I'm the biggest fan of Harvey's stuff from the 1980s and his geography. 'Limits to Capital' is still one of the best books on 'Capital' there is. I love his stuff on 19th century Paris. 'The Condition of Postmodernity' was the single book most responsible for getting me interested in economics. But I regret to report that 'The Enigma of Capital' is not his best work. Frankly, it's a complete mess. He keeps on half-heartedly developing ad hoc systems of categories, referring to a few news reports (in a loose sense - there are few actual references in the book, even for direct quotes), then dropping the schema and moving on to something else.
I think the problem in 'Enigma', besides it being a rush-job, is that he neglects mid-range theory - he obviously knows his concepts (see 'Limits to Capital') and he can read a newspaper, but there is no linkage between the two so it's a jumble. I also think it's a shame that except for snide remarks he sees no reason to deal with economics or finance beyond what he gets from 'Capital' - it means the likes of De Long have an easy time because he makes easily-avoidable errors. For example he mixes up bank deposits, reserves and capital, and he uses 'surplus' to refer interchangeably to quite different concepts.
Mike Beggs