0:51:38.289
So, I have been through a long dialogue

0:51:38.289,0:51:41.849
and I used this way of thinking

0:51:41.849,0:51:47.949
many of these conceptional
apparatuses all of the time in the work I do.

0:51:47.949,0:51:54.159
And in the process, of course, I changed
the way in which I understand the text.

0:51:54.159,0:51:58.079
I suspect that if you could
get a recording of this class

0:51:58.079,0:51:59.759
from twenty five years ago,

0:51:59.759,0:52:01.130
you would find me saying

0:52:01.130,0:52:05.379
very different things
from what I'm saying now.

0:52:05.379,0:52:07.419
For a variety of reasons both

0:52:07.419,0:52:11.259
the historical climate has changed,
the intellectual climate has changed.

0:52:11.259,0:52:15.109
All sorts of issues have cropped
up which didn't exist before. Therefore,

0:52:15.109,0:52:17.289
you read it in a different way.

0:52:17.289,0:52:19.199
Interesting point:

0:52:19.199,0:52:23.649
in one of the prefaces Marx talks
about that process,

0:52:23.649,0:52:25.890
about how bourgeois theory

0:52:25.890,0:52:29.559
understood the world in a certain way
and then history moved on to make that

0:52:29.559,0:52:31.950
theoretical formulation redundant,

0:52:31.950,0:52:34.569
and that therefore ideas had to change

0:52:34.569,0:52:39.769
as circumstances change.

0:52:39.769,0:52:43.179
Or ideas had to be reconfigured.

0:52:43.179,0:52:44.690
So you're going to get

0:52:44.690,0:52:47.269
some of my reading in it, too.

0:52:47.269,0:52:49.370
And there's no way you
can avoid that, but

0:52:49.370,0:52:50.849
at the end of the day,

0:52:50.849,0:52:54.669
what I want you to do, is to come
to your own reading of it,

0:52:54.669,0:52:59.959
that is, engage with the text in
terms of your experience, both intellectual,

0:52:59.959,0:53:03.189
social, political,

0:53:03.189,0:53:05.599
and have a good time talking to the text,

0:53:05.599,0:53:08.130
and letting the text talk to you,

0:53:08.130,0:53:11.340
and appreciating the way
in which Marx tries

0:53:11.340,0:53:12.499
to understand the world.

0:53:12.499,0:53:17.020
Because above all I think this text is a
wonderful, wonderful exercise

0:53:17.020,0:53:19.149
in seeking to understand

0:53:19.149,0:53:21.299
what appears almost

0:53:21.299,0:53:24.039
impossible to understand.

0:53:24.039,0:53:25.900
So from this standpoint

0:53:25.900,0:53:30.919
you have to engage with the text.
And okay I'm going to be in your way a little of the time,

0:53:30.919,0:53:33.139
but I hope not too much
because at the end of the day

0:53:33.139,0:53:37.869
it is your business to really translate

0:53:37.869,0:53:40.089
what's going on in this text into

0:53:40.089,0:53:42.299
meaning in your own life.

0:53:42.299,0:53:43.490
That's what this book

0:53:43.490,0:53:46.490
is so great at. I think it will
speak to you in some way. Probably not in the

0:53:46.490,0:53:49.329
same way to you as it does to me.

0:53:49.329,0:53:52.219
And that is perfectly valid

0:53:52.219,0:53:54.420
and perfectly reasonable.
And I'd like therefore for you

0:53:54.420,0:53:58.549
to confront it in that kind of spirit.

0:53:58.549,0:54:03.799
Okay that's all I want to
say by way of introduction.

0:54:03.799,0:54:06.949
What I thought would be very useful
to do is just to read through this first

0:54:06.949,0:54:10.579
section with you and
try to give you an idea

0:54:10.579,0:54:17.809
what I mean about method and all the rest of it.

0:54:17.809,0:54:20.709
Okay, he starts off simply saying:

0:54:20.709,0:54:23.989
"The wealth of societies in which
the capitalist mode of production prevails

0:54:23.989,0:54:27.299
appears as an immense
collection of commodities;

0:54:27.299,0:54:28.739
(…)individual commodity(…)"

0:54:28.739,0:54:30.079
(…)elementary form.

0:54:30.079,0:54:31.699
Our analysis therefore begins

0:54:31.699,0:54:34.339
with the commodity."

0:54:34.339,0:54:36.099
Okay, this is the a priori

0:54:36.099,0:54:38.889
beginning point which
we've already mentioned.

0:54:38.889,0:54:40.789
But notice something

0:54:40.789,0:54:43.889
about the language: "appears".

0:54:43.889,0:54:48.549
Always watch out when
Marx uses the word "appear".

0:54:48.549,0:54:51.349
"Appears" is not "is",

0:54:51.349,0:54:53.889
"appears" means that
something else is going on,

0:54:53.889,0:54:58.410
and you better watch out and figure
out what that "something else" is.

0:54:58.410,0:55:02.899
And notice also that

0:55:02.899,0:55:05.259
he is exclusively concerned with

0:55:05.259,0:55:08.839
the "capitalist mode of production".

0:55:08.839,0:55:12.439
He's not concerned with ancient
modes of production or socialist

0:55:12.439,0:55:14.339
modes of production or

0:55:14.339,0:55:18.559
even hybrid modes of production.
He's going to be concerned with

0:55:18.559,0:55:20.329
a capitalist mode of production

0:55:20.329,0:55:23.589
in a pretty pure form.

0:55:23.589,0:55:26.670
And I think that is a very important

0:55:26.670,0:55:32.279
thing to remember when
we're reading through this text.

0:55:32.279,0:55:34.519
So this is a beginning point.

0:55:34.519,0:55:36.579
Now, when you think about it,

0:55:36.579,0:55:44.579
it's actually a very good beginning point.

0:55:44.709,0:55:46.209
Why? …How many of us

0:55:46.209,0:55:53.059
in this room have never had
any experience of a commodity?

0:55:53.059,0:55:56.949
Everybody has experiences of commodities.

0:55:56.949,0:55:59.509
Did you see one today?

0:55:59.509,0:56:01.579
Did you see one yesterday?

0:56:01.579,0:56:08.819
Are you constantly shopping for them?
Are you constantly wandering around looking at them?

0:56:08.819,0:56:13.529
The thing there is that
of what he's done is to really choose

0:56:13.529,0:56:16.509
a common denominator,

0:56:16.509,0:56:18.569
something that is common to us all,

0:56:18.569,0:56:20.619
something we know about.

0:56:20.619,0:56:24.219
We go into the shop, we buy it

0:56:24.219,0:56:27.639
and it's absolutely
necessary for our existence.

0:56:27.639,0:56:31.239
We can't live without consuming commodities.

0:56:31.239,0:56:35.169
We have to buy
commodities in order to live.

0:56:35.169,0:56:38.429
It's a simple relation as that,
so we start with that, and the other great

0:56:38.429,0:56:41.309
thing about it is,

0:56:41.309,0:56:44.439
and again I'll probably get
some flack for saying this, is:

0:56:44.439,0:56:48.119
it doesn't matter whether you're a man
or a woman or a Japanese or an ethnic

0:56:48.119,0:56:51.689
or a religious or
whatever it is, in other words:

0:56:51.689,0:56:52.699
this just very

0:56:52.699,0:56:57.619
simple kind of economic
transaction which you are looking at.

0:56:57.619,0:57:00.949
And then he says: Well, what kind of
economic transaction is it?

0:57:00.949,0:57:02.729
Well, the commodity is

0:57:02.729,0:57:08.199
something, he says,

0:57:08.199,0:57:11.849
which meets a human want or need.

0:57:11.849,0:57:13.200
and he says: I'm not

0:57:13.200,0:57:17.599
interested… and this is the cryptic
form of that … he says in the next paragraph…

0:57:17.599,0:57:20.119
OK, something external to us

0:57:20.119,0:57:24.920
which we then make ours in a way.

0:57:24.920,0:57:28.729
And it "satisfies human needs of whatever
kind. The nature of these needs whether

0:57:28.729,0:57:34.679
they arise, for example from the
stomach, or from the imagination, makes no difference."

0:57:34.679,0:57:38.159
In other words: he is not really interested in
psychologizing about it, he's laying it all aside.

0:57:38.159,0:57:42.439
Saying: I'm not really interested

0:57:42.439,0:57:47.269
in why people buy commodities.
They can buy it because

0:57:47.269,0:57:50.429
they want it, they need it, they desire it.

0:57:50.429,0:57:53.789
I can buy it for fun or
out of necessity or whatever. I'm not

0:57:53.789,0:57:56.900
interested in talking about all of that.
All I'm interested in is the very fact

0:57:56.900,0:58:01.599
of simply somebody buying a commodity.

0:58:01.599,0:58:04.279
And he then goes on and says: Well look at this.

0:58:04.279,0:58:09.159
How many commodities are there in the world?

0:58:09.159,0:58:12.269
Well, there are millions of them,
all made up of different qualities,

0:58:12.269,0:58:16.739
and we all kind of assess them in
terms of different quantitative measures.

0:58:16.739,0:58:20.549
And he again shunts this aside
and says: "The discovery of these ways

0:58:20.549,0:58:27.199
and hence of the manifold uses
of things is the work of history.

0:58:27.199,0:58:30.689
So also is the invention of socially
recognized standards of measurement for the

0:58:30.689,0:58:33.639
quantities of these useful objects.

0:58:33.639,0:58:36.749
The diversity of the measures for commodities

0:58:36.749,0:58:43.239
arises in part from the diverse nature of
the objects to the measured, and in part from convention.

0:58:43.239,0:58:46.419
The usefulness of a
thing makes it a use-value."

0:58:46.419,0:58:51.549
First big concept: use-value.

0:58:51.549,0:58:55.149
It's useful to you. I'm not interested in
discussing how it's useful to you. I'm not

0:58:55.149,0:58:59.249
interested in discussing
the history of use-values

0:58:59.249,0:59:02.669
or anything of that kind, or the way in which they
measure this kind of thing. All I'm interested in

0:59:02.669,0:59:04.429
is the concept of use-value.

0:59:04.429,0:59:10.919
Notice how he's abstracting very fast.

0:59:10.919,0:59:15.389
And he talks in one of the prefaces about

0:59:15.389,0:59:19.469
the problem for a social scientist, like himself,

0:59:19.469,0:59:24.789
is that you can't go into a laboratory
and isolate things and run experiments.

0:59:24.789,0:59:28.049
So what you have to do
in order to run an experiment

0:59:28.049,0:59:31.499
is to use what he calls:
'The power of abstraction.'

0:59:31.499,0:59:33.789
And you see immediately:

0:59:33.789,0:59:36.789
the commodity is central.

0:59:36.789,0:59:41.459
I'm abstracting from human
wants, needs and desires.

0:59:41.459,0:59:45.219
I'm abstracting from any
consideration of this specific

0:59:45.219,0:59:46.879
properties of things.

0:59:46.879,0:59:48.949
I'm just going to home in on the fact that

0:59:48.949,0:59:51.199
in some sense this commodity

0:59:51.199,0:59:58.199
has something called a use-value.

0:59:59.180,1:00:03.150
And this then immediately leads him into,

1:00:03.150,1:00:05.279
by the middle of

1:00:05.279,1:00:07.929
page hundred and twenty-six,

1:00:07.929,1:00:11.620
he says: "In the form of society
to be considered here" - i.e.

1:00:11.620,1:00:15.669
within a capitalist mode of production -

1:00:15.669,1:00:21.699
"they are also the material
bearers of exchange-value."

1:00:21.699,1:00:24.929
Again… watch this word "bearers",

1:00:24.929,1:00:27.549
a commodity is a bearer of something.

1:00:27.549,1:00:30.529
It's not to say: it "is" something.

1:00:30.529,1:00:36.259
It is a bearer of something

1:00:36.259,1:00:38.819
which we have yet to define.

1:00:38.819,1:00:41.169
And how do we think about it?

1:00:41.169,1:00:43.150
Well, when we look at exchange

1:00:43.150,1:00:48.939
processes, geographically, temporally,

1:00:48.939,1:00:52.679
what we find is an enormous kind of

1:00:52.679,1:00:56.589
process of exchange, of market exchange.

1:00:56.589,1:00:59.519
We see different ratios occurring

1:00:59.519,1:01:03.489
between shirts and shoes depending
upon the time, depending upon the place.

1:01:03.489,1:01:10.529
We see different quantitative
relations between bushels of wheat and

1:01:10.529,1:01:14.079
pairs of shoes and tons of
steel and that kind of thing.

1:01:14.079,1:01:19.849
So the first sight, what
we see in the world of exchange

1:01:19.849,1:01:26.709
is exchange-values which are
incoherent, they're all over the place.

1:01:26.709,1:01:30.400
As he says: "exchange-value

1:01:30.400,1:01:35.569
appears to be something
accidental and purely relative,

1:01:35.569,1:01:40.079
and consequently an intrinsic
value, i.e. an exchange-value that is

1:01:40.079,1:01:42.539
inseparably connected with the commodity,

1:01:42.539,1:01:50.890
inherent in it, seems to be a contradiction in terms."

1:01:55.159,1:01:56.689
We noticed something

1:01:56.689,1:01:58.990
about this world of exchange. That everything

1:01:58.990,1:02:04.869
is in principle exchangeable
with everything else.

1:02:04.869,1:02:11.089
And what this immediately implies,
as he says at page hundred and twenty-seven,

1:02:11.089,1:02:14.459
is that you are always in a position
having exchanged something for something else to

1:02:14.459,1:02:18.069
then exchange what you've
just got for something else.

1:02:18.069,1:02:19.209
In other words: You can just

1:02:19.209,1:02:21.409
keep on exchanging.

1:02:21.409,1:02:24.839
So a thing can keep on moving.

1:02:24.839,1:02:29.279
So it can be exchanged for all
the other commodities at some point.

1:02:29.279,1:02:32.649
And if that's the case, he then says

1:02:32.649,1:02:35.049
on hundred and twenty-seven,

1:02:35.049,1:02:40.049
"It follows from this that, firstly,
the valid exchange-values of a particular commodity

1:02:40.049,1:02:43.630
express something equal

1:02:43.630,1:02:47.669
and secondly, exchange-value cannot
be anything other than the mode of expression,

1:02:47.669,1:02:53.799
the form of appearance of
a content distinguishable from it."

1:02:53.799,1:02:56.349
That is: if I have a commodity in my hand,

1:02:56.349,1:02:58.559
I can't dissect it

1:02:58.559,1:03:03.469
and find out that element
inside of it that makes it exchangeable.

1:03:03.469,1:03:07.789
It's something else.

1:03:07.789,1:03:11.059
No. It is exchangeable for something else
and I can't find out what makes it exchangeable

1:03:11.059,1:03:13.189
just by looking at the commodity.

1:03:13.189,1:03:15.150
I have to look at the commodity

1:03:15.150,1:03:21.099
in motion. This is where
we start to get in motion, in movement.

1:03:21.099,1:03:24.029
I have to look at it.

1:03:24.029,1:03:24.859
And as it moves,

1:03:24.859,1:03:27.909
it is obviously expressing something

1:03:27.909,1:03:29.180
about exchangeability,

1:03:29.180,1:03:33.139
a commensurability in exchange.

1:03:33.139,1:03:36.479
It means that all things
are commensurable in exchange.

1:03:36.479,1:03:40.640
Why are they commensurable?
And what is that commensurability

1:03:40.640,1:03:42.459
made up of?

1:03:42.459,1:03:44.669
Where does it come from?

1:03:44.669,1:03:47.319
How is it defined?

1:03:47.319,1:03:51.849
And the commodity is the
bearer of that something.

1:03:51.849,1:03:54.409
But it is not inside of the commodity.

1:03:54.409,1:03:57.390
It is borne by the commodity.

1:03:57.390,1:03:58.870
It's a relation

1:03:58.870,1:04:00.379
inside of the commodity,

1:04:00.379,1:04:03.399
not a material thing.

1:04:03.399,1:04:06.569
He then goes through corn and iron

1:04:06.569,1:04:11.919
and gets into one of his geometrical examples,

1:04:11.919,1:04:14.360
but says crucially right
by the middle of the page:

1:04:14.360,1:04:18.769
"Each of them, so far as it is exchange-value,

1:04:18.769,1:04:24.789
must therefore be reducible to
this third thing," whatever it is.

1:04:24.789,1:04:28.809
And "this common element cannot
be a geometrical, physical, chemical or other

1:04:28.809,1:04:33.569
natural property of commodities,"
he says further down the page.

1:04:33.569,1:04:36.869
We're hitting something
here that is rather significant.

1:04:36.869,1:04:38.410
Marx is often

1:04:38.410,1:04:43.239
depicted as some sort of grubby materialist.
You know: Everything has to be material.

1:04:43.239,1:04:50.909
But here what we're seeing immediately: he's not
talking about the materiality of the thing at all.

1:04:50.909,1:04:54.289
You can inspect the materiality of the
commodity all you like, and you won't

1:04:54.289,1:04:55.729
find out the secret of its

1:04:55.729,1:04:58.190
commensurability and its exchangeability.

1:04:58.190,1:05:04.549
You won't find it.

1:05:04.549,1:05:08.869
And then he goes on to the
next page, hundred twenty-eight, to say:

1:05:08.869,1:05:12.689
"As use-values,

1:05:12.689,1:05:15.380
commodities differ above all in quality,

1:05:15.380,1:05:19.130
while as exchange-values they
can only differ in quantity,"

1:05:19.130,1:05:22.779
that is: how much of this
exchanges for how much of that,

1:05:22.779,1:05:27.939
"and therefore do not
contain an atom of use-value."

1:05:27.939,1:05:33.709
The commensurability that
he's talking about is not constituted

1:05:33.709,1:05:39.189
out of the utility of something.

1:05:39.189,1:05:42.999
Then he goes on to say: "If then we
disregard the use-value of commodities, only one

1:05:42.999,1:05:46.869
property remains…" and here
we're going to have another a priori leap.

1:05:46.869,1:05:48.379
What's the property?

1:05:48.379,1:05:52.079
They are all products of human labor.

1:05:52.079,1:05:55.919
That is what they have in common

1:05:55.919,1:06:04.369
and what exchange- and use-values
are bearers of is that quality

1:06:04.369,1:06:09.229
of being products of human labor.

1:06:09.229,1:06:11.599
But, he then immediately goes on to say:

1:06:11.599,1:06:14.159
What kind of labor is it?

1:06:14.159,1:06:16.899
Well, it can't be

1:06:16.899,1:06:20.599
based on the fact that
if I'm lazy and I take,

1:06:20.599,1:06:25.239
you know, fifteen days to make a shirt,
then indeed, you should pay, you know, the equivalent…

1:06:25.239,1:06:27.789
should be fifteen days of your labor,

1:06:27.789,1:06:32.079
when I can go and find somebody who has made a
shirt in three days, you know, I would exchange it

1:06:32.079,1:06:34.900
with somebody for 3 days of labor.

1:06:34.900,1:06:37.339
So he says on the bottom of that passage:

1:06:37.339,1:06:40.339
"They can no longer be distinguished,

1:06:40.339,1:06:43.999
but are all together
reduced to the same kind of labor,

1:06:43.999,1:06:46.739
human labor in the abstract."

1:06:46.739,1:06:50.559
Well, this is moving very fast, very cryptic.

1:06:50.559,1:06:51.349
Use-value,

1:06:51.349,1:06:52.659
exchange-value,

1:06:52.659,1:06:54.889
human labor in the abstract.

1:06:54.889,1:06:56.769
And here it comes:

1:06:56.769,1:06:59.660
"Let us now I look at the residue of the
products of labor. There is nothing left

1:06:59.660,1:07:01.000
of them in each case

1:07:01.000,1:07:03.999
but the same phantom-like objectivity;"

1:07:03.999,1:07:06.609
Marx loves all this stuff about phantoms and

1:07:06.609,1:07:10.009
werewolves and all that kind of
stuff. So you're gonna get a lot of that.

1:07:10.009,1:07:13.969
He's a great admirer of Shelley and
Frankenstein and all the rest of it,

1:07:13.969,1:07:16.779
so you'll get a lot of
that kind of language. It's great.

1:07:16.779,1:07:22.639
"they are merely congealed
quantities of homogeneous human labor,

1:07:22.639,1:07:26.459
human labor-power expended without
regard to the form of its expenditure.

1:07:26.459,1:07:29.989
(…)As crystals of this
social substance which is common to them all,

1:07:29.989,1:07:39.369
they are values, commodity values."

1:07:39.369,1:07:45.420
Okay, he's taken four pages to lay out

1:07:45.420,1:07:46.959
three fundamental concepts.

1:07:46.959,1:07:53.619
Use-value, exchange-value, value.

1:07:53.619,1:07:55.619
Value is what is passed on

1:07:55.619,1:07:58.909
in the process of commodity exchange.

1:07:58.909,1:08:05.629
It's the hidden element in a commodity that makes

1:08:05.629,1:08:13.819
all commodities in principle
exchangeable with each other.

1:08:13.819,1:08:19.309
So he then goes on to say:
Well, having abstracted from use-value

1:08:19.309,1:08:22.999
then we go back and
look again at exchange-value.

1:08:22.999,1:08:26.929
We then see exchange-value, as he says,
on the bottom of page hundred and twenty-eight,

1:08:26.929,1:08:29.289
"as the necessary mode of expression,

1:08:29.289,1:08:34.219
or form of appearance, of value."

1:08:34.219,1:08:37.650
Appearance, form of appearance; but
this time you're looking at it the other way.

1:08:37.650,1:08:42.049
That is there is something mysterious about
the exchangeability of all of those commodities.

1:08:42.049,1:08:47.759
There is something mysterious
about the way in which

1:08:47.759,1:08:52.639
all of those commodities could
be commensurable with each other.

1:08:52.639,1:08:56.389
And the mystery is that they're values,

1:08:56.389,1:08:58.560
But values are represented now

1:08:58.560,1:09:01.330
by exchange-value, so exchange-value,

1:09:01.330,1:09:03.069
i.e. how much you are actually get for

1:09:03.069,1:09:04.549
the product in the market,

1:09:04.549,1:09:06.250
is a representation of value,

1:09:06.250,1:09:10.749
is a representation of labor.

1:09:10.749,1:09:13.909
Now, when you go to the supermarket,

1:09:13.909,1:09:17.859
can you see the labor in the commodity?

1:09:17.859,1:09:21.719
But it has an exchange-value, right?

1:09:21.719,1:09:22.859
Again, Marx's point is:

1:09:22.859,1:09:26.969
Yeah, they are products of
labor but you can't see the labor,

1:09:26.969,1:09:29.499
you can't see the labor on the commodity.

1:09:29.499,1:09:34.949
But you get a sense of what it is
because it is represented by its price.

1:09:34.949,1:09:36.659
So that is, if you like,

1:09:36.659,1:09:42.269
exchange-value is a
representation of something else.

1:09:42.269,1:09:47.670
Now again: to say something is a
representation of something is not to say "is".

1:09:47.670,1:09:48.830
Because, as anybody would

1:09:48.830,1:09:52.170
quickly tell you, the difference
between the representation and what

1:09:52.170,1:09:55.710
actually something is, there can be quite a gap.
And Marx is going to spend quite a bit of

1:09:55.710,1:09:59.400
time talking about the nature of that gap between

1:09:59.400,1:10:06.400
value and its representation.

1:10:08.659,1:10:12.329
On hundred twenty-nine he says:

1:10:12.329,1:10:15.659
"A use-value, or useful article,

1:10:15.659,1:10:19.959
therefore, has value only because
abstract human labor is objectified

1:10:19.959,1:10:26.959
or materialized in it."

1:10:26.959,1:10:30.910
Objectified - a very important kind of concept.

1:10:30.910,1:10:37.619
A process, in fact a labor process,
becomes objectified in a thing.

1:10:37.619,1:10:42.630
This is an idea that's going to
become very important in Marx.

1:10:42.630,1:10:44.659
You have a thing

1:10:44.659,1:10:46.659
and then there is a labor process.

1:10:46.659,1:10:48.360
What's the relationship then

1:10:48.360,1:10:51.370
between the process and the thing?
This is going to come up

1:10:51.370,1:10:56.809
again and again and again in the text.

1:10:56.809,1:10:59.250
Processes and things,

1:10:59.250,1:11:05.409
the thing is a representation of the process.

1:11:05.409,1:11:07.849
You want a simple example of that?

1:11:07.849,1:11:10.369
If I set an examination right now,

1:11:10.369,1:11:13.909
I made you write out little
paper about what these concepts mean.

1:11:13.909,1:11:15.169
And then I graded you.

1:11:15.169,1:11:19.030
I'll be grading you on the thing.

1:11:19.030,1:11:23.790
What would it have to do with the
process that's going on in here?

1:11:23.790,1:11:28.150
I mean you might feel very, very outraged

1:11:28.150,1:11:33.849
when I graded you C or D or F, or something
like that, because you haven't quite got it yet.

1:11:33.849,1:11:37.149
When in fact you're struggling in the process,

1:11:37.149,1:11:41.909
the intellectual labor-process of trying
to command on what the hell is going on in this text.

1:11:41.909,1:11:43.959
It's a very important thing.

1:11:43.959,1:11:48.719
But if I try to test it as a thing…and actually,

1:11:48.719,1:11:52.119
education is full of this kind of problem.

1:11:52.119,1:11:54.249
Education is about a process,

1:11:54.249,1:11:58.599
it's about people learning things,
it's about process, thinking, all this kind of stuff.

1:11:58.599,1:12:02.149
And we are constantly testing how good
people are in terms of that process by the

1:12:02.149,1:12:04.029
things they make.

1:12:04.029,1:12:09.360
Dissertations, essays, papers,

1:12:09.360,1:12:12.669
multiple choice questions, all the rest of it.

1:12:12.669,1:12:16.320
So what Marx is doing here
is to say: Well, the representation,

1:12:16.320,1:12:18.469
i.e. the exchange-value,

1:12:18.469,1:12:21.960
is something which you can
really see, but it is

1:12:21.960,1:12:25.419
representing something which is value.

1:12:25.419,1:12:32.389
And as we will see, value is always in motion.

1:12:32.389,1:12:37.900
And that means that a
process is objectified in a thing.

1:12:37.900,1:12:40.980
A labor process, a potter making a pot

1:12:40.980,1:12:44.150
is finally objectified in a thing. And
it's the thing which is sold in the

1:12:44.150,1:12:47.000
market, not the process.

1:12:47.000,1:12:51.119
But the thing would not
exist without the process.

1:12:51.119,1:12:54.479
So the process has to be objectified.

1:12:54.479,1:12:58.059
There are some people who would
love to write a dissertation without ever

1:12:58.059,1:13:01.260
actually producing the thing.

1:13:01.260,1:13:03.449
You may come an say: Oh the process is great!

1:13:03.449,1:13:07.179
…Ah, yeah okay, PhD immediately…

1:13:07.179,1:13:09.560
…but of course, no, you've got to objectify it…

1:13:09.560,1:13:12.550
And as everybody knows who's
gone through this to some degree,

1:13:12.550,1:13:15.889
you can have great ideas and think it is
fantastic, and when you try to objectify it on paper

1:13:15.889,1:13:20.780
you say:
good god, what nonsense this is!

1:13:20.780,1:13:22.150
And so, you've got to…

1:13:22.150,1:13:25.130
so Marx is talking about that relationship.

1:13:25.130,1:13:26.159
That's right in…

1:13:26.159,1:13:27.989
that's implied in this, immediately in this

1:13:27.989,1:13:30.280
notion of objectification.

1:13:30.280,1:13:34.699
Human labor is objectified, materialized in

1:13:34.699,1:13:37.989
this thing called a commodity.

1:13:37.989,1:13:41.849
But then inside of that thing, the quantity

1:13:41.849,1:13:47.849
is measured by the duration
of the labor which is put into the thing. But…

1:13:47.849,1:13:51.969
And that itself has measures, which he said…

1:13:51.969,1:13:57.219
scale of hours, days etc.

1:13:57.219,1:13:59.199
Again, there's a reference here,

1:13:59.199,1:14:02.349
a coded reference,
if you like, to the the way in which

1:14:02.349,1:14:07.830
capitalist mode of production
sets up a certain notion of temporality.

1:14:07.830,1:14:14.570
Time, how does the capitalist mode
of production structure time?

1:14:14.570,1:14:18.060
And Marx is going to make an argument,
saying: you've got to understand that

1:14:18.060,1:14:24.280
a lot of it has to do with
the fact that time is money.

1:14:24.280,1:14:27.420
Time is connected to value in
a certain kind of way, and therefore even our

1:14:27.420,1:14:30.710
measures of time start to take on

1:14:30.710,1:14:33.950
a certain kind of allure, simply

1:14:33.950,1:14:40.950
because of the way in
which it capitalist mode of production works.

1:14:43.630,1:14:50.089
He then comes, down this paragraph, to say this:

1:14:50.089,1:14:56.039
"I'm really looking at
the total labor power of society

1:14:56.039,1:15:03.039
which is manifested in
the values of the world of commodities."

1:15:03.729,1:15:10.729
Now, where does this society exist,
and where does this world of commodities prevail?

1:15:11.469,1:15:12.850
Here you're not looking at

1:15:12.850,1:15:19.519
just one particular place, you're
actually looking at a global situation.

1:15:19.519,1:15:22.429
The world of commodities,

1:15:22.429,1:15:25.889
where is the world
of commodities right now?

1:15:25.889,1:15:29.690
It's in China, it's in Mexico, it's in Japan,

1:15:29.690,1:15:32.190
it's in Russia…

1:15:32.190,1:15:34.959
It's a global thing.

1:15:34.959,1:15:36.780
And he's looking at

1:15:36.780,1:15:39.429
society, in a sense,

1:15:39.429,1:15:42.820
the whole of the capitalist world.

1:15:42.820,1:15:47.679
So he's looking at the notion of labor,

1:15:47.679,1:15:50.639
and the measure of value,
if you like, is going to be

1:15:50.639,1:15:56.110
judged against that whole world,
it's not the specific

1:15:56.110,1:16:02.580
activity of a particular labor in a
particular place and time, now it's a whole world.

1:16:02.580,1:16:05.979
A global situation, even at this point,

1:16:05.979,1:16:08.499
and actually, there's a brilliant

1:16:08.499,1:16:11.719
sort of description of globalization, if
you want to call it that, in the

1:16:11.719,1:16:13.869
Communist Manifesto.

1:16:13.869,1:16:17.599
Where Marx talks about the impulsions
of the Bourgeoisie to create the world market

1:16:17.599,1:16:20.389
and the consequence of making that,

1:16:20.389,1:16:24.589
in which old industries get destroyed,
new ones get created, there's tremendous

1:16:24.589,1:16:26.189
kind of fluidity.

1:16:26.189,1:16:31.469
Marx was writing this in a context
where the world was opening very fast-

1:16:31.469,1:16:35.149
through the steamship and
the railways and all this kind of stuff

1:16:35.149,1:16:39.449
to a global economy.

1:16:39.449,1:16:43.159
And he understood very well the
consequences of that, which meant that

1:16:43.159,1:16:46.059
value was not something that was
determined in our backyard, but was

1:16:46.059,1:16:52.039
something which was determined
in the world of commodities.

1:16:52.039,1:16:55.439
And the result of that
is that we end up as he says:

1:16:55.439,1:16:58.340
"Each of these units,"

1:16:58.340,1:17:03.780
that is of homogenous labor-power,

1:17:03.780,1:17:07.289
"each of these units is the same as any
other to the extent that it has the

1:17:07.289,1:17:09.390
character of a socially average unit

1:17:09.390,1:17:13.109
of labor-power and acts as such(…)"

1:17:13.109,1:17:16.600
And here comes the crucial definition:

1:17:16.600,1:17:19.050
"Socially necessary labor-time

1:17:19.050,1:17:22.690
is the labor-time required to produce

1:17:22.690,1:17:27.209
any use-value under the conditions
of production normal for a given society and

1:17:27.209,1:17:32.569
with the average degree of skill and
intensity of labor prevalent in that society."

1:17:32.569,1:17:36.139
This is his first cut definition of value.

1:17:36.139,1:17:43.139
Value is socially necessary labor-time.

1:17:44.270,1:17:48.640
One of the reasons, I think, Marx thought
he could get away with this very cryptic presentation

1:17:48.640,1:17:52.249
of use-value, exchange-value and value

1:17:52.249,1:17:55.889
was because anybody who read Ricardo

1:17:55.889,1:18:00.409
would say: 'Yeah, this is pure Ricardo.'

1:18:00.409,1:18:08.499
And it is pure Ricardo, with however
one exceptional insertion.

1:18:08.499,1:18:15.019
Ricardo used the concept
of labor-time as value.

1:18:15.019,1:18:21.840
Marx uses the concept
of socially necessary labor-time.

1:18:21.840,1:18:25.420
And you should immediately
ask yourself the question:

1:18:25.420,1:18:28.420
What is 'socially necessary'?

1:18:28.420,1:18:31.699
How is that established?

1:18:31.699,1:18:34.550
He doesn't give any answer to it here.

1:18:34.550,1:18:38.429
And you only begin to get the
sense of the answer of that, when you are way on

1:18:38.429,1:18:40.969
the way through Capital.

1:18:40.969,1:18:43.389
In other words, what Marx has done

1:18:43.389,1:18:48.719
here, is simply set up the
Ricardian conceptual apparatus.

1:18:48.719,1:18:55.829
Repeat it, and in a sense say:
'Ricardo missed something out.'

1:18:55.829,1:19:03.039
It is not adequate the call value labor-time.

1:19:03.039,1:19:05.360
We have to insert that question mark:

1:19:05.360,1:19:07.759
What is socially necessary labor-time?

1:19:07.759,1:19:11.699
How is it determined? Who determines it?

1:19:11.699,1:19:14.579
And that is the big issue.

1:19:14.579,1:19:19.210
And I would submit it actually continues to
be the big issue in global capitalism,

1:19:19.210,1:19:24.279
who and how is value established?

1:19:24.279,1:19:27.729
I mean we all like to think we have our
own values and this kind of stuff, and everybody likes

1:19:27.729,1:19:31.519
to go on talking about values.

1:19:31.519,1:19:35.659
But Marx is kind of saying: 'Look,
there is a value which is being determined

1:19:35.659,1:19:38.469
by a process that we do not understand.'

1:19:38.469,1:19:41.090
And it's not our choice,

1:19:41.090,1:19:44.689
it's something that is happening to us.

1:19:44.689,1:19:46.210
And how it is happening

1:19:46.210,1:19:49.499
has to be unpacked. If you
want to understand who you are,

1:19:49.499,1:19:52.739
and where you stand in this maelstrom of

1:19:52.739,1:19:55.409
churning values and everything.
What you've got to do

1:19:55.409,1:19:58.270
is to understand how value gets created,

1:19:58.270,1:20:02.360
how it gets produced and with what consequences,

1:20:02.360,1:20:06.409
socially, environmentally, all the rest of it.

1:20:06.409,1:20:07.539
And if you think

1:20:07.539,1:20:10.780
you can solve the environmental
question of global warming and all that

1:20:10.780,1:20:13.440
kind of stuff without actually confronting

1:20:13.440,1:20:16.760
the whole kind of question of
who determines the value structure

1:20:16.760,1:20:19.819
and how is it determined by these processes,

1:20:19.819,1:20:22.980
then you got to be kidding yourself.

1:20:22.980,1:20:24.790
So what Marx in effect is saying:

1:20:24.790,1:20:28.699
You got to understand
what social necessity is.

1:20:28.699,1:20:30.550
And we've got to spend a lot of time

1:20:30.550,1:20:35.079
looking at what is socially necessary.

1:20:35.079,1:20:39.539
He immediately points out however

1:20:39.539,1:20:42.489
that value is not fixed.

1:20:42.489,1:20:46.280
I've mentioned already, he's
always on about the fluidity of things.

1:20:46.280,1:20:48.239
He says:

1:20:48.239,1:20:53.989
Of course value changes with productivity.

1:20:53.989,1:20:57.420
"The introduction of
power-looms into England, for example,

1:20:57.420,1:21:00.780
probably reduced by one half the
labor required to convert a given

1:21:00.780,1:21:04.489
quantity of yarn into woven fabric.

1:21:04.489,1:21:07.979
In order to do this, the
English hand-loom weaver needed

1:21:07.979,1:21:10.760
the the same amount of
labor-time as before;

1:21:10.760,1:21:14.530
but the product of his individual
hour of labor now only represented

1:21:14.530,1:21:16.280
half an hour of social labor,

1:21:16.280,1:21:17.660
and consequently fell

1:21:17.660,1:21:22.109
to one half of its former value."

1:21:22.109,1:21:27.690
Okay, so value is in
the first instance extremely

1:21:27.690,1:21:32.620
sensitive to revolutions in technology,

1:21:32.620,1:21:34.489
revolutions in productivity.

1:21:34.489,1:21:38.399
And much of Capital is going to
be taken up with the discussion

1:21:38.399,1:21:41.289
of those revolutions in productivity,

1:21:41.289,1:21:47.519
those revolutions in value-relations.

1:21:47.519,1:21:49.290
This leads into the conclusion then,

1:21:49.290,1:21:51.520
on the bottom of one twenty nine:

1:21:51.520,1:21:55.869
"What exclusively determines the
magnitude of the value of any article

1:21:55.869,1:21:59.279
is therefore the amount
of labor socially necessary,

1:21:59.279,1:22:03.179
or the labor time
socially necessary for its production."

1:22:03.179,1:22:06.479
There's your definition.

1:22:06.479,1:22:12.169
"The individual commodity counts
here only as an average sample of its kind."

1:22:12.169,1:22:13.809
Then he re-iterates.

1:22:13.809,1:22:17.149
You often find Marx doing this, by the way.

1:22:17.149,1:22:19.249
He repeats himself.

1:22:19.249,1:22:22.409
He kind of…figures if you didn't get the

1:22:22.409,1:22:23.979
hand-loom, the power-loom

1:22:23.979,1:22:27.260
example, so he is going to

1:22:27.260,1:22:30.599
hammer it home by pointing out

1:22:30.599,1:22:35.349
that the value of the commodity does
not remain constant, he says on hundred and thirty:

1:22:35.349,1:22:39.309
"…if the labor-time required for its
production also remained constant.

1:22:39.309,1:22:42.699
But the latter changes with every variation
in the productivity of labor." He then goes

1:22:42.699,1:22:46.480
on to talk about this. But, notice:

1:22:46.480,1:22:51.530
"This is determined by a
wide range of circumstances;

1:22:51.530,1:22:57.560
it is determined amongst other things by
the workers average degree of skill,

1:22:57.560,1:23:01.859
the level of development of
science and its technological application,…"

1:23:01.859,1:23:09.989
Marx is very hot on the significance of
technology and science to capitalism.

1:23:09.989,1:23:13.249
"…the social organization
of the process of production,

1:23:13.249,1:23:16.829
the extent and effectiveness of the means
of production, and the conditions found in

1:23:16.829,1:23:23.539
the natural environment."

1:23:23.539,1:23:30.320
Vast array of elements
which can impinge upon value.

1:23:30.320,1:23:35.139
Transformations in the natural
environment mean revolutions in value.

1:23:35.139,1:23:36.620
Technology and science,

1:23:36.620,1:23:39.159
social organization of production,

1:23:39.159,1:23:41.780
technologies, all the rest of it…

1:23:41.780,1:23:43.829
So, in fact, we've got

1:23:43.829,1:23:48.429
value which is subject to a powerful
array of forces, and he's not

1:23:48.429,1:23:52.119
here attempting a definitive categorization
of all of them, he just simply wants to

1:23:52.119,1:23:59.049
alert us, that this thing we're
calling value is not constant.

1:23:59.049,1:24:07.619
It is subject to perpetual
revolutionary transformations.

1:24:08.600,1:24:12.500
But then a peculiar thing happens.

1:24:12.500,1:24:16.659
Right in the last paragraph
on hundred and thirty one

1:24:16.659,1:24:19.849
he suddenly says:

1:24:19.849,1:24:22.610
"A thing can be a
use-value without being a value."

1:24:22.610,1:24:25.979
Okay, we can all agree on that.

1:24:25.979,1:24:29.520
We breathe air and so far we
haven't managed to bottle it, although,

1:24:29.520,1:24:36.449
we're beginning to, I guess, so…

1:24:36.449,1:24:42.219
A thing can be useful and
a product of human labor without being a commodity.

1:24:42.219,1:24:46.039
I grow tomatoes in my
backyard and I eat them…

1:24:46.039,1:24:48.749
Lots of people, even within capitalism, actually

1:24:48.749,1:24:52.749
produce a lot of things for themselves.

1:24:52.749,1:24:57.829
With a little help
from DIY and all the rest of it.

1:24:57.829,1:25:00.280
"In order to produce the latter,"

1:25:00.280,1:25:02.619
that is commodities,

1:25:02.619,1:25:03.809
"he must not only produce use-values,

1:25:03.809,1:25:08.530
but use-values for others."

1:25:08.530,1:25:13.050
Furthermore, just not simply
use-values for the lord, as a serf would do,

1:25:13.050,1:25:18.359
but use-values which are going
to go to others through the market.

1:25:18.359,1:25:20.460
So it's use-values

1:25:20.460,1:25:27.460
which you are producing,
which are going to be sent to market.

1:25:27.499,1:25:32.960
"Finally", he says, "nothing can
be a value without being an object of utility.

1:25:32.960,1:25:36.400
If the thing is useless, so is the labor
contained in it; the labor does not count

1:25:36.400,1:25:42.679
as labor, and therefore creates no value."

1:25:42.679,1:25:47.739
Now he seems to dismiss
and abstract from use-value earlier on.

1:25:47.739,1:25:48.980
Saying: 'I'm not concerned

1:25:48.980,1:25:53.050
with use-values, I'm not
interested in them, etcetera.

1:25:53.050,1:25:56.079
I abstract from them, I get to
exchange-value, and that gets me to

1:25:56.079,1:25:59.329
value. But now I've got
value, but now I'm saying:

1:25:59.329,1:26:03.289
it doesn't matter what kind of labor went
into something, if somebody doesn't want it

1:26:03.289,1:26:08.090
if it doesn't meet a human
want, need or desire, then it ain't value.'

1:26:08.090,1:26:10.949
So value is also dependent
upon it being a use-value,

1:26:10.949,1:26:13.309
for somebody, somewhere.

1:26:13.309,1:26:18.829
You have to be able to sell it.
So what he has done

1:26:18.829,1:26:25.829
is to suddenly bring
back use-value into the idea of value.

1:26:27.590,1:26:30.449
Now, there's a very interesting

1:26:30.449,1:26:31.980
kind of a structure that

1:26:31.980,1:26:34.530
goes on here. Goes like this:

1:26:34.530,1:26:39.909
And this is what I would like you to do: at
the end of almost every section you read

1:26:39.909,1:26:45.019
think about how the conceptional
apparatus is constructed,

1:26:45.019,1:26:47.999
and how it hangs together.

1:26:47.999,1:26:52.380
What we've got here is
something that goes like this:

1:26:52.380,1:27:00.679
We've got the commodity.

1:27:00.679,1:27:01.960
And we said, actually,

1:27:01.960,1:27:05.209
the commodity has a dual character.

1:27:05.209,1:27:13.309
It has a use-value.

1:27:13.610,1:27:20.610
It also has an exchange-value.

1:27:24.989,1:27:27.879
exchange-value is a
representation of something.

1:27:27.879,1:27:30.519
What is it a representation of?

1:27:30.519,1:27:36.739
It's a representation of value.

1:27:36.739,1:27:41.619
But value doesn't mean anything

1:27:41.619,1:27:47.239
unless it connects back to use-value.

1:27:47.239,1:27:50.989
What is value?

1:27:50.989,1:27:57.989
Socially necessary labor-time.

1:28:08.329,1:28:16.820
Now, if you own a house, are you more
interested in its use-value or its exchange-value?

1:28:16.820,1:28:23.820
Yeah, you're interested in both,
you'd like to have your cake and eat it.

1:28:27.469,1:28:28.699
Right?

1:28:28.699,1:28:34.999
This is sort of opposition here. If you want
to realize the exchange-value of something,

1:28:34.999,1:28:37.399
you can't have the use-value of it.

1:28:37.399,1:28:40.820
If you have the use-value of it then
it's difficult to get the exchange-value, unless you do

1:28:40.820,1:28:43.529
a reverse mortgage, or, you know,
all those kinds of things that people did

1:28:43.529,1:28:47.939
over the last few years.

1:28:47.939,1:28:50.830
But notice the structure:

1:28:50.830,1:28:53.719
Commodity, a singular concept

1:28:53.719,1:28:55.599
which has two aspects.

1:28:55.599,1:28:57.750
Now when you look at a commodity,

1:28:57.750,1:29:03.579
can you actually divide it in half and say:
that's the exchange-value and that's the use-value?

1:29:03.579,1:29:05.599
No, there's a unity.

1:29:05.599,1:29:09.260
But within that unity
there is a dual aspect.

1:29:09.260,1:29:11.079
And that dual aspect

1:29:11.079,1:29:15.999
allows us to define something, called
value, as socially necessary labor-time.

1:29:15.999,1:29:21.260
Which is what the use-value of a
commodity is a bearer of.

1:29:21.260,1:29:27.039
That's what it is a bearer of.

1:29:27.039,1:29:31.059
But, in order to be a value,
it has to be useful.

1:29:31.059,1:29:33.160
And of course, on this link

1:29:33.160,1:29:38.199
we'll see all kinds of
issues arising about supply and demand.

1:29:38.199,1:29:43.609
If the supply is too great, the value will go
down, if the supply is too little, the value will go up.

1:29:43.609,1:29:47.619
So there is an element here of
supply and demand involved.

1:29:47.619,1:29:51.320
Marx is actually not
terribly interested in that.

1:29:51.320,1:29:55.719
As he will say at various points, as he goes on,

1:29:55.719,1:29:59.170
what I'm interested in is, what happens when

1:29:59.170,1:30:04.599
supply and demand are in equilibrium.

1:30:04.599,1:30:07.949
When they are in equilibrium
I have to have a different kind of analysis

1:30:07.949,1:30:10.290
and the value of the commodities is fixed

1:30:10.290,1:30:13.869
by this socially necessary
labor-time, whatever that

1:30:13.869,1:30:20.610
social necessity is. So what you've got here

1:30:20.610,1:30:23.939
is something of this form,
which then allows us to talk about

1:30:23.939,1:30:27.849
the value of a commodity.

1:30:27.849,1:30:31.689
We can talk about commodity values.

1:30:31.689,1:30:33.420
We've got to the point where we understand:

1:30:33.420,1:30:36.420
commodity values are constituted

1:30:36.420,1:30:41.159
as socially necessary labor-time.

1:30:41.159,1:30:48.230
Now this is partly, what I would suggest,

1:30:48.230,1:30:53.579
is Marx's dialectical method working here.

1:30:53.579,1:30:59.539
Would you say that exchange-values cause value?

1:30:59.539,1:31:01.520
Would you say exchange-values

1:31:01.520,1:31:05.469
cause use-value, or use-value
is caused, or anything is caused by anything else?

1:31:05.469,1:31:09.530
This is an analysis which is not causal.

1:31:09.530,1:31:15.679
It's about relations, about dialectical relations.

1:31:15.679,1:31:21.119
Can you talk about exchange-value
without talking about use-value?

1:31:21.119,1:31:24.469
No you can't.

1:31:24.469,1:31:29.050
Can you talk about value without
talking about use-value? No you can't.

1:31:29.050,1:31:32.550
In other words, you can't talk about any
one of these concepts without talking

1:31:32.550,1:31:35.820
about all of the others.

1:31:35.820,1:31:39.690
This is what I mean about, you know,
beginning to sort of work through

1:31:39.690,1:31:43.119
the conceptual apparatus of the onion.

1:31:43.119,1:31:51.489
It's an organic, hanging together,
a set of relations, between these concepts.

1:31:51.489,1:31:54.849
But we've also seen, that we'll be

1:31:54.849,1:31:59.369
going to be talking about motion, about movement,

1:31:59.369,1:32:02.639
about the making of things, about labor processes,

1:32:02.639,1:32:08.009
which become objectified in use-values,

1:32:08.009,1:32:13.269
and which become represented by exchange-value.

1:32:13.269,1:32:17.179
So we've got a very interesting

1:32:17.179,1:32:21.270
kind of conceptual framework here,
which is not about causality at all.

1:32:21.270,1:32:23.630
It's about inner relations.

1:32:23.630,1:32:25.590
And by understanding

1:32:25.590,1:32:30.119
then we start to see also
certain tensions I've already mentioned.

1:32:30.119,1:32:31.939
That yes, it'd be very nice

1:32:31.939,1:32:36.699
to have use-value and
exchange-value at the same time.

1:32:36.699,1:32:40.159
But a lot of time we
are faced with a difficult choice.

1:32:40.159,1:32:43.380
Do I have the use-value, or do I

1:32:43.380,1:32:45.380
realize the exchange-value?

1:32:45.380,1:32:50.249
Or do I give up the
exchange-value and get the use-value?

1:32:50.249,1:32:54.609
And those are the daily decisions we
have to make when we go into the market, right?

1:32:54.609,1:32:55.629
Do I give up

1:32:55.629,1:32:58.960
the exchange-value…
money for this or do I not..?

1:32:58.960,1:33:01.730
Do I hang on to the money or what do I do?

1:33:01.730,1:33:08.239
So Marx has set up something,
that is explaining something, OK, already.

1:33:08.239,1:33:14.530
And even as he explains however,
he is not saying: this causes that.

1:33:14.530,1:33:17.250
So it's not a causal analysis.

1:33:17.250,1:33:18.459
This is where I'm beginning to…
what I want you to start to think about,

1:33:18.459,1:33:24.039
is a dialectical mode of argument.

1:33:24.039,1:33:26.980
Which is already revealing something about

1:33:26.980,1:33:31.320
the kinds of choices you
make when you go into the supermarket.

1:33:31.320,1:33:34.429
And the kinds of things
you see in the supermarket.

1:33:34.429,1:33:37.639
You're going to get a representation of
human labor in the supermarket. You're not

1:33:37.639,1:33:41.119
going to see the human labor.
You're going to get a representation.

1:33:41.119,1:33:45.590
You're gonna have to to deal with the
representation as it is objectified,

1:33:45.590,1:33:47.990
and as its value is represented,

1:33:47.990,1:33:52.260
and then you have to make a
decision about use- and exchange-value.

1:33:52.260,1:33:58.460
So this is a way of situating
what people do on a daily basis.

1:33:58.460,1:34:01.970
And you can see that
this apparatus, although Marx

1:34:01.970,1:34:05.679
doesn't take it in the
way that I'm taking it,

1:34:05.679,1:34:10.199
but if you think about it you see
immediately what this can help you understand.

1:34:10.199,1:34:14.219
So you just don't learn it as a formal abstraction.

1:34:14.219,1:34:15.869
You try to put sort of

1:34:15.869,1:34:19.809
meat on the bones of this,
by sort of thinking through.

1:34:19.809,1:34:23.260
Well, what does that actually mean?

1:34:23.260,1:34:28.840
How does that help me
understand things that are going on around me?

1:34:28.840,1:34:33.929
This is the kind of crucial sort of question

1:34:33.929,1:34:37.900
which this form of analysis sets up.

1:34:37.900,1:34:40.110
So my purpose reading through

1:34:40.110,1:34:43.939
this first section is
to give you some idea about,

1:34:43.939,1:34:47.540
if you like, create a model of
how you should try to read this.

1:34:47.540,1:34:49.470
It won't always work for you. But

1:34:49.470,1:34:53.579
what you should do at the end of every
section is: draw back, say: all right,

1:34:53.579,1:34:57.039
what kind of relationships
was he talking about here?

1:34:57.039,1:34:59.400
What do those relationships tell me

1:34:59.400,1:35:05.349
both about all of this stuff,
but also tell me about what's going on?

1:35:05.349,1:35:09.169
In my daily life, in other people's daily life,
what's going on in the market and all the

1:35:09.169,1:35:12.070
rest of it? What does it tell me?

1:35:12.070,1:35:14.880
Is it telling me anything?

1:35:14.880,1:35:18.300
And initially it will be very
hard to see what it might tell you, as you go on

1:35:18.300,1:35:21.499
Marx will start to tell
stories coming out of these relationships

1:35:21.499,1:35:23.999
and he'll spin outwards from this

1:35:23.999,1:35:29.360
into a far, far greater
understanding of the dynamics of this.

1:35:29.360,1:35:34.119
So this is the way in which he's working.

1:35:34.119,1:35:35.630
And I think what

1:35:35.630,1:35:38.499
I suggested to you is that

1:35:38.499,1:35:41.069
you should go back over this section

1:35:41.069,1:35:46.070
and look carefully at the way in which
these concepts unfold and how they work

1:35:46.070,1:35:50.030
in these sorts of terms.

1:35:50.030,1:35:52.550
Now generally speaking,

1:35:52.550,1:35:55.969
I've been talking all the time on this occasion,

1:35:55.969,1:35:58.839
as an introductory thing.

1:35:58.839,1:36:02.359
Rather necessary I
found out of bitter experience.

1:36:02.359,1:36:03.260
But I would like,

1:36:03.260,1:36:07.489
actually, to try to get
you to engage a little bit, so

1:36:07.489,1:36:09.790
in the future,

1:36:09.790,1:36:13.460
precisely because you've
read the text very carefully in advance,

1:36:13.460,1:36:17.239
you doubtless come with
all kinds of questions in your mind.

1:36:17.239,1:36:18.300
And so when

1:36:18.300,1:36:23.009
I'm talking about something and you don't
get it because it doesn't fit with what

1:36:23.009,1:36:26.619
you got, then interrupt me, Ok.

1:36:26.619,1:36:36.169
That's fine, but interrupt me about the text.

1:36:36.169,1:36:40.829
As he says about this in his
introduction to the French edition, you know,

1:36:40.829,1:36:45.729
people very often want to talk politics

1:36:45.729,1:36:49.349
in here, I love to talk politics.

1:36:49.349,1:36:52.959
But sometimes if you talk
all politics you forget the text,

1:36:52.959,1:36:56.280
and actually the politics
of this class is to get you to read the text

1:36:56.280,1:36:58.249
and understand the text.

1:36:58.249,1:37:01.570
If you want to discuss politics we go
down to O'Reilly's bar on 35th street afterwards

1:37:01.570,1:37:04.119
and discuss as much politics as you like,

1:37:04.119,1:37:06.709
over several beers and that's

1:37:06.709,1:37:08.799
part of the joy of this course.

1:37:08.799,1:37:12.819
This is…,
in here we wanna try to

1:37:12.819,1:37:14.520
keep it with the text.

1:37:14.520,1:37:18.909
But there are instances of the
sort that I sort of indicated here where

1:37:18.909,1:37:23.110
people might have a particular kind of
experience which actually is illuminated

1:37:23.110,1:37:26.209
by the framework of analysis.
And that's extremely helpful.

1:37:26.209,1:37:29.449
When people can kinda say:
yeah, that reminds me off,

1:37:29.449,1:37:33.079
you know, when I was working for
AT&T this happened etc, you know, and

1:37:33.079,1:37:36.929
this happened and this happened, and it is
exactly what Marx is talking about. In other words:

1:37:36.929,1:37:39.670
there are constant ways in which

1:37:39.670,1:37:43.520
this refers to experience. I don't
mind some of that, in fact, that's always

1:37:43.520,1:37:45.609
very, very useful, but really,

1:37:45.609,1:37:47.769
what we're trying to do
is try to make sure we

1:37:47.769,1:37:51.400
get through to the text, and we have also

1:37:51.400,1:37:54.890
a little bit more fluidity, so that
I'm not just preaching all the time

1:37:54.890,1:37:57.849
and telling all the time, a
little bit more fluidity so that you can get into

1:37:57.849,1:37:59.329
discussing some things. Now,

1:37:59.329,1:38:02.909
we have about ten minutes left
so if anybody wants to raise some

1:38:02.909,1:38:08.150
issues about what we've done?

1:38:08.150,1:38:13.909
»STUDENT: I was just wondering, because I think that,
in the philosophical tradition, when we speak of value,

1:38:13.909,1:38:14.889
you usually have this conception of something

1:38:14.889,1:38:15.689
that is absolute or that has

1:38:15.689,1:38:19.739
an independent existence grounded in reality,

1:38:19.739,1:38:23.149
and I'm wondering, whether
we can understand Marx's

1:38:23.149,1:38:27.359
definition of value as
socially necessary labor-time,

1:38:27.359,1:38:31.960
as itself, something that is socially
conditioned, and is there any way

1:38:31.960,1:38:34.489
that is totally outside,
might there be a social configuration

1:38:34.489,1:38:37.409
that we can imagine

1:38:37.409,1:38:46.280
in which value is,

1:38:46.280,1:38:49.800
actually itself its representation,

1:38:49.800,1:38:53.689
when those two things are reconciled.

1:38:53.689,1:38:57.159
Or is value always, inevitably kind of achimera?

1:38:57.159,1:39:00.969
»HARVEY: No, I think you gotta understand:

1:39:00.969,1:39:04.949
Marx's concept of value is

1:39:04.949,1:39:11.619
something which is internalized in the
processes of a capitalist mode of production.

1:39:11.619,1:39:15.380
And what he will say to you is: you may
have alternative values, and that's fine.

1:39:15.380,1:39:19.759
And you can dream about
them and want them, this kind of stuff.

1:39:19.759,1:39:26.219
But they don't mean very much,
unless you can transform

1:39:26.219,1:39:30.760
the real value system which is
governing our daily lives which is this one.

1:39:30.760,1:39:34.760
So Marx is not against, necessarily,
thinking about alternative values. And in

1:39:34.760,1:39:37.610
fact, I think, one of the big issues

1:39:37.610,1:39:43.380
which we face right now, is
precisely about what alternative values we

1:39:43.380,1:39:46.349
would like to see

1:39:46.349,1:39:49.060
operating in in the global marketplace.

1:39:49.060,1:39:52.709
Values of fairness…

1:39:52.709,1:39:57.559
and this is particularly coming up in
the environmental issue, for example.

1:39:57.559,1:40:01.820
People want to talk about
environmental values which should be

1:40:01.820,1:40:04.680
part in this. And the
answer again, as I suggested, is:

1:40:04.680,1:40:06.949
Marx would say: that's fine.

1:40:06.949,1:40:10.600
Well, he might not say that's fine, he had a
particular kind of aim of where he wants to go.

1:40:10.600,1:40:13.310
But I think, theoretically he would say:

1:40:13.310,1:40:18.090
that's fine. But in order to
make your notion of value work

1:40:18.090,1:40:21.979
you have to confront the one which is actually

1:40:21.979,1:40:23.820
dominating us in terms of

1:40:23.820,1:40:27.159
what's going on in the supermarket, how we're
living our daily lives and all the rest of it.

1:40:27.159,1:40:29.840
And we're talking about a value theory

1:40:29.840,1:40:32.059
which is implicated inside of

1:40:32.059,1:40:34.340
a capitalist mode of production.

1:40:34.340,1:40:40.260
Now, there's been a
categorical mistake in many instances,

1:40:40.260,1:40:43.979
precisely because value is located
in relationship to labor and labor processes,

1:40:43.979,1:40:49.589
that there's been a lot of
thinking in socialist societies of taking

1:40:49.589,1:40:54.229
Marx's labor theory of value
also almost as a normative device

1:40:54.229,1:40:56.439
to think about how

1:40:56.439,1:40:57.499
socialism should work.

1:40:57.499,1:41:00.150
But this is not what
Marx is saying, he's saying:

1:41:00.150,1:41:02.179
value is inherent

1:41:02.179,1:41:03.949
within a capitalist mode of production.

1:41:03.949,1:41:06.889
And we have to come to terms

1:41:06.889,1:41:08.879
with what that value is.

1:41:08.879,1:41:11.159
Now, there are alternative value theories.

1:41:11.159,1:41:12.810
And you know, you can

1:41:12.810,1:41:17.050
philosophize about them, think
about them and worry about them, socially,

1:41:17.050,1:41:18.939
politically, all the rest of it…

1:41:18.939,1:41:22.499
But his point is, as I suggested,

1:41:22.499,1:41:25.420
you've always got to come
back to confront this one,

1:41:25.420,1:41:28.570
because this is very basic to how
capitalist mode of production works.

1:41:28.570,1:41:29.119
And if you wanna

1:41:29.119,1:41:31.969
instantiate a different set of
values, then you've gotta

1:41:31.969,1:41:35.300
overthrow a capitalist mode of production.

1:41:35.300,1:41:38.280
And that's his revolutionary intent.

1:41:38.280,1:41:43.530
Sorry, there was a question here.

1:41:43.530,1:41:47.869
»STUDENT: Yeah, I just was wondering if
you could talk a little bit about how we should think

1:41:47.869,1:41:49.339
about objectification. Because, I know, the
preconceived notion I bring to it is

1:41:49.339,1:41:52.219
much more static in terms of,

1:41:52.219,1:41:54.480
as labor is objectified, it
moves away from the laborer

1:41:54.480,1:41:57.030
and there's this separation.

1:41:57.030,1:42:01.509
How can I think about that in terms of,

1:42:01.509,1:42:04.409
more process oriented?

1:42:04.409,1:42:08.270
»HARVEY: Well, again…
the thing is not…

1:42:08.270,1:42:11.159
…is not…, for instance:

1:42:11.159,1:42:13.189
Just to give you an example:

1:42:13.189,1:42:14.639

1:42:14.639,1:42:17.749
Let's suppose that labor produces a house.

1:42:17.749,1:42:20.090
Okay the laborers that
produced the house move away from it,

1:42:20.090,1:42:23.510
then maybe other laborers move in to it.

1:42:23.510,1:42:27.769
And then there's the issue of: is that
house then fixed forever in terms of

1:42:27.769,1:42:32.080
its value? Well, given the way
he set it up, the answer is no.

1:42:32.080,1:42:36.329
Because let's suppose
there are revolutions in technology

1:42:36.329,1:42:40.199
which suddenly make housing
production much easier.

1:42:40.199,1:42:44.480
Then you can go away from, I don't know,
shanty towns to sort of housing of a

1:42:44.480,1:42:47.300
different kind, and therefore there's a dynamic

1:42:47.300,1:42:50.900
involved in this, and therefore,

1:42:50.900,1:42:53.540
you know, this gets back to the fact that

1:42:53.540,1:42:57.699
something like a house has a use-value and
the use-value remains a long time and you can still

1:42:57.699,1:43:00.889
trade its exchange-value,
so it has a residual exchange-value.

1:43:00.889,1:43:02.019
So…,

1:43:02.019,1:43:03.930
so again there's a dynamic here,

1:43:03.930,1:43:05.370
so the thing

1:43:05.370,1:43:07.849
and the qualities of things are not fixed.

1:43:07.849,1:43:10.550
In fact, again, there's a lot of

1:43:10.550,1:43:14.989
dynamism in this. But again Marx,
by and large, is not going to be concerned about that

1:43:14.989,1:43:16.929
in Capital. He's going to sort of say:

1:43:16.929,1:43:21.589
OK, I'm gonna assume it's fixed for the moment.

1:43:21.589,1:43:24.000
But nevertheless, what
he's saying here is:

1:43:24.000,1:43:29.109
watch out!, it's always in motion,
it's never fixed, it's always changing, it's a dynamic

1:43:29.109,1:43:32.429
concept, not a static one.
And the objectification

1:43:32.429,1:43:37.189
is there, but again, the meaning
of the objectification itself changes over time

1:43:37.189,1:43:39.699
and according to place. So you know

1:43:39.699,1:43:45.199
there are all those elements within it.

1:43:45.199,1:43:46.779
» STUDENT: This particular vision of the capitalist

1:43:46.779,1:43:50.590
world that Marx deals with

1:43:50.590,1:43:52.469
diverges, I mean obviously

1:43:52.469,1:43:53.679
diverges with the modern day…

1:43:53.679,1:43:59.539
Specifically with the way in which laws, and
you know, create a proprietary… you know

1:43:59.539,1:44:01.769
only certain companies
can make one thing, and then,

1:44:01.769,1:44:06.690
corporations sort of

1:44:06.690,1:44:07.700
dominate the scene.

1:44:07.700,1:44:12.019
It's not a free market- protectionist laws,

1:44:12.019,1:44:15.800
…does that…

1:44:15.800,1:44:18.959
affect the values being purely
about the socially necessary labor-time.

1:44:18.959,1:44:21.800
»HARVEY: Well that's one of the
questions which you have to ask about. What is

1:44:21.800,1:44:23.989
socially necessary labor-time?

1:44:23.989,1:44:25.800
How is it determined?

1:44:25.800,1:44:30.120
To what degree is there a monopoly
power in the market which is determining it?

1:44:30.120,1:44:36.380
To what degree is there imperialist
politics which is determining it?

1:44:36.380,1:44:38.739
To what degree is there

1:44:38.739,1:44:41.189
colonial enslavement which is determining it?

1:44:41.189,1:44:42.130
In other words:

1:44:42.130,1:44:43.869
those are open questions.

1:44:43.869,1:44:47.479
And Marx is very much open to

1:44:47.479,1:44:49.459
discussing those sorts of questions

1:44:49.459,1:44:53.699
in principle. But again, what
we're going to look at is

1:44:53.699,1:44:57.359
Marx's conception of a pure
capitalist mode of production.

1:44:57.359,1:45:01.449
Which in many ways, as we will see,
is guided by the vision of classical

1:45:01.449,1:45:03.249
political economy.

1:45:03.249,1:45:06.510
In other words: classical political economy

1:45:06.510,1:45:09.969
assumes there were going to be perfectly
functioning markets and the state power

1:45:09.969,1:45:14.070
is going to be out of the way,
and there's gonna be no monopoly.

1:45:14.070,1:45:17.739
So Marx tends to say:
okay, let's assume that

1:45:17.739,1:45:21.469
the classical political economists are
correct and that's how the world is.

1:45:21.469,1:45:23.969
We will see examples where

1:45:23.969,1:45:27.659
that presumption gets him into difficulties.

1:45:27.659,1:45:29.699
But actually, there's nothing

1:45:29.699,1:45:33.320
in this conception that says you can't
consider all those things, because,

1:45:33.320,1:45:36.099
for me anyway, the category socially necessary

1:45:36.099,1:45:38.170
is something which is perpetually open,

1:45:38.170,1:45:39.650
is constantly changing.

1:45:39.650,1:45:41.659
What is socially necessary now?

1:45:41.659,1:45:45.650
as opposed to what was
socially necessary in 1850.

1:45:45.650,1:45:50.099
Very different. And so you know,

1:45:50.099,1:45:52.510
I would want you to think about this as

1:45:52.510,1:45:55.580
having a flexible reading in this,
but realize that Marx is using it

1:45:55.580,1:45:59.219
in a very specific way, in a very specific situation

1:45:59.219,1:46:03.340
for very specific purposes.

1:46:03.340,1:46:06.739
»STUDENT: Does socially necessary
imply the amount of labor required

1:46:06.739,1:46:10.729
for a laborer to reproduce him- or herself?

1:46:10.729,1:46:12.559
»HARVEY: Socially necessary

1:46:12.559,1:46:15.849
can include that kind of question.

1:46:15.849,1:46:19.290
As many socialist feminists pointed out in the

1:46:19.290,1:46:22.690
debates of the nineteen
sixties/nineteen seventies,

1:46:22.690,1:46:26.489
the whole question of socially necessary,

1:46:26.489,1:46:28.650
has to take into account

1:46:28.650,1:46:31.860
certain basic costs of reproduction
that are born inside of the household

1:46:31.860,1:46:35.369
and which may be
disproportionately born by women.

1:46:35.369,1:46:38.429
Even though, actually, if you look
at the whole history of the industrial

1:46:38.429,1:46:40.480
revolution, it was women's labor

1:46:40.480,1:46:44.070
in the factories that was
fundamental, as it is today. And most of

1:46:44.070,1:46:47.840
the global proletariat right now is women.

1:46:47.840,1:46:51.190
So the kind of social
reproduction aspect of it, and how to

1:46:51.190,1:46:53.289
integrate that into
socially necessary, has been

1:46:53.289,1:46:58.230
a contentious issue amongst Marxists.

1:46:58.230,1:47:01.690
And what you have to
remember by the way, is that Marx

1:47:01.690,1:47:07.969
was a little skeptical of this
term "Marxist". He once said: 'I am not a Marxist.'

1:47:07.969,1:47:11.489
What he meant by that, was, there
were a lot of things being said in his name, that were

1:47:11.489,1:47:13.639
not exactly what he had to say.

1:47:13.639,1:47:18.309
So again, that's one of the reasons
why I want you to think about this in Marx's

1:47:18.309,1:47:21.940
own terms. Because, you know,

1:47:21.940,1:47:24.139
it's very, it's very important to realize

1:47:24.139,1:47:28.309
how he expands this
notion of social necessity,

1:47:28.309,1:47:29.679
we will see.

1:47:29.679,1:47:32.889
How you might want to expand it,
is again something that is open

1:47:32.889,1:47:34.479
to discussion and debate.

1:47:34.479,1:47:37.039
How we should expand it,

1:47:37.039,1:47:41.719
in terms of a socialist project, or
socio-ecological project, or a social-

1:47:41.719,1:47:43.070
feminist project, or whatever.

1:47:43.070,1:47:44.899
How we should expand it,

1:47:44.899,1:47:47.730
again, is something very much up to us.

1:47:47.730,1:47:51.609
And I don't think Marx would want to be read

1:47:51.609,1:47:55.389
as someone providing a
gospel within which you

1:47:55.389,1:47:56.590
can find yourself.

1:47:56.590,1:48:00.110
It's not about confining mode of
argument, it's a matter of

1:48:00.110,1:48:03.469
liberating you to think about
all kinds of possibilities,

1:48:03.469,1:48:05.369
all kinds of alternatives,

1:48:05.369,1:48:08.780
all kinds of ways to go.

1:48:08.780,1:48:09.929
Just one more.

1:48:09.929,1:48:13.959
»STUDENT: Could you just
clarify very specifically

1:48:13.959,1:48:15.649
the difference between
use-value and exchange-value?

1:48:15.649,1:48:19.880
»HARVEY: Use-value is a shirt or a shoe,

1:48:19.880,1:48:21.889
whatever you use. The exchange-value is:

1:48:21.889,1:48:25.880
shirts and shoes in the market,
and about the prices on them,

1:48:25.880,1:48:30.099
put very simply. And it's…

1:48:30.099,1:48:33.419
I don't like to use the word price at this
point, because we haven't talked very much about

1:48:33.419,1:48:35.969
money. But when you get
further down the line

1:48:35.969,1:48:40.610
you see it's really about prices realized
in the market, and exchange-value is the price

1:48:40.610,1:48:43.769
of a commodity.

1:48:43.769,1:48:46.609
Okay, we should leave it there.
So thanks very much.

1:48:46.609,1:48:52.909
We don't meet next week, right?,
because…What is it?

1:48:52.909,1:48:55.679
» STUDENT: Labor Day.
» DAVID HARVEY: Oh, Labor Day, what a good idea.

1:48:55.679,1:48:57.739
Next time I want you to read

1:48:57.739,1:49:03.840
the rest of chapter one, and chapter two.

1:49:03.840,1:49:08.169
So we will get to the end
of chapter two. Chapter two is pretty short.

1:49:08.169,1:49:12.650
The rest of this chapter is very
curious for a variety of reasons. I mentioned

1:49:12.650,1:49:17.599
Marx's literary style. His
literary style changes from

1:49:17.599,1:49:23.369
crisp analytic, like you've seen here,
and that goes on for the next one,

1:49:23.369,1:49:27.419
to what I can only call
his kind of 'accountancy style',

1:49:27.419,1:49:29.869
which is deadly boring.

1:49:29.869,1:49:31.629
Where: 'this is worth two shillings

1:49:31.629,1:49:34.650
and that's worth three shillings,

1:49:34.650,1:49:38.269
and that's worth two and a half pence.
And if we add this to that we will end up with…'

1:49:38.269,1:49:39.269
Deadly boring.

1:49:39.269,1:49:42.980
So the third section is rather long

1:49:42.980,1:49:46.550
and rather boring of that style.

1:49:46.550,1:49:49.510
And he could have done
it much quicker in my view.

1:49:49.510,1:49:52.860
But it has some very important
insights in it. And so you're going to

1:49:52.860,1:49:53.810
find yourself struggling.

1:49:53.810,1:49:57.070
The last section of chapter one is the
fetishism of commodities, where it's

1:49:57.070,1:50:00.300
about werewolves and Robinson Crusoe,

1:50:00.300,1:50:04.489
in an incredible kind of literary
style. So you suddenly find in this chapter

1:50:04.489,1:50:08.159
you're going to have a big
sample of Marx's different writing styles.

1:50:08.159,1:50:09.479
And they are all together.

1:50:09.479,1:50:13.699
Now, if you wrote a PhD that way, people
would say: For god's sakes!, smooth this out,

1:50:13.699,1:50:15.320
you can't do that.

1:50:15.320,1:50:18.380
Which style you're gonna write in?
But he writes in different styles.

1:50:18.380,1:50:19.559
And he enjoys it.

1:50:19.559,1:50:21.810
And it's fun, actually, because you starts to say:

1:50:21.810,1:50:25.049
How on earth does this relate to that?

1:50:25.049,1:50:28.939
And what does this really mean?
So anyway, chapter one is like that.

1:50:28.939,1:50:30.369
Chapter two is relatively short,

1:50:30.369,1:50:33.389
and again fairly analytic.

1:50:33.389,1:50:36.969
Key concepts are laid out a bit like here. So
it's a step further along the conceptional apparatus.

1:50:36.969,1:50:42.199
Okay? So chapters one and two

1:50:42.199,1:50:45.859
for next time.