Seriously

I haven't fallen behind with reading, I'm just negligent with posting. But I have plans to change that. Big, big plans.

As it is, let me avoid a pile-up of observations for my next post by mentioning something that struck me while watching the first Harvey video from the Harvey website. He ends by making a very sharp observation: Marx basically agrees with the neoclassical economists on a lot of positions. On the dynamics of economic logic and on the almost metaphysical existence of some invisible force making decisions through the proxy of the capitalist class. In the more recent chapters, I have been struck by how Marx's footnotes are no longer long arguments, tirades, historical examples but simply small quotes from bourgeoisie, classical economics to support a contention. He more or less ASSUMES a lot of the logic of those he criticizes, which, as Harvey points out, leads to a lot of confusion and messiness on both Marx's part and the reader's. This book is not an anti-economics tirade (how could you turn that into 4,000 pages?) but rather one that takes a body of work at its word and then tries to mess around with it with great detail and subtlety, showing how, by looking at the same process from a different perspective, different explanations emerge for the same appearances. Isn't that interesting?