Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist

Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist


10 thoughts on “Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production

  1. Trevor Trevor says:

    Louis Althusser wrote a preface to a French translation of Capital and in it he gives lots of advice on how to read this book I recommend you read this book according to that advice, even if I didn t quite do that myself A big part of that advice is to not read in the order that Marx wrote You see, the first few chapters on the commodity are seriously hard going Much harder going than just about anything else in the book In fact, Althusser was pretty well just following Marx s on advice th Louis Althusser wrote a preface to a French translation of Capital and in it he gives lots of advice on how to read this book I recommend you read this book according to that advice, even if I didn t quite do that myself A big part of that advice is to not read in the order that Marx wrote You see, the first few chapters on the commodity are seriously hard going Much harder going than just about anything else in the book In fact, Althusser was pretty well just following Marx s on advice that the first few chapters could be skipped and then come back to later on So, it wasn t that he didn t know the first bits were hard he made them hard for a reason.And that reason, Althusser says, is Hegel Be that as it may, I feel that Marx pretty well has to start by explaining what a commodity is, because capitalism, which he is trying to understand, explain and criticise in this book, can t be understood without understanding commodities Why is that Well, a large part of the point of capitalism is turning into commodities ofandthings that have never been commodities before So much so that today just about everything can be a commodity but this certainly wasn t always the case In fact, as Marx shows, prior to capitalism very few things were commodities.Marx starts by stressing that a commodity needs to have a use value This is really important, not least because often this is where people both start and end too You know, why would you buy something if you had no use for it But Marx makes the point that the use value of the commodity is actually the bit of the commodity that, by definition, the person selling the commodity is least interested in If the person selling the commodity had a use for the commodity, why would they be selling it A true commodity is something the person producing it has no use for at all It has, instead, an exchange value for this person And that exchange value can be expressed in money money being a socially recognised store of value which allows for the trade of disparate things as if they were all the same thing That is, if I make trousers I can sell those trousers for money and then use that money to buy any other kind of thing knowing that I am exchanging value for like value.Which then begs the question, where does that value actually come from And how can I exchange things knowing they actually do have a like value Often you will hear that value is created by supply and demand If there isn t very much of something and everyone wants it, then it will have a particularly high value, if there is hardly any of it and no one wants it, or if there is lots and lots of it and everyone wants it, it will have a lower or perhaps no value at all Everyone wants air, but air mostly just is and so has no exchange value, despite how essential it is try not breathing for a while if you doubt this.Marx argues this supply and demand idea isn t where commodities really get their value from In fact, he goes so far as to say that rare things like gold and diamonds often don t get sold at their true value so rather than their rarity increasing their value, it actually undermines their true value Instead he shows that it isn t how much of it that exists that decides something s value, but rather how much socially necessary labour time is incorporated into it that decides how expensive it is going to be If it takes me six hours to make a pair of trousers and you two hours to catch a pound of fish, then I m hardly going to exchange my trousers for your fish it would makesense for me to just spend two hours fishing myself if both have the same value Marx says that in the end everything sells at its cost of production That is, it sells for the price of the labour that is incorporated in it and for noWhich then begs the question, where does profit come from He spends quite a long time explaining that profit can t come from buying cheap and selling dear as that would mean the second capitalist would just be sending the first capitalist broke Instead, Marx makes a really interesting move in showing that labour has an interesting property that makes it the essential commodity in commodity production, and therefore in capitalist production That is, its ability to producethan it costs to reproduce itself.This sounds like getting money for nothing, but it is anything but that Let s say you are a capitalist and like in a game of cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers, being a capitalist is by far the better option To be a capitalist you need to buy a worker s or in fact, lots of workers labour power That is, you buy from them the only thing they have available to sell, their ability to work But, just like you with the commodities that you well sell once the worker has finished making them, the labourer sells their labour power at its cost of production or reproduction in this case That means it will cost you as the capitalist a certain amount to employ the labourer their wages and that is the amount of money that it takes for the labourer to feed, clothe, house and raise their family you re going to needlabourers one day and the labourer is going to provide them for you by using the money you pay them in wages to literally reproduce themselves This amount of money is the cost of the labourer s labour power But the thing is that that labour power can producethan just what it takes for it to reproduce itself If the work day is 8 hours, the labourer might be able to produce enough product to pay for the reproduction of their labour power in only 4 hours But they still have to work for the whole 8 hours That means that you, the capitalist that employed the labourer, pays the labourer wages the full price of the workers first four hours of work, but after that four hours is up, the capitalist gets to keep everything the labourer produces for the next four hours and doesn t really have to pay the labourer at all for that final four hours And this is what Marx called surplus value the value over and above that which is necessary to reproduce the labour of the labourer And that is where the capitalist s profits come from.Sure, it isn t all profit The capitalist has to buy tools for the worker to work with, and raw materials for the worker to transform into commodities, but the capitalist receives whatever profit they are going to make out of the surplus labour time they get the worker to work.The other bit to this is that capitalism is driven by the need to increasingly socialise the means of production For instance, if I go to market with the trousers I have made, I really do need to sell them, a man cannot live by trousers alone I need bread, meat, wine, tea, books, shirts and so on But the whole process only works on the basis that while I ve been making trousers everyone else has been making everything else that I need If everyone was making trousers, we wouldn t really get very far It is only when the whole of society is actively engaged in producing commodities that the society can operate at all And this socialisation goes all the way down, not only is it true that I can t live by making trousers alone, but often I don t even make all of the trousers any Without us living in a society we could achieve literally nothing alone This is a huge change from Feudalism, where peasant farmers mostly made everything they needed for life Today, most of us are so specialised we hardly know what it is we actually help to make at all Marx calls this the alienation of labour.Capitalism seeks to make everything as cheap as possible and it does this by finding ways to endlessly reduce the amount of labour that is needed to make any particular commodity So, if it once took two weeks to produce a car, capitalism constantly seeks to find ways to speed up this process so that less and less actual labour will be incorporated in each car and therefore each car will be cheaper It does this by making each of the steps in the process of making the car isolated This is the whole idea of a conveyor belt One person doing one thing over and over again isproductive than that same person moving about doing many things But doing the one thing over and over again is pretty well the definition of becoming deskilled and Marx stresses that if capitalism is good at anything, it is good at deskilling workers Actually, that is exactly the point, as the less skill a labourer has the less you have to pay them And it is worse that that, as it also means the easier it is to train someone to come in and replace them A large part of this book looks at the horrors of 19th century workplaces, and a large part of those horrors involved the women and children that worked in those factories for very little wages They could only do this because the processes had been made so simple literally a child could do them Changing the laws may have taken kids out of the factories, but the same rule applied the skill levels plummeted and with them the cost of labour continually dropped.But this was for two reasons, one was that the labour labourers were selling was completely deskilled and so therefore much cheaper to reproduce The second was that that labour was producing manycommodities and so it was literally costing less to reproduce that labour in the first place I mean, if I need a loaf of bread and a t shirt and shorts to survive and yesterday those things took two hours to produce and today they only take one hour to produce then effectively my wages have dropped andof my labour time can be donated directly as surplus value into the pocket of the capitalist.My productivity is the only thing the capitalist is interested in, but that interest is rapacious Every means available to the capitalist to squeeze the last drop of value out of my labour will be tried What is interesting is that once there appears to be no further ways of drawing surplus value out of me, and this is basically when my wages have been squeezed to the utmost and yet there is still not enough value coming out of me, then the capitalist turns to machines My understanding of this is that a machine is different from a tool in a very important respect A tool is something a skilled worker uses in their work A machine is something that transforms that work to do away with the skilled worker That is, the very process of producing things is transformed by machines, not just to do what the worker and tool did previously, but to utterly transform how that process occurred And machines then help to do away withlabour so that the cost of the commodities produced continually falls, especially the cost of that most important commodity, labour.The other thing that Marx was able to show was that the rate of exploitation of labour was always greatest in countries with the most developed productive forces the most machines So, the English worker in Marx s day was the most exploited worker in the world As I said, a large part of this book documents the utter horrors of lives of the working classes in Marx s day And it is gobsmacking But there is a part of the modern reader that says while reading this things like, well, things have certainly improved And this is definitely the case However, like so many other things in life, it is only half of the story As Marx points out, a large part of the reason why we are better off now than in his day is that commodities are so much cheaper to produce today And this means that meeting the needs of large sections of the population is cheaper and easier than ever before The problem is that so much of the wealth that is produced now gushes to the wealthiest sections of society as never before For instance, basically said that there are two great classes in society We like to talk about there being a 1%, a middle class virtually everyone else and a working class who I guess we pretty much think are like the middle class, just with less class This is, of course, a confusion of categories The opposite of middle class isn t working class the opposite of working class would have to be something like leisured class as someone who likes to say they are middle class, I can t really say I m leisured Marx is very clear everyone who has nothing else to sell other than their labour power is working class Those who own the means of production and buy your labour power from you are capitalist The other classes are those who still exist as artisans or small shop owners or intellectuals But, before you get too smug, the whole point of capitalism is to do away with these skilled jobs Controlling labour and deskilling it is how profits are made and maximised Increasingly, then, the working class will grow and the capitalist class, and all other classes will shrink.Marx saw this as inevitably leading to a situation where a revolution would occur and the workers would take back what had been taken from them the product of their surplus labour But while Marx saw this as inevitable and of urgent necessity in his day, it is worth remembering that this book was written in 1867 as close to 150 years ago as you might like and that was a time before there was a motor car, before there were computers, moving pictures, MP3 players, flying machines, a world wide web of cat videos I don t need to go on, do I The point is that capitalism has proven muchresilient than Marx envisaged That said, a lot of what Marx had to say about capitalism still holds true today If capitalism has become kinder, it is mostly due to it being forced kicking and screaming to do so But even those reforms are proving anything but permanent More andis being clawed back by capital every day a book I read recently suggested that perhaps 50% of Americans are at or below the poverty line, certainly America s prison population goes some way to confirm Marx s vision of the reserve army and the redundant population that needs to be shifted somewhere else And today capital, as Marx predicted, is truly international so much so that we have seen the deindustrialisation of large parts of the developed world with millions of jobs moved to low wage countries low wage, low environmental controls, low health and safety regulations Capital is just as unfriendly today as it was in the 1860s, it probably even employs just as many kids.I tried to read this book years ago and ever since have told people it is too turgid to read This isn t really true, and that was because I got stuck in the first few chapters The advice of Althusser and of Marx himself, that is, skip the hard bits and come back to them later, is probably really good advice This is one of the most influential books of all time That doesn t mean you have to read it, but to have never read it does put you at a bit of a disadvantage in much the same way that saying you ve never read The Interpretation of Dreams or On the Origin of the Species puts you at a disadvantage Not the end of the world, but these books are famous for pretty good reasons


  2. Always Pouting Always Pouting says:

    I remember seeing a review on here for this book from a guy who said he bought two copies of this book, one for himself and one for his girlfriend and that he didn t have a girlfriend any I m bringing this up because actually my boyfriend got me this book, as one of my birthday gifts none the less, and I have to say for the first three hundred pages it felt like I could really empathize with the other man s girlfriend This was really really annoying to read I m going to be honest I person I remember seeing a review on here for this book from a guy who said he bought two copies of this book, one for himself and one for his girlfriend and that he didn t have a girlfriend any I m bringing this up because actually my boyfriend got me this book, as one of my birthday gifts none the less, and I have to say for the first three hundred pages it felt like I could really empathize with the other man s girlfriend This was really really annoying to read I m going to be honest I personally feel like a lot of my own politics align with the left and I think a lot of the ideas Marx brings up are important and good, especially surplus value But like there s probably a reason people hate reading theory I think that if I have been reading this in the 1860s I would ve liked it a lotbecause all of the things being discussed would be contemporaneous but now I know all this stuff about industrial UK in the late 1800s and I don t know what I would do with that information I think the foreword was really useful and good once again though, and it did suggest not necessarily reading everything in order It also gave some context that made things easier to understand I do think some of the chapters were better than others and are muchuseful for the context of understanding capitalism today I also get why it was organized and structured the way it was originally to build up to the ideas Marx thought were important and wanted to juxtapose with the ideas of the economists of the day.I think I could ve gottenout of this if I knewabout economics honestly, like the whole thing about monetary theory probably went straight over my head Honestly just glad I made it through it and I would just once again like to say that I still think reading source material is overrated and boring, I think we can usually get the best main ideas from older writing in better contemporary formats


  3. anique anique says:

    Do you know how many pages this is 1152 And worth every leaf on the tree A must read for anyone willing or wanting to wax grand about capitalism Picture it My first semester in graduate school Day two My professor goes over the syllabus, week one Das Kapital Marx chps 1 15, 22, 27 etc I cry for three days lamenting the decision to pursue higher education Then I read that shit and my little world changes.


  4. Roy Lotz Roy Lotz says:

    Marx was a man badly in need of an editor For all of the financial, amiable, and intellectual support provided by Engels, one wishes that Engels had only he had beenruthless is cutting the fat from his partner s work This would have been easy enough at the time, but by now Marx s writing has acquired a sacred aura The main meat of this bloated tome is all in the first few hundred pages Marx actually lays out his ideas in a very pleasing and pithy manner I wish the rest of the book wa Marx was a man badly in need of an editor For all of the financial, amiable, and intellectual support provided by Engels, one wishes that Engels had only he had beenruthless is cutting the fat from his partner s work This would have been easy enough at the time, but by now Marx s writing has acquired a sacred aura The main meat of this bloated tome is all in the first few hundred pages Marx actually lays out his ideas in a very pleasing and pithy manner I wish the rest of the book was like this By chapter 3, Marx has descended fully into prolix pedantry By the middle of the book, the reader is lost in a sea of irrelevant information Part of this is due to a general lack of integration of Marx s interests Marx s intellect was broad He could write skillfully about philosophy, economics, history, and current events He could write in an ultra precise, actuarial style, or in beautiful literary prose In short, Marx was a rare genius But unlike other rare geniuses who possessed these sweeping talents, Marx seems incapable of making these interests fit under one roof He dons different hats for different chapters, creating abrupt shifts in tone and substance One moment, you are reading sublime, abstract philosophy another moment, the tabloids In some ways, this book is similar to Kant s Critique of Pure Reason Like Kant, Marx is trying to overcome all of human knowledge in one grand sweep Also like Kant, Marx is trying to integrate previously separate and antagonistic traditions Most notably, Marx tries to wed German idealistic philosophy with English political economy But the marriage is strange and unhappy An underlying tension that runs through Capital is between a metaphysical rationalist way of viewing the world, and a materialist empiricist one Of course, Marx is now famous for being a materialist and he did everything in his power to create this impression But one finds traces of his German penchant for metaphysics in his love of theory, which involves examining problems at the highest possible level of abstraction Another continental quality is Marx s use of dialectical reasoning throughout the work The result is that some chapters are just as far from observable fact as anything Hegel could have written But then there s the English side All at once, Marx will set off on his charts and figures and statistics He will include quote after quote from reports, newspapers, speeches, and addresses He will examine specific historical and geographic cases in great detail And when this happens, gone is the abstraction and ideation and dialectic So the text is disorganized But what of the ideas I had high hopes for this book Marx is treated like a religious figure in many circles, and this book is held to be his greatest I was expecting some serious and profound reflections on capitalism But Capital didn t pay This, in my opinion, is almost entirely due to his reliance on the labour theory of value For those who don t know, Marx did not originate this idea one can find the basic form as far back as John Locke s Second Treatise of Government Let me explain Roughly, the idea is that all the value in an economy is ultimately derived from labour This is why cars are worththan toy cars, and those fancy drinks at Starbucks are worththan a cup of coffee At first glance, this seems to hold But theI thought about it, the less it made sense For one, the amount of labour involved in making a cup of coffee at Starbucks is standard Yet, getting a cup in Manhattan is about twenty centsexpensive than getting a cup in Queens Moreover, the price of a cup of coffee varies over time, yet the steps involved in making a cup of coffee have been standard for years So clearly there must beto it than labor Marx responds that he is not interested in superficial fluctuations in price The value he is interested in is the natural price to which fluctuations return So to speak, the signal behind the noise Again, this seems to satisfy But let s think about it a littleTake diamonds Diamonds are now egregiously expensive But the reason for this is not that producing a cut diamond requires an enormous amount of labour It is because a single company controls the supply of diamonds, tightening it to make them artificially rare And at the same time, advertising for diamond rings has substantially increased the demand The price of diamonds has been high for years So where is the signal to the noise The truth is, the labour theory of value is untenable as a theory A commodity s price is determined by A effective demand i.e people who want it that have the resources to get it and B how rare it is This is economics 101, but Marxists would disagree Take this quote from Ernest Mandel s introduction, where he defends the labour theory of value with orthodox vigor Even when thousands of people are dying of hunger, and the intensity of need for bread is certainly a thousand times greater than the intensity of need for aeroplanes, the first commodity will remain immensely cheaper than the second, because much less socially necessary labour has been spent on its production.It is true People are starving every day, yet the price of food shows no sign of approaching the price of jet planes But when people are starving, this is not demand in the economic sense it is not effective demand If they had the resources to get food, then they wouldn t be starving So this defense is fallacious I can sit in my room and profoundly hope for a supermodel to walk in the door But this is not demand on the economic sense Let s take abanal example Say you have a horrendous, intolerable headache You wander into the nearest drug store You are in the touristy part of town, and everything is seriously overpriced You look at the price tag of headache medicine and hesitate But another second and your mind is made up your head hurts so much, you ll pay any price Here s another example Let s say I came into possession of the handwritten manuscript of Marx s Capital I sell it at auction for three million dollars Is that manuscript worth so much because there is three million dollar s worth of labour congealed in it Or because A there s only one, and B people really want it Supply and demand I know I m belaboring this point But I m doing so because the entirety of Marx s analysis rests on this faulty premise Once you reject this theory of value, the entire edifice collapses and you re left with nothing Therefore, I feel confident in saying that I learned nothing about capitalism from this book I would even go so far as to say that accepting this theory of value blinds you to actual problems with capitalism Here s a real contradiction Competition between owners will lead them to competitively cut their worker s pay, in order to maximize profits But if every owner, system wide, is cutting pay, then you have a problem a lack of effective demand And if nobody is buying anything, business will stagnate This demand problem can be temporary circumvented by giving people credit, but then you eventually get yourself into a debt trap, which is what just happened to our economy This is simple enough But even this thought would have been impossible had I accepted the labour theory of value There is another serious flaw in Marx s thinking True to his reputation, this book is about the exploitation of one class by another And it should be said, this class dynamic is integral to capitalism But concentrating exclusively on inter class struggles blinds Marx to the equally important intra class struggles In fact, capitalism is driven by competition between equals Workers compete with workers, bosses with bosses, owners with owners Instead of the homogenized blocks of people that Marx imagines, the economy is heterogenous, filled with individuals who are all employing different strategies So this makes Marx s analysis simplistic So I think there are systematic and serious problems with Marx s thinking He almost completely misses the ball Yet whenever there s an economic crisis in the future, the Marxists will all come out brandishing their copies of Capital and screaming that Marx predicted it By the way, isn t there some sort of statute of limitations on predictions At some point, we have to admit that Marx was wrong Yes, yes, and every time there s a food shortage, we ll have to go screaming back to Malthus I m being very hard on the guy But that s only because I fear some people still take him at his word Please, for the love of Marx, don t get your economic information solely from him and his followers You will get an extraordinarily warped picture of things But there is something charming about Marx s writing Maybe it s his dorkiness Reading through these pages often felt like hearing about the latest conspiracy theory about the Pixar movies It is set forth in such an urgent tone, and such an elaborate argument is built up, that one cannot but help be dazzled I also like Marx s prose It s hard to put your finger on just what s so good about it At first glance it looks ordinary enough But there s always an unexpected turn, a satisfying cadence, or a captivating idea lurking around the corner The man could write I also believe it is valuable to work yourself through an intellectual system such as this If he is mistaken, Marx is at least wonderfully consistent, and builds an impressive theoretical apparatus You can spend hours wandering its recesses, and applying it to new materials It s satisfying intellectual play This book is also a fascinating historical document During its bloated middle section, Marx includes some mind blowing information about the working class in England Conditions were truly horrible, which makes you understand why the man was convinced that capitalism was evil In regards to communism hardly touched upon in this book , I have some frustrations with Marxists I have yet to hear, in any substantial detail, how their perfect utopian system would work All I am told is that it will be utopia But the coup de gr ce is that they use this imagined society, empty of suffering and full of brotherly love, to make our current society look bad But this makes no sense This is to compare an actual state of things with a phantasm of the imagination Even if it is worked out in glorious detail in your mind, it still remains a thought And no communist would point to its failed and horrifying manifestations in history as an example This leaves them groundless I have gone on for far too long I am also a man badly in need of an editor I m both very glad I read this book, and very disappointed with it I am glad because Marx is a charming writer and an original thinker, and because his analysis was so influential But I am disappointed that is is so bankrupt of ideas, and seems to be just as scientific to use a favorite word of his as L Ron Hubbard s Dianetics


  5. Erik Graff Erik Graff says:

    I had long avoided reading Das Kapital because I thought it would be too mathematically advanced for me Taking courses with the Marxist philosopher and mathematician, David Schweickart, induced me to make the effort since his assignments and my own readings of Marx had already become pretty extensive and the avoidance of his most important text seemed silly So, on my own now, I began carrying the tome about in my backpack, reading most of it at Jim s Deli across Sheridan Road from the Lake Sho I had long avoided reading Das Kapital because I thought it would be too mathematically advanced for me Taking courses with the Marxist philosopher and mathematician, David Schweickart, induced me to make the effort since his assignments and my own readings of Marx had already become pretty extensive and the avoidance of his most important text seemed silly So, on my own now, I began carrying the tome about in my backpack, reading most of it at Jim s Deli across Sheridan Road from the Lake Shore Campus of Loyola University Chicago.To my great surprise, the first volume of Capital was actually a rather quick and easy read, none of the formulations requiringthan the most elementary understanding of arithmetic I learned later that Marx himself only got as far as the calculus later in life Additionally, it made sense as an explanation of economic behavior, adding a dimension, that of class, not much appearing in Adam Smith, the only other classical economist I d studied seriously previously Indeed, the section on Primitive Accumulation was, for me, emotionally powerful stuff.Getting over Capital and finding it not only illuminating but fun helped me overcome my fear of economics I went on to read quite a bitin the field and began purchasing and reading the International Publishers fifty volume set of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels as they became available ultimately finishing about half of it before becoming bogged down in his notes of the mid 1860s


  6. nick nick says:

    I have to say, this joint is bangin I find it useful when I m in the club P.S Check out the total or expanded form of value It s defective


  7. William William says:

    Capital, at least the first volume anyway, is not the most significant elucidation of a politico economic critique of the past millennia It is not because many governments have been supported by pillars of so called Marxism, or because by some miracle this book has been actually adopted by the working class, or because it s the longest and clearest that anyone would make such a claim, because, in all those aspects, Capital cannot by objective measure be posited to be as such Capital is not a b Capital, at least the first volume anyway, is not the most significant elucidation of a politico economic critique of the past millennia It is not because many governments have been supported by pillars of so called Marxism, or because by some miracle this book has been actually adopted by the working class, or because it s the longest and clearest that anyone would make such a claim, because, in all those aspects, Capital cannot by objective measure be posited to be as such Capital is not a book that appeals to insurgents, or better yet, doesn t appeal to anyone who plans on accelerating history in the here and now In most nations Capital isn t a working class bible, unfortunately And although it is, as indicated by my own high rating, a phenomenal book, it isn t what the alienated would be pulled towards in search of a higher purpose, or even solace But despite all of what I ve said, it remains standing as one of the greatest works of all theoreticians That is because it defies the previous establishment of work that hitherto existed, but it doesn t violently reject things altogether with the ill conceived propagandizing that so many supposedly innovative works rely upon, it engages with premises of political philosophy that precede it while deftly addressing notions taken for granted and left unexamined And because of that splendidly vigorous dedication to not simply adhering to a preconceived moral framework that determines economic evaluation, rather revealing form, then function, then consequences, and only then do we reach any discussion of ethics Capital is cold and clear as ice but that is why it is so substantial, it is first and foremost borne out of unbounded critical capability, not the worship of an idol or a State, but reverence to the value of theoretical commentary


  8. Graham Latham Graham Latham says:

    READ THE SHIT OUT OF THIS FKN DOORSTOP LONG LIVE SOCIALISM.


  9. Chelsea Szendi Chelsea Szendi says:

    Vampires, monsters, fetishes Stick with Marx through the saga of the coat and the M C M and the rewards are so rich When he guides you from the realm of exchange into the realm of production, I dare you not to feel like you are involved in cracking an incredible mystery Because you are.


  10. Fug o& Fug o& says:

    First you get the primitive accumulation then you get the Linen, Then you get the Coats, Then you get the Capital, Then you Get the Labour, Then you get The Surplus Value, then you get the mechanization, then you getSurplus Value Tony Montana


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production ✷ [BOOKS] ✫ Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production By Karl Marx ❁ – Capitalsoftworks.co.uk Capital, one of Marx s major and most influential works, was the product of thirty years close study of the capitalist mode of production in England, the most advanced industrial society of his day Th Capital, one of Marx s major and most 1: A Kindle Ô influential works, was the product of thirty years close study of the capitalist mode of production in England, the most advanced industrial society of his day This new translation of Volume One, the only volume to be completed and edited by Marx himself, avoids some of the mistakes that have marred earlier versions and seeks to do justice to the literary qualities of the work The introduction is by Ernest Mandel, author of Late Capitalism, one of the only comprehensive attempts to develop Capital, Vol. ePUB ´ the theoretical legacy of Capital.

  • Paperback
  • 1152 pages
  • Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production
  • Karl Marx
  • English
  • 25 January 2019
  • 0140445684

About the Author: Karl Marx

Karl Marx, PhD University of Jena, was 1: A Kindle Ô a social scientist who was a key contributor to the development of Communist theoryDescended from a long line of rabbis, Marx born in Prussian Rhineland His father converted to Protestantism shortly before Karl s birth Educated at the Universities of Bonn, Jena, and Berlin, Marx founded the Socialist newspaper Vorwarts in in Paris After being expelled from France at the urging of the Prussian government, which banished Marx in absentia, Marx studied economics in Brussels He and Engels founded the Communist League Capital, Vol. ePUB ´ in and published the Communist Manifesto After the failed revolution of in Germany, in which Marx participated, he eventually wound up in London Marx worked as foreign correspondent for several US publications His Das Kapital came out in three volumes , and Marx organized the International and helped found the Social Democratic Party of Germany Although Marx was not religious, Bertrand Russell later remarked, His belief that there is a cosmic force called Dialectical Materialism which governs human history independently of human volitions, is mere mythology Portraits from Vol. 1: A PDF ↠ Memory, Marx once quipped, All I know is that I am not a Marxist according to Engels in a letter to C Schmidt see Who s Who in Hell by Warren Allen Smith D Marx began co operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Hegel s Philosophy of Religion in Marx was also engaged in writing his doctoral thesis, The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, which he completed in It was described as a daring and original piece of work in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom of philosophy the essay was controversial, particularly among the conservative professors at the University of Berlin Marx decided, instead, to submit his thesis to theliberal University of Jena, whose faculty awarded him his PhD in April As Marx and Bauer were both atheists, in March they began plans for a journal entitled Archiv des Atheismus Atheistic Archives , but it never came to fruitionMarx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history Marx is typically cited, with mile Durkheim and Max Weber, as one of the three principal architects of modern social scienceMore.


10 thoughts on “Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production

  1. Trevor Trevor says:

    Louis Althusser wrote a preface to a French translation of Capital and in it he gives lots of advice on how to read this book I recommend you read this book according to that advice, even if I didn t quite do that myself A big part of that advice is to not read in the order that Marx wrote You see, the first few chapters on the commodity are seriously hard going Much harder going than just about anything else in the book In fact, Althusser was pretty well just following Marx s on advice th Louis Althusser wrote a preface to a French translation of Capital and in it he gives lots of advice on how to read this book I recommend you read this book according to that advice, even if I didn t quite do that myself A big part of that advice is to not read in the order that Marx wrote You see, the first few chapters on the commodity are seriously hard going Much harder going than just about anything else in the book In fact, Althusser was pretty well just following Marx s on advice that the first few chapters could be skipped and then come back to later on So, it wasn t that he didn t know the first bits were hard he made them hard for a reason.And that reason, Althusser says, is Hegel Be that as it may, I feel that Marx pretty well has to start by explaining what a commodity is, because capitalism, which he is trying to understand, explain and criticise in this book, can t be understood without understanding commodities Why is that Well, a large part of the point of capitalism is turning into commodities ofandthings that have never been commodities before So much so that today just about everything can be a commodity but this certainly wasn t always the case In fact, as Marx shows, prior to capitalism very few things were commodities.Marx starts by stressing that a commodity needs to have a use value This is really important, not least because often this is where people both start and end too You know, why would you buy something if you had no use for it But Marx makes the point that the use value of the commodity is actually the bit of the commodity that, by definition, the person selling the commodity is least interested in If the person selling the commodity had a use for the commodity, why would they be selling it A true commodity is something the person producing it has no use for at all It has, instead, an exchange value for this person And that exchange value can be expressed in money money being a socially recognised store of value which allows for the trade of disparate things as if they were all the same thing That is, if I make trousers I can sell those trousers for money and then use that money to buy any other kind of thing knowing that I am exchanging value for like value.Which then begs the question, where does that value actually come from And how can I exchange things knowing they actually do have a like value Often you will hear that value is created by supply and demand If there isn t very much of something and everyone wants it, then it will have a particularly high value, if there is hardly any of it and no one wants it, or if there is lots and lots of it and everyone wants it, it will have a lower or perhaps no value at all Everyone wants air, but air mostly just is and so has no exchange value, despite how essential it is try not breathing for a while if you doubt this.Marx argues this supply and demand idea isn t where commodities really get their value from In fact, he goes so far as to say that rare things like gold and diamonds often don t get sold at their true value so rather than their rarity increasing their value, it actually undermines their true value Instead he shows that it isn t how much of it that exists that decides something s value, but rather how much socially necessary labour time is incorporated into it that decides how expensive it is going to be If it takes me six hours to make a pair of trousers and you two hours to catch a pound of fish, then I m hardly going to exchange my trousers for your fish it would makesense for me to just spend two hours fishing myself if both have the same value Marx says that in the end everything sells at its cost of production That is, it sells for the price of the labour that is incorporated in it and for noWhich then begs the question, where does profit come from He spends quite a long time explaining that profit can t come from buying cheap and selling dear as that would mean the second capitalist would just be sending the first capitalist broke Instead, Marx makes a really interesting move in showing that labour has an interesting property that makes it the essential commodity in commodity production, and therefore in capitalist production That is, its ability to producethan it costs to reproduce itself.This sounds like getting money for nothing, but it is anything but that Let s say you are a capitalist and like in a game of cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers, being a capitalist is by far the better option To be a capitalist you need to buy a worker s or in fact, lots of workers labour power That is, you buy from them the only thing they have available to sell, their ability to work But, just like you with the commodities that you well sell once the worker has finished making them, the labourer sells their labour power at its cost of production or reproduction in this case That means it will cost you as the capitalist a certain amount to employ the labourer their wages and that is the amount of money that it takes for the labourer to feed, clothe, house and raise their family you re going to needlabourers one day and the labourer is going to provide them for you by using the money you pay them in wages to literally reproduce themselves This amount of money is the cost of the labourer s labour power But the thing is that that labour power can producethan just what it takes for it to reproduce itself If the work day is 8 hours, the labourer might be able to produce enough product to pay for the reproduction of their labour power in only 4 hours But they still have to work for the whole 8 hours That means that you, the capitalist that employed the labourer, pays the labourer wages the full price of the workers first four hours of work, but after that four hours is up, the capitalist gets to keep everything the labourer produces for the next four hours and doesn t really have to pay the labourer at all for that final four hours And this is what Marx called surplus value the value over and above that which is necessary to reproduce the labour of the labourer And that is where the capitalist s profits come from.Sure, it isn t all profit The capitalist has to buy tools for the worker to work with, and raw materials for the worker to transform into commodities, but the capitalist receives whatever profit they are going to make out of the surplus labour time they get the worker to work.The other bit to this is that capitalism is driven by the need to increasingly socialise the means of production For instance, if I go to market with the trousers I have made, I really do need to sell them, a man cannot live by trousers alone I need bread, meat, wine, tea, books, shirts and so on But the whole process only works on the basis that while I ve been making trousers everyone else has been making everything else that I need If everyone was making trousers, we wouldn t really get very far It is only when the whole of society is actively engaged in producing commodities that the society can operate at all And this socialisation goes all the way down, not only is it true that I can t live by making trousers alone, but often I don t even make all of the trousers any Without us living in a society we could achieve literally nothing alone This is a huge change from Feudalism, where peasant farmers mostly made everything they needed for life Today, most of us are so specialised we hardly know what it is we actually help to make at all Marx calls this the alienation of labour.Capitalism seeks to make everything as cheap as possible and it does this by finding ways to endlessly reduce the amount of labour that is needed to make any particular commodity So, if it once took two weeks to produce a car, capitalism constantly seeks to find ways to speed up this process so that less and less actual labour will be incorporated in each car and therefore each car will be cheaper It does this by making each of the steps in the process of making the car isolated This is the whole idea of a conveyor belt One person doing one thing over and over again isproductive than that same person moving about doing many things But doing the one thing over and over again is pretty well the definition of becoming deskilled and Marx stresses that if capitalism is good at anything, it is good at deskilling workers Actually, that is exactly the point, as the less skill a labourer has the less you have to pay them And it is worse that that, as it also means the easier it is to train someone to come in and replace them A large part of this book looks at the horrors of 19th century workplaces, and a large part of those horrors involved the women and children that worked in those factories for very little wages They could only do this because the processes had been made so simple literally a child could do them Changing the laws may have taken kids out of the factories, but the same rule applied the skill levels plummeted and with them the cost of labour continually dropped.But this was for two reasons, one was that the labour labourers were selling was completely deskilled and so therefore much cheaper to reproduce The second was that that labour was producing manycommodities and so it was literally costing less to reproduce that labour in the first place I mean, if I need a loaf of bread and a t shirt and shorts to survive and yesterday those things took two hours to produce and today they only take one hour to produce then effectively my wages have dropped andof my labour time can be donated directly as surplus value into the pocket of the capitalist.My productivity is the only thing the capitalist is interested in, but that interest is rapacious Every means available to the capitalist to squeeze the last drop of value out of my labour will be tried What is interesting is that once there appears to be no further ways of drawing surplus value out of me, and this is basically when my wages have been squeezed to the utmost and yet there is still not enough value coming out of me, then the capitalist turns to machines My understanding of this is that a machine is different from a tool in a very important respect A tool is something a skilled worker uses in their work A machine is something that transforms that work to do away with the skilled worker That is, the very process of producing things is transformed by machines, not just to do what the worker and tool did previously, but to utterly transform how that process occurred And machines then help to do away withlabour so that the cost of the commodities produced continually falls, especially the cost of that most important commodity, labour.The other thing that Marx was able to show was that the rate of exploitation of labour was always greatest in countries with the most developed productive forces the most machines So, the English worker in Marx s day was the most exploited worker in the world As I said, a large part of this book documents the utter horrors of lives of the working classes in Marx s day And it is gobsmacking But there is a part of the modern reader that says while reading this things like, well, things have certainly improved And this is definitely the case However, like so many other things in life, it is only half of the story As Marx points out, a large part of the reason why we are better off now than in his day is that commodities are so much cheaper to produce today And this means that meeting the needs of large sections of the population is cheaper and easier than ever before The problem is that so much of the wealth that is produced now gushes to the wealthiest sections of society as never before For instance, basically said that there are two great classes in society We like to talk about there being a 1%, a middle class virtually everyone else and a working class who I guess we pretty much think are like the middle class, just with less class This is, of course, a confusion of categories The opposite of middle class isn t working class the opposite of working class would have to be something like leisured class as someone who likes to say they are middle class, I can t really say I m leisured Marx is very clear everyone who has nothing else to sell other than their labour power is working class Those who own the means of production and buy your labour power from you are capitalist The other classes are those who still exist as artisans or small shop owners or intellectuals But, before you get too smug, the whole point of capitalism is to do away with these skilled jobs Controlling labour and deskilling it is how profits are made and maximised Increasingly, then, the working class will grow and the capitalist class, and all other classes will shrink.Marx saw this as inevitably leading to a situation where a revolution would occur and the workers would take back what had been taken from them the product of their surplus labour But while Marx saw this as inevitable and of urgent necessity in his day, it is worth remembering that this book was written in 1867 as close to 150 years ago as you might like and that was a time before there was a motor car, before there were computers, moving pictures, MP3 players, flying machines, a world wide web of cat videos I don t need to go on, do I The point is that capitalism has proven muchresilient than Marx envisaged That said, a lot of what Marx had to say about capitalism still holds true today If capitalism has become kinder, it is mostly due to it being forced kicking and screaming to do so But even those reforms are proving anything but permanent More andis being clawed back by capital every day a book I read recently suggested that perhaps 50% of Americans are at or below the poverty line, certainly America s prison population goes some way to confirm Marx s vision of the reserve army and the redundant population that needs to be shifted somewhere else And today capital, as Marx predicted, is truly international so much so that we have seen the deindustrialisation of large parts of the developed world with millions of jobs moved to low wage countries low wage, low environmental controls, low health and safety regulations Capital is just as unfriendly today as it was in the 1860s, it probably even employs just as many kids.I tried to read this book years ago and ever since have told people it is too turgid to read This isn t really true, and that was because I got stuck in the first few chapters The advice of Althusser and of Marx himself, that is, skip the hard bits and come back to them later, is probably really good advice This is one of the most influential books of all time That doesn t mean you have to read it, but to have never read it does put you at a bit of a disadvantage in much the same way that saying you ve never read The Interpretation of Dreams or On the Origin of the Species puts you at a disadvantage Not the end of the world, but these books are famous for pretty good reasons

  2. Always Pouting Always Pouting says:

    I remember seeing a review on here for this book from a guy who said he bought two copies of this book, one for himself and one for his girlfriend and that he didn t have a girlfriend any I m bringing this up because actually my boyfriend got me this book, as one of my birthday gifts none the less, and I have to say for the first three hundred pages it felt like I could really empathize with the other man s girlfriend This was really really annoying to read I m going to be honest I person I remember seeing a review on here for this book from a guy who said he bought two copies of this book, one for himself and one for his girlfriend and that he didn t have a girlfriend any I m bringing this up because actually my boyfriend got me this book, as one of my birthday gifts none the less, and I have to say for the first three hundred pages it felt like I could really empathize with the other man s girlfriend This was really really annoying to read I m going to be honest I personally feel like a lot of my own politics align with the left and I think a lot of the ideas Marx brings up are important and good, especially surplus value But like there s probably a reason people hate reading theory I think that if I have been reading this in the 1860s I would ve liked it a lotbecause all of the things being discussed would be contemporaneous but now I know all this stuff about industrial UK in the late 1800s and I don t know what I would do with that information I think the foreword was really useful and good once again though, and it did suggest not necessarily reading everything in order It also gave some context that made things easier to understand I do think some of the chapters were better than others and are muchuseful for the context of understanding capitalism today I also get why it was organized and structured the way it was originally to build up to the ideas Marx thought were important and wanted to juxtapose with the ideas of the economists of the day.I think I could ve gottenout of this if I knewabout economics honestly, like the whole thing about monetary theory probably went straight over my head Honestly just glad I made it through it and I would just once again like to say that I still think reading source material is overrated and boring, I think we can usually get the best main ideas from older writing in better contemporary formats

  3. anique anique says:

    Do you know how many pages this is 1152 And worth every leaf on the tree A must read for anyone willing or wanting to wax grand about capitalism Picture it My first semester in graduate school Day two My professor goes over the syllabus, week one Das Kapital Marx chps 1 15, 22, 27 etc I cry for three days lamenting the decision to pursue higher education Then I read that shit and my little world changes.

  4. Roy Lotz Roy Lotz says:

    Marx was a man badly in need of an editor For all of the financial, amiable, and intellectual support provided by Engels, one wishes that Engels had only he had beenruthless is cutting the fat from his partner s work This would have been easy enough at the time, but by now Marx s writing has acquired a sacred aura The main meat of this bloated tome is all in the first few hundred pages Marx actually lays out his ideas in a very pleasing and pithy manner I wish the rest of the book wa Marx was a man badly in need of an editor For all of the financial, amiable, and intellectual support provided by Engels, one wishes that Engels had only he had beenruthless is cutting the fat from his partner s work This would have been easy enough at the time, but by now Marx s writing has acquired a sacred aura The main meat of this bloated tome is all in the first few hundred pages Marx actually lays out his ideas in a very pleasing and pithy manner I wish the rest of the book was like this By chapter 3, Marx has descended fully into prolix pedantry By the middle of the book, the reader is lost in a sea of irrelevant information Part of this is due to a general lack of integration of Marx s interests Marx s intellect was broad He could write skillfully about philosophy, economics, history, and current events He could write in an ultra precise, actuarial style, or in beautiful literary prose In short, Marx was a rare genius But unlike other rare geniuses who possessed these sweeping talents, Marx seems incapable of making these interests fit under one roof He dons different hats for different chapters, creating abrupt shifts in tone and substance One moment, you are reading sublime, abstract philosophy another moment, the tabloids In some ways, this book is similar to Kant s Critique of Pure Reason Like Kant, Marx is trying to overcome all of human knowledge in one grand sweep Also like Kant, Marx is trying to integrate previously separate and antagonistic traditions Most notably, Marx tries to wed German idealistic philosophy with English political economy But the marriage is strange and unhappy An underlying tension that runs through Capital is between a metaphysical rationalist way of viewing the world, and a materialist empiricist one Of course, Marx is now famous for being a materialist and he did everything in his power to create this impression But one finds traces of his German penchant for metaphysics in his love of theory, which involves examining problems at the highest possible level of abstraction Another continental quality is Marx s use of dialectical reasoning throughout the work The result is that some chapters are just as far from observable fact as anything Hegel could have written But then there s the English side All at once, Marx will set off on his charts and figures and statistics He will include quote after quote from reports, newspapers, speeches, and addresses He will examine specific historical and geographic cases in great detail And when this happens, gone is the abstraction and ideation and dialectic So the text is disorganized But what of the ideas I had high hopes for this book Marx is treated like a religious figure in many circles, and this book is held to be his greatest I was expecting some serious and profound reflections on capitalism But Capital didn t pay This, in my opinion, is almost entirely due to his reliance on the labour theory of value For those who don t know, Marx did not originate this idea one can find the basic form as far back as John Locke s Second Treatise of Government Let me explain Roughly, the idea is that all the value in an economy is ultimately derived from labour This is why cars are worththan toy cars, and those fancy drinks at Starbucks are worththan a cup of coffee At first glance, this seems to hold But theI thought about it, the less it made sense For one, the amount of labour involved in making a cup of coffee at Starbucks is standard Yet, getting a cup in Manhattan is about twenty centsexpensive than getting a cup in Queens Moreover, the price of a cup of coffee varies over time, yet the steps involved in making a cup of coffee have been standard for years So clearly there must beto it than labor Marx responds that he is not interested in superficial fluctuations in price The value he is interested in is the natural price to which fluctuations return So to speak, the signal behind the noise Again, this seems to satisfy But let s think about it a littleTake diamonds Diamonds are now egregiously expensive But the reason for this is not that producing a cut diamond requires an enormous amount of labour It is because a single company controls the supply of diamonds, tightening it to make them artificially rare And at the same time, advertising for diamond rings has substantially increased the demand The price of diamonds has been high for years So where is the signal to the noise The truth is, the labour theory of value is untenable as a theory A commodity s price is determined by A effective demand i.e people who want it that have the resources to get it and B how rare it is This is economics 101, but Marxists would disagree Take this quote from Ernest Mandel s introduction, where he defends the labour theory of value with orthodox vigor Even when thousands of people are dying of hunger, and the intensity of need for bread is certainly a thousand times greater than the intensity of need for aeroplanes, the first commodity will remain immensely cheaper than the second, because much less socially necessary labour has been spent on its production.It is true People are starving every day, yet the price of food shows no sign of approaching the price of jet planes But when people are starving, this is not demand in the economic sense it is not effective demand If they had the resources to get food, then they wouldn t be starving So this defense is fallacious I can sit in my room and profoundly hope for a supermodel to walk in the door But this is not demand on the economic sense Let s take abanal example Say you have a horrendous, intolerable headache You wander into the nearest drug store You are in the touristy part of town, and everything is seriously overpriced You look at the price tag of headache medicine and hesitate But another second and your mind is made up your head hurts so much, you ll pay any price Here s another example Let s say I came into possession of the handwritten manuscript of Marx s Capital I sell it at auction for three million dollars Is that manuscript worth so much because there is three million dollar s worth of labour congealed in it Or because A there s only one, and B people really want it Supply and demand I know I m belaboring this point But I m doing so because the entirety of Marx s analysis rests on this faulty premise Once you reject this theory of value, the entire edifice collapses and you re left with nothing Therefore, I feel confident in saying that I learned nothing about capitalism from this book I would even go so far as to say that accepting this theory of value blinds you to actual problems with capitalism Here s a real contradiction Competition between owners will lead them to competitively cut their worker s pay, in order to maximize profits But if every owner, system wide, is cutting pay, then you have a problem a lack of effective demand And if nobody is buying anything, business will stagnate This demand problem can be temporary circumvented by giving people credit, but then you eventually get yourself into a debt trap, which is what just happened to our economy This is simple enough But even this thought would have been impossible had I accepted the labour theory of value There is another serious flaw in Marx s thinking True to his reputation, this book is about the exploitation of one class by another And it should be said, this class dynamic is integral to capitalism But concentrating exclusively on inter class struggles blinds Marx to the equally important intra class struggles In fact, capitalism is driven by competition between equals Workers compete with workers, bosses with bosses, owners with owners Instead of the homogenized blocks of people that Marx imagines, the economy is heterogenous, filled with individuals who are all employing different strategies So this makes Marx s analysis simplistic So I think there are systematic and serious problems with Marx s thinking He almost completely misses the ball Yet whenever there s an economic crisis in the future, the Marxists will all come out brandishing their copies of Capital and screaming that Marx predicted it By the way, isn t there some sort of statute of limitations on predictions At some point, we have to admit that Marx was wrong Yes, yes, and every time there s a food shortage, we ll have to go screaming back to Malthus I m being very hard on the guy But that s only because I fear some people still take him at his word Please, for the love of Marx, don t get your economic information solely from him and his followers You will get an extraordinarily warped picture of things But there is something charming about Marx s writing Maybe it s his dorkiness Reading through these pages often felt like hearing about the latest conspiracy theory about the Pixar movies It is set forth in such an urgent tone, and such an elaborate argument is built up, that one cannot but help be dazzled I also like Marx s prose It s hard to put your finger on just what s so good about it At first glance it looks ordinary enough But there s always an unexpected turn, a satisfying cadence, or a captivating idea lurking around the corner The man could write I also believe it is valuable to work yourself through an intellectual system such as this If he is mistaken, Marx is at least wonderfully consistent, and builds an impressive theoretical apparatus You can spend hours wandering its recesses, and applying it to new materials It s satisfying intellectual play This book is also a fascinating historical document During its bloated middle section, Marx includes some mind blowing information about the working class in England Conditions were truly horrible, which makes you understand why the man was convinced that capitalism was evil In regards to communism hardly touched upon in this book , I have some frustrations with Marxists I have yet to hear, in any substantial detail, how their perfect utopian system would work All I am told is that it will be utopia But the coup de gr ce is that they use this imagined society, empty of suffering and full of brotherly love, to make our current society look bad But this makes no sense This is to compare an actual state of things with a phantasm of the imagination Even if it is worked out in glorious detail in your mind, it still remains a thought And no communist would point to its failed and horrifying manifestations in history as an example This leaves them groundless I have gone on for far too long I am also a man badly in need of an editor I m both very glad I read this book, and very disappointed with it I am glad because Marx is a charming writer and an original thinker, and because his analysis was so influential But I am disappointed that is is so bankrupt of ideas, and seems to be just as scientific to use a favorite word of his as L Ron Hubbard s Dianetics

  5. Erik Graff Erik Graff says:

    I had long avoided reading Das Kapital because I thought it would be too mathematically advanced for me Taking courses with the Marxist philosopher and mathematician, David Schweickart, induced me to make the effort since his assignments and my own readings of Marx had already become pretty extensive and the avoidance of his most important text seemed silly So, on my own now, I began carrying the tome about in my backpack, reading most of it at Jim s Deli across Sheridan Road from the Lake Sho I had long avoided reading Das Kapital because I thought it would be too mathematically advanced for me Taking courses with the Marxist philosopher and mathematician, David Schweickart, induced me to make the effort since his assignments and my own readings of Marx had already become pretty extensive and the avoidance of his most important text seemed silly So, on my own now, I began carrying the tome about in my backpack, reading most of it at Jim s Deli across Sheridan Road from the Lake Shore Campus of Loyola University Chicago.To my great surprise, the first volume of Capital was actually a rather quick and easy read, none of the formulations requiringthan the most elementary understanding of arithmetic I learned later that Marx himself only got as far as the calculus later in life Additionally, it made sense as an explanation of economic behavior, adding a dimension, that of class, not much appearing in Adam Smith, the only other classical economist I d studied seriously previously Indeed, the section on Primitive Accumulation was, for me, emotionally powerful stuff.Getting over Capital and finding it not only illuminating but fun helped me overcome my fear of economics I went on to read quite a bitin the field and began purchasing and reading the International Publishers fifty volume set of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels as they became available ultimately finishing about half of it before becoming bogged down in his notes of the mid 1860s

  6. nick nick says:

    I have to say, this joint is bangin I find it useful when I m in the club P.S Check out the total or expanded form of value It s defective

  7. William William says:

    Capital, at least the first volume anyway, is not the most significant elucidation of a politico economic critique of the past millennia It is not because many governments have been supported by pillars of so called Marxism, or because by some miracle this book has been actually adopted by the working class, or because it s the longest and clearest that anyone would make such a claim, because, in all those aspects, Capital cannot by objective measure be posited to be as such Capital is not a b Capital, at least the first volume anyway, is not the most significant elucidation of a politico economic critique of the past millennia It is not because many governments have been supported by pillars of so called Marxism, or because by some miracle this book has been actually adopted by the working class, or because it s the longest and clearest that anyone would make such a claim, because, in all those aspects, Capital cannot by objective measure be posited to be as such Capital is not a book that appeals to insurgents, or better yet, doesn t appeal to anyone who plans on accelerating history in the here and now In most nations Capital isn t a working class bible, unfortunately And although it is, as indicated by my own high rating, a phenomenal book, it isn t what the alienated would be pulled towards in search of a higher purpose, or even solace But despite all of what I ve said, it remains standing as one of the greatest works of all theoreticians That is because it defies the previous establishment of work that hitherto existed, but it doesn t violently reject things altogether with the ill conceived propagandizing that so many supposedly innovative works rely upon, it engages with premises of political philosophy that precede it while deftly addressing notions taken for granted and left unexamined And because of that splendidly vigorous dedication to not simply adhering to a preconceived moral framework that determines economic evaluation, rather revealing form, then function, then consequences, and only then do we reach any discussion of ethics Capital is cold and clear as ice but that is why it is so substantial, it is first and foremost borne out of unbounded critical capability, not the worship of an idol or a State, but reverence to the value of theoretical commentary

  8. Graham Latham Graham Latham says:

    READ THE SHIT OUT OF THIS FKN DOORSTOP LONG LIVE SOCIALISM.

  9. Chelsea Szendi Chelsea Szendi says:

    Vampires, monsters, fetishes Stick with Marx through the saga of the coat and the M C M and the rewards are so rich When he guides you from the realm of exchange into the realm of production, I dare you not to feel like you are involved in cracking an incredible mystery Because you are.

  10. Fug o& Fug o& says:

    First you get the primitive accumulation then you get the Linen, Then you get the Coats, Then you get the Capital, Then you Get the Labour, Then you get The Surplus Value, then you get the mechanization, then you getSurplus Value Tony Montana

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *