Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Headshop Reading Group

Page: (1)2

05:35 / 07.07.02

does anyone think this is a good idea? i think we've thrown the idea around a few times but nothing's ever come of it. i would like to give it a try, the obvious priority being to pick something that people without access to uni libraries can get at reasonably easily. thus, and no, i am not kidding, i want to suggest Capital, volume one.

is anyone interested?

16:15 / 07.07.02

I don't believe that you're not kidding. What happened to "Who the fuck has read the first volume of Capital?" But it could be fun.

18:20 / 07.07.02

Frighteningly, yes, I would be up for this. Because I am unbelievably lazy, and this might help motivate me... and I should have read Capital at some point in the last three years, and haven't.

18:57 / 07.07.02

I think this is a tremendous idea. I'm very much up for reading something more weighty for a change. Not so keen on the idea of Capital though - surely there's something more contemporary that we should be reading?

19:40 / 07.07.02

I'm up for it, but not really Capital.

21:28 / 07.07.02

I actually think Capital is a great idea, though my past ventures into it fill me with none too little fear. Perhaps some, er, easier Marx (German Ideology?) would be better.

As for reading something more contemporary, I'd like to respectively disagree. How can you read early Baudrillard, for example, without having read Marx? How can you read Lacan without reading Freud? I think there's a tendency for people interested in theory to gloss over the earlier stuff and jump right into more "contemporary" theory without the grounding to understand the arguments that these guys are making.

I'm not making an argument that one has to be familiar with the depth and breadth of the western philosophical tradition to comprehend current theory. But there are some figures (I'd say Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Hegel off the top of my head) that are indispensible to have more than a passing acquaintance with if you want to really get into the meat of theory.

Just my two cents.

22:07 / 07.07.02

Other points in favour of Capital:

"Who the fuck has read the first volume of Capital?" - exactly. More or less, everyone I know has an opinion on Marx, but I don't think I know anyone who's read anything more than, say, the Manifesto and a few pages in the Grundrisse. Then there's Picasso's point, or something related, which is that most theory-bitch-lithers are probably fairly familiar with Marxist theory (from some combination of, say, Althusser, Gramsci, Negri, Baudrillard, Haraway, Jameson, Eagleton, Butler, and some 'Marx for Beginners' book they read in second year), without having read any actual Marx. And I am increasingly of the opinion that Marx had more to say than more or less any of his latter commentators.

Similarly, Marx is less likely to be familiar territory for people familiar with contemporary theory; less likely to confirm already held ideas.

More importantly, maybe, I have decided I want to read Capital, or at least try, and I'm never going to do it without some kind of incentive. And it would be better and more fun to have a bunch of people working at the same material.

03:37 / 08.07.02

No one's gonna be surprised I don't think there's spomething more contemporary we oughtta be reading, right? The text is pretty dry, though. And old. But really, the finest subcultural discussion available should have some background...

Crunchy's reasons are all pretty valid. Y'all should keep in mind hir resistance to Marx in the past and rethink yr own; or at least rubberneck for amusement.

When do we start?

03:52 / 08.07.02

well i don't have a copy handy right now, but it's divided into reasonably hefty sections, right? how about we tackle one section per fortnight, starting now - with the possibility of revising this depending on how we go with the first one.

basically, i am saying this is what i'm going to do - read the first section in the next fortnight and then start a thread about it. anybody else who wants to join in, that would be lovely. if people want to start theory-ish reading groups for other texts, i think that's also a good idea, and might join in.

06:54 / 08.07.02

There is no point in the history of philosophy where you can jump in and comprehend all the implications. Marx himself didn't spring fully formed from the pouting genitals of history. Clearly Marx has been profoundly influential, but just as people can tend to get overwhelmed in the parts of the theory that have clearly dated in Freud - probably a more useful way to understand contemporary Marxist thought would be to read some contemporary Marxism...

09:42 / 08.07.02

I'm down 4 whatever- but really, couldn't we read something contemporary + Marxist?- not neo-what-have-you, but dialectical materialist, intensely sociological, cognizant of revolutionary theory . . . + increasingly on the money, as much good marxist economic theory is. It'd be an honor to read this with y'all as global capitalism crumbles.

my suggestion:

'against capitalism' by schweickart

perhaps the most sophisticated explication of 3rd way economics, or 'economic democracy,' as its known in this book.

12:37 / 08.07.02

I can see both sides of this argument, but I'm going to have to weigh in on the side of reading some primary sources. I agree that reading contemporary theory might be more fun, but one's understanding of more recent theory can't help but be strengthened by a solid first-hand understanding of the texts on which it's based, right?

On another note, to all you Brits out there: Fortnight?! I once knew how long that was, but can't remember...

12:41 / 08.07.02

So are we at all close to a consensus on this? I'm keen for whatever is chosen, particularly Marx as I've only read a little, years ago, and though I'm respectably shitscared of Capital, I'll wade in if we get a definite decision. I don't want to rush out and buy it tonight and begin the haul if no one else is in, but we probably shouldn't spend 2 weeks discussing what to read while Crunchy courageously sails on alone.

15:36 / 08.07.02

It's like in Total Recall, when Arnold is wearing a woman: "Two weeks."

Anyway, two barbies don't make a consensus, but I'll be ready for the first section when the thread goes up. I'll be using the Penguin Classics ed. But, for you folks who can stand to read from the screen, Capital Vol. I is available at the Marx & Engels Archive, with hyperlinked endnotes.

Incidentally, I agree with Tom. I just wanna go through the basics again. A book I've ref'd from time to time is finally being published: Class Theory and History: Capitalism and Communism in the USSR ships this month. These two fellas organize an annual international conference on Marxism, and they write well. Of course, the book is expensive and otherwise difficult to find; whereas Capital is public domain.

06:04 / 10.07.02

just to clarify, in the edition i have the part i'm reading is called 'part one, commodities and money'. it's about 150 pages. oh, and a fortnight is two weeks. i don't remember when i posted the other thing so let's say two weeks from today - making it, what, the 24th (australian time).

i am not suggesting marx constitutes some sort of originary philosophico-practical ejaculation, just that he's probably got something interesting to say, and more than likely something more interesting than most of what passes for marxism these days.

i really don't think, for the most part, contemporary theory is any less boring than marx was. having started capital this morning, i am happy to say it's definitely no worse than derrida, lacan, althusser, etc. (not that they're necessarily the most contemporary of thinkers, but you know what i mean...)

10:20 / 10.07.02

OK, discussion over. Just f***ing do it. We'll start with Capital Vol.1 and then if people want to do a more recent book we can always start another thread. Maybe people could even *gasp* read TWO books at once!!!

I await the first post from DCP on Capital Vol.1 Reading Group Thread with keen interest.

12:26 / 10.07.02

I wanted to lend moral support to this as I though I would be keen to do read Capital, Im not sure I really have the time. Would it be a good idea to have an ongoing Headshop book of the month?

23:38 / 10.07.02

do you have any idea how long capital is? it's a pretty ongoing project, believe me.

07:30 / 11.07.02

Fortunately I was able to snag a cheap second hand copy last night, so I'll be ready when it kicks off. My only problem is that I'm off travelling for 2 months after the first week of September, so I'll be trying to get as much done as I can by then. As it's about 900+ pages I should be able to keep to 100 or hopefully more pages a week for 7 weeks. Don't know what timetable everyone else is looking at, but I'll participate while I can.

08:03 / 11.07.02

Sounds good, I'll have section one finished by the 24th.

10:44 / 11.07.02

DPC: I just assumeed that it would fizzle out after a little while, but I didn't count on your iron resolve.

10:59 / 11.07.02

I'll try to join. Very little time to spare for theory, but I know, activism without theory is worthless..

Is there some definitive english translation, or does that matter? I might have an easier time finding reading it in Finnish or Swedish, but we'll see. Maybe the online version after all..

12:39 / 23.07.02

Just bumping this to remind folks that Crunchy is due to start the thread tomorrow (24th). Although if the board's closing in a week then it makes it a bit weird beginning a project like this. But dammit I read my section and it's not going to waste!

07:14 / 24.07.02

that's kind of funny, cause it's the 24th here already, and i just came here to say that because i haven't quite finished the section and don't have much time today, i will start the thread tomorrow (of course others are welcome to whenever they want...)

but what's this about closing down? did i miss a meeting?

12:03 / 04.11.06

I'm bumping this to echo Mr Disco's suggestion in Policy, so we can all gauge interest and make suggestions...

13:26 / 04.11.06

I'd be interesting in a reading group. Discussion on reading material was what i enjoyed most about my Phil' course at uni, and i kinda miss the multiple perspectives this discourse provides to a reading (In short: I like to chat shit about philosophy).

I'm a bit broke at the moment, so i'd kinda be limited to stuff i already have or can download, or can buy for very little money.

I've recently started on 'Power - Essential works of Foucault' which is proving entertaining. I'm a lecture into 'Truth and juridical forms' which is pretty interesting.

I'm mighty keen on anything Nietzsche, but he doesn't really count as contemporary.

I'd be interested in reading something modern - Foucault was about as modern as my uni course got, and that was just one essay's worth.

So. Yes. I'd like to play. Which book?

14:09 / 04.11.06

Obviously it would be preferable if we could settle on something available online, likely to be obtainable from non-academic libraries, or cheap... Failing that, perhaps some people with institutional access to electronic journals and the like could distribute a few illicit .pdfs?

If we do chose Foucault, there are a few texts available here. Something short like 'The Subject and Power' might be suitable. Most Nietzsche texts should also be online, although I don't have time to hunt down particular ones now. I think the 'Genealogy of Morals' would be a good choice (three reasonably short and self-contained essays), or maybe Twilight of the Idols (again, short)? There's an enormous amount of stuff available in the libom library, but its all fairly Marxian which might not suit everybody. It all hangs on what's most likely to hold people's interest.

semioticrobotic

17:05 / 04.11.06

I'm trying to tackle Spinoza independently right now. And it's hard. (Actually, I'm reading primers, because that's more my style.) I'd love some discourse (i.e., help) if anyone's interested in going that direction.

17:39 / 04.11.06

Oh, I'm very happy to talk about Spinoza, here or elsewhere! I'm currently trying to find a route back into academia so that I can study him full-time...

I'm most comfortable with 'straight-forward' anglo-american readings (Stuart Hampshire, Edwin Curley, Michael Della Rocca, etc.), but he's also been the source of my most rewarding flirtations with continental stuff via Deleuze (Spinoza: Practical Philosophy is a superb book, for understanding Deleuze AND Spinoza). Still, I think reading the Ethics as a group might prove incredibly difficult and frustrating, particularly as a trial run - if we don't end up doing it feel free to PM me for discussion/pointers.

semioticrobotic

00:42 / 05.11.06

Spinoza: Practical Philosophy is a superb book, for understanding Deleuze AND Spinoza

Fantastic to hear, as this is the one I'm currently plodding through. Maybe I'll PM you!

I like the idea of tackling chapters at a time, whatever the group decides to read.

Disco is My Class War

04:13 / 05.11.06

I'd be really into reading Spinoza. I've read Spinoza before, but probably not enough. It is difficult to decide what bits to read, though. As I said, in the Policy thread, I'm more for short essays or chapters than whole books. I'd also like to suggest that we try to stick to original texts rather than introductions or commentaries.

And .trampetunia, my idea is that we should scan pdf's and distribute them amongst ourselves. I have a scanner and access to an academic library, and am happy to host pdf's to download.

05:35 / 05.11.06

I don't think I have enough background (or context) to get much from Spinoza, but I doubt it can hurt to take a whack at it.

06:46 / 05.11.06

If people are really into the idea of reading Spinoza there's a very useful hypertext here.

The obvious thing to do would be to just chose Book 1 of the Ethics - about 32 pages in my copy - and see how we go. But its a) probably the most difficult part of the text after Book 5; and b) not that interesting from anything other than an austerely metaphysical point of view, without the rest of the text to support it. The whole point of the geometric style is that Spinoza is constantly building on previous proofs, so you're always going to need some idea of what's gone before - this makes it difficult to just dive right in with Book 2 or 3. What might work, though, is using the appendix to Book 1 as our actual text, with the idea that people will also read through the preceeding proofs. It has the advantage of being straight prose rather than proofs, and it sums up most of the material while also making explicit some of its implications, which can be one of the most difficult things to get you head round if you're just reading the proofs. There are similar appendices and scholia throughout, and they're all quite short - other interesting possibilities might be the preface and appendix to Book 4.

We could try one of the other texts of course - the Theological-Political Treatise, for example - but I think the most fruitful readings all require knowledge of the ethics. We could look at some of his correspondance. I'm thinking about the letters on evil to Blydenburgh, which Deleuze talks about in Spinoza: Practical Philosophy (see alterity's post here - Bryan, that's probably particularly useful for you). But then we're inevitably going to end up talking about Deleuze's reading of Spinoza more than Spinoza himself...

So I think Spinoza would be ambitious but not impossible. Are there any other suggestions? The more people involved, the better this will be.

11:16 / 05.11.06

I have illicit .pdf access. If it's been in a journal over the last 200 years then chances are I can get it.

17:33 / 05.11.06

I've just bought a book called Pandora's Hope which is a book that attempts to push past the question of whether or not there is a reality that science studies, which I have been recommended as a way to reconcile (or transcend) the relativist / absolutist distinctions (or essentialist / constructivist if you take another direction). I'm really fascinated by it as a progression that actually affects the debates that I have semi-regularly, so if there was likely to be a reading group chapter by chapter around that, I'd be extremely up for it.

Page: (1)2