【马经学子必备】马克思主义经济学精髓Introduction to Karl Marx's Capital

相似文件 换一批

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

马克思三卷本《资本论》精髓

Michael Heinrich, Alex Locascio, "An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital"
English | 2012-06-01 | ISBN: 1583672893, 1583672885 | 220 pages | PDF | 6 mb

【教材简介】
    始于2008年的新一轮世界经济危机，至少有一个意料之外的结果：马克思的《资本论》热卖！尽管主流经济学家认为马克思资本论过时了而且有缺陷。但也有Michael Heinrich这样的学者，他们一直看好马克思资本论的价值，认为有必要解释马克思精妙思想。
    Heinrich对《资本论》的诠释，现在有了英译版（这可是首次奥）。这是西方尤其是德国大学最为流行的一本资本论教科书。作者清晰凝练与诠释了马克思的三卷本资本论的主要思想。

   此书2012年首次出现英译本，好评如潮，备受英语国家马克思主义学者推崇。二楼为简要书评，三楼为详细书评。
.【下载地址】此处，收费：10币+回复

本帖隐藏的内容

An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital.rar (6.1 MB, 需要: 10 个论坛币) 本附件包括：

• An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital.pdf

2014-1-10 09:21:04 上传

需要: 10 个论坛币  [购买]

专业发布北美最流行数学与经管类教材，为及时下载请点我头像下方“关注”，因我通常免费半天或一天


马上有马经好书....
理解资本：马克思经济理论
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-2858470-1-1.html
北美知名马经学者、新大学（The New School）教授力作

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享1 收藏12 回帖

关键词：introduction troduction 马克思主义经济学 Capital capita 马克思 Michael 经济学 资本论 傻傻

简要书评

I hear from many people who’d love to read Capital, but find the thing almost prohibitively daunting. Michael Heinrich has written an excellent little introduction to Marx’s masterpiece. Among its many virtues is that it takes money and finance seriously, which many Marxists don’t. But even if you’ve read lots of Marx, you can still learn a lot by reading this book.

—Doug Henwood, editor, Left Business ObserverWhether

one is a ‘traditional world-view Marxist’ like myself, or a student who wants to understand this world we live in, or an activist who is committed to changing it, Michael Heinrich’s succinct, lucid, compelling summary of the three volumes of Marx’s Capital is a ‘must-read’ in our time of crisis.

—Paul LeBlanc, professor of history, La Roche College; author, From Marx to Gramsci and Marx, Lenin and the Revolutionary Experience

The best introduction to Capital I have read. Heinrich has done the world of Marx scholarship a great service. In presenting Marx’s critique of the entire structure of capitalism, Heinrich manages to be comprehensive, deep, and clear at the same time. While making a substantial advance in analyzing Marx, he makes this book accessible to readers who are relatively unfamiliar with Marx.

—Michael Perelman, professor of economics, California State University, Chico; author, The Invisible Handcuffs of Capitalism and The Confiscation of American Prosperity

A brilliant presentation of Marx’s Capital—it would be hard to imagine a more timely publication. Anyone who thought Marx was irrelevant to today’s movement needs only to read this book to see things differently. Whether people describe themselves as anarchists or socialists, all of us can benefit from understanding what Marx actually wrote. Must reading for everyone in the Occupy movement and for everyone who wants to understand social relations in contemporary capitalist societies.

—Paddy Quick, member, Union for Radical Political Economics;St. Francis College

This is likely the best short introduction to Marx’s Capital to ever appear in English. Michael Heinrich succeeds in providing the readers with a clear and profound understanding of the core of the Marxian critique of political economy, thanks to his deep knowledge of the critical edition of Marx and Engels’s collected writings and of the German debate.

—Riccardo Bellofiore, professor of monetary economics and history of economic thought, University of Bergamo, Italy; co-editor, Re-Reading Marx: New Perspectives after the Critical Edition

A fundamental reinterpretation and understanding of all major ‘chapters’ of Marx’s theory, many of which which remain until now a matter of different interpretations or even dispute among Marxist and Non-Marxist economists and, more generally, social scientists: value theory, money and the credit system, the ‘falling rate of profit,’ economic cycles and crises, and the circuit of social capital … an important book for all those seeking to comprehend the workings of capitalism, but also for the university library and the students’ or scholars’ study of Marx’s theory.

—John Milios, professor of economics, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

The best and most comprehensive introduction to Marx’s Capital there is. It is written in a most accessible style and provides an admirably clear explanation of complex ideas. In contrast to other Introductions to Marx’s Capital, it offers a sophisticated commentary on all three volumes of Capital, provides an excellent critical commentary on the secondary literature, and includes pertinent case studies to illustrate the contemporary relevance of Capital, including an excursus on anti-Semitism, globalization, and imperialism. Its scholarly treatment of Capital is at once accessible, comprehensive and contemporary. I do not know of any better introduction to Capital for undergraduate students and non-specialist readers.

—Werner Bonefeld, Department of Politics, University of York

In only 220 pages the author achieves a summary of the three volumes of Capital: explaining the connection between labor, commodities, and money, how surplus value arises, what capital is, the role of banks and stock exchanges, and from where crises arise. Alongside this he manages to fit in the history of Marxism, demystify the ambiguous term dialectic, and throw in a final chapter on the role of the state in capitalism, all the while refuting common mistakes about the Marxian corpus.

—Stephan Kaufmann, Berliner Zeitung

详细书评

An Introduction to the Three Volume’s of Karl Marx’s Capital
FRIDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2012
WRITTEN BY DOMINIC ALEXANDER
Economics has a reputation as a difficult, not to say daunting, subject. On the face of it this should be a paradox, since economic activity, in one way or another, is something that everyone engages in almost every day. Yet there is an observable chasm between individual ‘economic’ experience and the discourse of economists, beyond any merely academic obfuscation. That gap alone may dismay, but the ‘dismal science’, as it was known from early on, provokes many to turn away perhaps not least because it always seems to offer unpleasant conclusions to almost everyone, not least the working class.
The answer to this problem is certainly not to attempt a ‘common sense’ economics, as that almost invariably produces know-nothing conclusions, such as the assumption that the state’s finances should work like that of a household. It is simply true that the impact of individual economic activity can produce results not intended or recognisable to the actors concerned. In this sense the whole really is more than the sum of its parts, and the individual is not an atom but a social being. Moreover capitalism in particular produces results and tendencies that are notably perverse; overproduction of goods leading to depression and scarcity, for example. Capitalism as a system appears to supersede the wills of even its most powerful actors, such that it would seem that our lives are ruled by apparently ‘natural’ laws of what is in fact only a historically specific state of affairs. For an endeavour that is quintessentially materialist in nature, economics has a decidedly mystical or metaphysical appearance for the intimidated lay observer.
Despite sharing the forbidding aura of difficulty with other economic texts, Marx’s Capital is precisely the book that promises to liberate us from the oppressive weight of capitalist economic logic. As political economy, it renders natural laws of economics into historical and social dynamics, potentially therefore subject to human control. Capital remains, by far and away, the most important examination of both bourgeois economics and the capitalist system itself that has ever been attempted (it might be noted that it is probably the most important unfinished work of modern literature). Marx’s task was to reveal what lies hidden underneath the appearances of capitalism. Classical bourgeois economists attempted to explore the nature of capitalism through what were, to their lights, common-sense starting points, such as the rational, acquisitive individual. However, it turned out that behind apparently obvious and concrete phenomena such as profit and price lurked rather more mysterious issues to do with value, such as the contradictions between its forms as ‘use value’ and ‘exchange value’.
Modern economics has not solved the problems thrown up by classical economists, but largely by-passed them. While at least classical economists did try to start with what they assumed were irreducible premises, such as the rational individual, much modern economics makes assumptions that are well outside any common-sense formulations. The recurring tendency to claim in each sustained boom that a new crisis is impossible this time, despite all the evidence to the contrary, might be considered a case in point. The alternative, however, is not to turn away in trepidation at a difficult and dismal subject, but to explore the hidden realities of our lives in capitalism, and to discover the real relationships and contradictions that both ordinary ‘common-sense’ and bourgeois economics would hide from us.
There are an increasing number of helpful introductions to Capital to make it more accessible for those reluctant to jump in feet first. The German Marxist Michael Heinrich wrote this introduction in 2004, and it is very welcome that it is now available in English. One aspect of Capital that could well seem daunting is the number of terms with quite precise meanings, such as the various concepts of value, their distinction from price, or surplus value, which is not quite the same thing as profit, or even further, the various specific forms of capital. An understanding of these is not in fact difficult to acquire and Heinrich’s short book is a crisp and clear introduction to all the relevant concepts, and the very exact ways in which Marx uses them. In fact a very large number of supposedly definitive refutations of Marx’s theories in Capital rest on misunderstandings of his analytical apparatus.
Neo-classical economists typically translate Marx’s language and methodology into their own terms, not noticing the important differences and distinctions, and are thereby able to ‘disprove’ Marx’s labour theory of value, for example. Heinrich is particularly useful here in offering some neat rebuttals of the standard objections. A common-sense ploy notes the inflated prices of some commodities, such as a work of art, whose exchange value is clearly not strongly related to the labour expended in its creation (pp.42-3). However these kinds of commodities are overwhelmingly the exception, and even underline how ‘most economic products are not unique, but rather mass-produced goods’, and there the ‘socially necessary labour-time’ expended in production creates value (p.43). It is not the individual labour that goes into a particular commodity which creates its value. The socially-average amount of labour that is required for commodities of that type determines value, and lies behind a commodity’s ultimate price.
Many of the standard objections to Marx’s interpretation of the labour theory of value start with the mistake of reasoning from the particular commodity or the work of an individual labourer. However, value cannot be determined on the basis of an individual commodity produced by a single worker in particular circumstances, but rather from the perspective of the totality of production. Value is at once tangible in its forms of use value and exchange value, but only exists in the totality, in a social sense, not in an individual, empirical sense. This is a whole area which neo-classical economics abandoned fairly soon after Marx was writing; perhaps, as some have observed, not coincidentally. Current economic theory tends to avoid questions of value altogether, using instead the market-orientated ‘marginal utility’ theory.
An important distinction between Marx and bourgeois economics is therefore the difference in standpoint. The latter typically start from the point of view of the individual capitalist, while Marx takes the social perspective. His analysis is thus able to uncover what is happening in capitalist production and exchange behind the capitalist’s back, as it were. One notable conclusion, not very often remarked upon, which is possible to draw from Marx’s analysis here, is that individual capitalists are not in a position to understand capitalism itself. Indeed, explaining the ‘reproduction of an individual capital’ is not possible through taking one concern in isolation, rather the problem must be considered ‘as a moment in the reproduction of the total social capital’ (p.137).
Thus the calculation of value, for example, effectively cannot be made for an individual commodity, and be thus translated into an actual price. Rather the social average of value is the operative level in which the issues become clear; ‘the substance of value, and thus the value-objectivity, is something only obtained by things when they are set into relation with one another in exchange’ (p.53). Part of the length of Capital is due to the meticulous chains of reasoning with which Marx accomplishes his proofs of these kinds of propositions. Heinrich does take the reader through such arguments crisply and with clarity, so the subsequent reading of Capital would probably be smoother as a result.
It is not only bourgeois economists who tend to misinterpret Marx disastrously. A major concern of Heinrich’s introduction is to correct the distortions of Marx due to mechanical and deterministic readings from significant parts of the Marxist tradition itself. It is very easy to take one-sided readings of some of Capital’s analysis and thereby distort the argument. Commodity fetishism, for example, arises because the relationship of producers to each other ‘appears as a relationship between things’. Thus capitalist relations appear as natural rather than social and contingent. This is a mystification of social relations, but in one sense it is also a true statement of conditions in capitalism (p.73). Thus, against the view taken by ‘representatives of traditional Marxism’, the working class does not spontaneously see through the fetishism of commodities, as this is part of concrete experience. Yet neither is the mystification of social production something totally impenetrable (p.79). The point is that the working class has the potential, through its capacity for collective action, to break through the illusions created by capitalist relations.
In general, Heinrich’s arguments against mechanical readings of Marx are well taken, as also is the recurring point that Marx was not engaged in moralistic attacks on capitalism, but in a critique arising from an analysis of the system on its own terms. Reading Heinrich, however, it would be possible to gain the impression that Marx in the course of Capital was not also displaying his outrage at capitalism with at least the same degree of verve as he does in any of his other writings. It is perhaps too much to expect a short introduction to display all the qualities of the three volumes. Nonetheless, at points, Heinrich’s introduction has a defensive quality that seems to emphasise the academic and abstruse nature of Capital over the clarity of its critique. It is entirely correct to point out that there is no automatic or general spontaneous working class reaction against capitalism that leads in a deterministic way to revolution. Nonetheless, while revolution is not inevitable, Heinrich seems to downplay the extent to which the system does produce, as a matter of course, opposition, and the potential for a successful revolutionary transformation.
Part of the reason for the defensive tone may lie in the time and place of the book’s original publication, Germany in 2004, where capitalism may well have seemed particularly successful. Reading it now, in the midst of a world economic crisis, it seems more reasonable to emphasise the tendency of the system to produce crisis, and the possibility that its illusions could be ripped away. There is a general point here, in that simple readings of Marx, particularly of the Communist Manifesto, have led to the notion that Marx predicted the absolute immiseration of the proletariat and that this situation would mechanically cause the revolution. Simple-minded attacks on Marxism have held that since standards of living have risen in the West, Marx has been shown to be wrong, and therefore the working class is not exploited by the system. Against this, Heinrich demonstrates that exploitation, in the sense of the extraction of surplus value from labour, can increase alongside a rise in the standard of living (pp.119-20).
This is important, and it is worth following Heinrich’s proof of this carefully, but the ‘absence of immiseration’ argument has always had other weaknesses. Firstly it never put the prosperity of western economies into international context, so avoiding a whole series of issues about capitalism as an international, and imperialist, system. Secondly, the argument has been increasingly tendentious over the last thirty years as neo-liberal assaults on the post-war settlement have steadily undermined the security of the western working-class standard of living. The mechanical reading of Marx that supposes that capitalism will, in some linear fashion, grind the proletariat until revolution is the only possible outcome, is incorrect. Nonetheless, the latest economic disaster only underlines the tendency of capitalism to produce crisis, and also confirms that in the absence of very serious resistance, the working class will always be made to pay for the stabilisation of the system.
One central contradiction of capitalism is the drive for capitalists to pay their own workers the least possible, while needing other capitalists’ workers to be paid enough to afford their goods. As a result, the system is always precariously balanced at the best of times. While Marxists cannot sit back and wait for the system to collapse of its own accord, the contradictions that Marx exposed in Capital mean that there is always fuel for resistance, and therefore the possibility of radical systemic change. In critiquing mechanistic interpretations of Marx, Heinrich tends to emphasise the tendencies that counteract the potential for revolution, but both sides of the contradiction need to be born in mind. Capital does not predict the inevitable and imminent collapse of capitalism, but it should inspire optimism of the revolutionary will.

我顶！

看一看

看看看

谢谢！！！！！

so nice

回复

马克思三卷本《资本论》精髓