Karl Marx - The Capital (Audiobook)
Report Abuse/Infringement 1 Seeds 26 Leechers2.03 GB
Karl Marxs Capital as Audiobook
MarxΓÇÖs aim in Capital, Volume I is to uncover and explain the laws specific to the capitalist mode of production and of the class struggles rooted in these capitalist social relations of production. Marx said himself that his aim was ΓÇ£to bring a science [i.e. political economy] by criticism to the point where it can be dialectically representedΓÇ¥, and in this way to ΓÇ£reveal the law of motion of modern societyΓÇ¥. By showing how capitalist development was the precursor of a new, socialist mode of production, he aimed to provide a scientific foundation for the modern labour movement. In preparation for his book, he studied the economic literature available in his time for a period of twelve years, mainly in the British Museum in London.
Tags: Communism socialism sozialismus Karl Marx Friedrich Engels revolution money economy business work labour equality justice capitalism bank capital the capital
Oct 18 2008, 15:21 CEST
There has always been a relationship between philosophy, theory, etc. and the hard sciences. Marx was a great philosopher, but economics in its modern form is a hard science. Marx was a great philosopher but not much of a mathematician. Marx only embarrassed himself with Capital.
Oct 18 2008, 23:29 CEST
Economics is a hard science? Under what kind of definition?
You can legitimately claim that Marx has been proven
wrong in certain aspects, but history has arguably proven him correct in other ways.
It doesn't seem that your contention has any merit.
Oct 19 2008, 08:04 CEST
Under the definition that it is a science built on mathematical models, often derived from empirical data. Look at trends in behavioral economics for instance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science
Marx has been proven wrong in some respects? All of his economic ideas in the book are gibberish. Have you read it? In light of modern economic models, Capital is naive at best, pathetic at worst. I'm told there are some philosophic ideas in the book that are noteworthy. But what I read before I put the book down for being absurd didn't have anything worthwhile in it.
Oct 19 2008, 22:12 CEST
Materialist dialectics has had an important influence on the sciences, and runs in parallel and complements evolutionary theory. Another important idea mentioned in the book is the theory of metabolism between man and nature, whereby man changes their environment through production, and are themselves changed. Capitalism introduces a rift between man and nature, and each other. We are now highly alienated from nature and from each other. As far as "hard science" of current economic theory goes, just as all sciences have large elements of social construction, economics has been highly constructed by the domination of the capitalist paradigm. Do you think a capitalist economist will come up with any evidence that supports Marx's ideas? If that were to happen there must have been something wrong with the model, so start over.
Oct 20 2008, 18:27 CEST
If Capital confuses you to the degree that you must call it "gibberish" then you should read David Harvey. He puts things in perspective.
As a physics major, I'm a little disgusted you could claim economics a hard science. Understand some Karl Popper- economic theories aren't even empirically provable, let alone falsifiable. That doesn't mean that economics is less important or anything, just don't try to pretend that it is hard science.
Aug 24 2010, 14:48 CEST