What to read before Capital

[aziraphale]

I know that Wages and Profit is recommended before it but what else would be good?

[ZeroNowhere]

Perhaps Wage-Labour and Capital, although it's not essential. Other than that, you're best off avoiding any exegeses of Capital, including Mandel's introductions, because they're pretty much always flawed.

[S.Artesian]

Perhaps Wage-Labour and Capital, although it's not essential. Other than that, you're best off avoiding any exegeses of Capital, including Mandel's introductions, because they're pretty much always flawed.


Agree. Here's my "order of battle," FWIW:

1. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
2. Wage-labor and capital
3. Value, Price, and Profit
4. Germany: Revolution and Counterrevolution
5. Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850
6. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
7. The Poverty of Philsophy
8. Reread the EPM of 1844
9. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
10. Capital, Vol 1
11. The Grundrisse
12. Capital, Vol 3

There is no reason to NOT read several of these works simultaneously, if you are so inclined. Mixing and matching is always in order. Marx's work in historical materialism-- on the class struggle in France,etc. -- are brilliant applications of his grasp of the social relations of labor and property.

I strongly suggest reading Marx's draft Economic Manuscripts, written between 1861-1864--includes drafts of Capital, Theories of Surplus Value, and a truly remarkable essay on the "Reconversion of Surplus Value into Capital," in volume 34 of the collected works. These essays are in vols 30,33,34.

Remember, vol 1, and A Contribution to the Critique... are intended to be introductory volumes, so don't be put off by what anybody says about their difficulty.

And don't believe Lenin, it is not necessary to understand Hegel in order to understand Marx. Just the reverse is true. It is necessary to understand Marx to understand Hegel.

[ZeroNowhere]

I notice that you did not include Volume 2. I would generally advise reading them in order, although I can't testify from experience about the relative merit of not doing so.

However, given that they were meant as introductory, and I think that they fulfill this role quite well, I'm not sure that there's much use in reading the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts first; I think that they are more valuable to understanding the EPM than the other way round. However, I am not sure that the EPM would add much to Capital, and Capital develops the same themes in greater depth. If anything, The German Ideology would probably be a better companion, as by then Marx mostly drops the philosophical jargon and expresses the same thing in clearer language. Nonetheless, I don't see that Capital needs any supplement, nor that the EPM will make it any clearer.

Regarding Hegel, I would agree that it is not necessary to read Hegel to understand Marx (although I'm not sure about the opposite being true; Marx certainly didn't read Marx to understand Hegel). Feuerbach is quite a lot more readable, and probably actually more useful to understanding Marx (especially the earlier work) than Hegel. I would probably recommend reading Feuerbach before the 1844 manuscripts, and possibly the German Ideology.

In summary, I think that if one wishes to read Capital, one may as well just get through VPP and WLC and then get to it.

[vampire squid]

i would say, stop worrying about being intellectually prepared and just jump in feet first. just don't be afraid to re-read the first few chapters one or two times.

[S.Artesian]

I notice that you did not include Volume 2. I would generally advise reading them in order, although I can't testify from experience about the relative merit of not doing so.

However, given that they were meant as introductory, and I think that they fulfill this role quite well, I'm not sure that there's much use in reading the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts first; I think that they are more valuable to understanding the EPM than the other way round. However, I am not sure that the EPM would add much to Capital, and Capital develops the same themes in greater depth. If anything, The German Ideology would probably be a better companion, as by then Marx mostly drops the philosophical jargon and expresses the same thing in clearer language. Nonetheless, I don't see that Capital needs any supplement, nor that the EPM will make it any clearer.

Regarding Hegel, I would agree that it is not necessary to read Hegel to understand Marx (although I'm not sure about the opposite being true; Marx certainly didn't read Marx to understand Hegel). Feuerbach is quite a lot more readable, and probably actually more useful to understanding Marx (especially the earlier work) than Hegel. I would probably recommend reading Feuerbach before the 1844 manuscripts, and possibly the German Ideology.

In summary, I think that if one wishes to read Capital, one may as well just get through VPP and WLC and then get to it.


Personal preference. Prefer volume 3 based on Marx's exploration of the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. Volume 2, in which Marx takes up circulation and disproportion was easier for me to grasp after volume 3.

I think the EPM are essential, for this marks [!] Marx's shift to the study of the actual material conditions of social reproduction, the labor process. Marx maintains that essential "fidelity" to the labor process, to the conflict between the labor process and the valorisation process throughout his critique of political economy.

Yes, I quite agree-- read one or two things then jump right in. Then read 2 or 3 things, and jump right back in and reread volume 1.

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest, I think that the whole of Volume 1 is probably not essential to re-read. The first three chapters definitely are, however.

As regards the fidelity to the labour process, I think that this was made very clear in volume 1 of Capital, with the chapter devoted to the labour process, the description of machinery, and so on.

[vampire squid]

there's some important stuff later on about absolute vs. relative surplus value, as well as time vs. piece wages, primitive accumulation etc. these are important concepts that are worth reviewing but they're not terribly difficult to grasp either.

[nuisance]

Don't read it to early on in, waste of time and sanity. Read some of the more modern stuff coming out which talks about the modern stage of capitalism and the way it's affecting the western world, aswell as how social mangement has reacted in accordance with it. I'd recommend 'the coming insurrection'.
http://libcom.org/library/coming-insurrection-invisible-committee
Here's also a section of the anarchist faq on capitalism, which you might want to read to avoid tackling the many volumes of Capital quite yet.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC2

[ZeroNowhere]

Don't read it to early on in, waste of time and sanity. Read some of the more modern stuff coming out which talks about the modern stage of capitalism and the way it's affecting the western world, aswell as how social mangement has reacted in accordance with it. I'd recommend 'the coming insurrection'.
http://libcom.org/library/coming-insurrection-invisible-committee
Here's also a section of the anarchist faq on capitalism, which you might want to read to avoid tackling the many volumes of Capital quite yet.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC2
They were asking what would be good to read to prepare for reading Capital, not how to procrastinate through inferior works before doing so.

[this is an invasion]

Reading Capital Politically by Harry Cleaver



They were asking what would be good to read to prepare for reading Capital, not how to procrastinate through inferior works before doing so.

shush you

[Ismail]

Honestly, I have Capital Vol. I-III in book form, and Vol. I really isn't hard at all assuming you know basic Marxian views in-re materialism and an understanding of the terms used. (And Marx explains most of the terms and what they signify anyway, e.g. surplus-value) The only reason the book has the reputation it does is because Marx took his time explaining stuff, so for the random cappie reading it with no prior knowledge of Marxism it looks like Marx keeps on repeating things over and over, including an unhealthy obsession with linen in contrast with coats early on. But for actual Marxists, it shouldn't be that hard.

It seems the only "hard" stuff about Vols. II-III is that they seem to delve into math, but that's just a weak spot for me.

I haven't actually watched these, but I hear they can be helpful whilst reading Capital Vol. I (since they're seemingly an overview and explanation of things in each chapter, rather than "CAPITAL IS SO AWESOME HERE IS MY GENIUS INTERPRETATION OF IT"): http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

There's also Brendan M. Cooney, who is currently reading and reviewing Vol. III, and who has stuff on Marxist economics: http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

For terms this may be helpful (though some inaccuracies and/or bastardizations are bound to exist in regards to "socialist" economics since it was printed in the 1985 USSR): http://leninist.biz/en/1985/DOPE397/index.html

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Read Wage Labor and Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm) (among the best and most accessible of Marx's work) and Value, Price and Profit (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm) first. Both are relatively short, so they don't require too much of a commitment. They are definitely worth the time.

[Zanthorus]

Reading Capital Politically by Harry Cleaver

Don't do this. Cleaver's work seems to be more of his own "interpretation" of Marx's work rather than attempt to faithfully recreate Marx's arguments. And his own ideas are fairly terrible.

[S.Artesian]

Here's an idea. Just read volume 1 without any "prep" work. Write down what you don't think you understand. Then read Value Price and Profit, Wage-labour and capital, and see if that explains what you don't understand.

[this is an invasion]

Don't do this. Cleaver's work seems to be more of his own "interpretation" of Marx's work rather than attempt to faithfully recreate Marx's arguments. And his own ideas are fairly terrible.

Don't listen to this person.

LOL

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I don't actually care. Read what you want.

[Proletarian Ultra]

it looks like Marx keeps on repeating things over and over, including an unhealthy obsession with linen in contrast with coats early on.

This is why nothing can really prepare you for Capital. You can read all the introductions and commentaries you want but at the end of the day it's still coats and fucking linen til you want to pop your own eardrums with a screwdriver for the three most important chapters. :cursing: Here's the first sentence of chapter 1 from Cleaver's book (which I think is good, precisely because it is not a neutral exposition):


Why does Marx begin his study of capital with the analysis of commodities -- of useful products of human labor that are bought and sold?

Harvey begins with the same question, and I suspect most general books on Capital do as well. "It seemed like a good idea at the time" is probably the best answer one can give; from a pedagogical point of view it's a terrible choice.

[S.Artesian]

Harvey begins with the same question, and I suspect most general books on Capital do as well. "It seemed like a good idea at the time" is probably the best answer one can give; from a pedagogical point of view it's a terrible choice.

Disagree. What do people do in their daily life? Buy and sell. What are they buying? What are they selling? Useful objects? No. Useful objects that embody a specific social relation of production. That's why Marx starts where he starts.

Capital, vol 1. is intended as an introductory volume into capitalist reproduction. What is capitalism reproducing? Value. The value relationship. I don't see any other place to begin the examination of the logic of capital other than that "logic," "reason," itself-- value.

[blake 3:17]

The best introduction I've come across is Marxist Economics for Socialists by John Harrison. It don't think it has been in print for eons, but it is a very readable introduction to the subject, written in plain language with concrete examples.

[k101]

I would say to just jump right in and read it. The first 3 chapters are the hard ones so if you feel like they are boggling your mind you can try a companion book like David Harvey's (or his fantastic online lecture series on each chapter) or one of the countless others. Keep in mind that any companion book might not get it totally right. Always question Marx's interpreters.

There are definitely plenty of unanswered things in Vol. 1 because Marx is intentionally restricting the scope of his analysis and level of abstraction. You may finish vol. 1 and wonder exactly what the value-price relation is, a complete crisis theory is, or the best way to overthrow capitalism. Unfortunately these are still topics that Marxists today debate, so even if you read the entire collected works of Marx you may still not have an answer. But once you've tackled vol. 1 you will have a solid base for reading and thinking about all the writers who've debated these topics.

I think the better question is what to read after vol. 1. And this depends on what it is you want to know next.

But, probably most important is to take your time reading Marx. I don't think people should rush vol. 1. There's a lot in there and it's worth mulling over deeply.