How many of you have actually read Capital?

[Broletariat]

Just out of curiosity, I'm currently reading through all three volumes for the first time, only on Chapter 10 of volume one though.

[Queercommie Girl]

I've read an abridged and illustrated Chinese edition of Das Kapital.

[Bronco]

I've only read the first chapter, I'm still quite new to the far left though so I've been familiarising myself with more basic works like Wage, Labour & Capital/Value, Price & Profit and I'm reading some stuff by Kropotkin at the moment, I'd imagine I'll start reading it at some point in the not too distant future, within the next couple of years or so

[tbasherizer]

On a road trip, I read the entire penguin books abridged version in 13 hours straight. Now, whenever I think about the labor theory of value, I think of a stuffy bus and the snoring old man who sat next to me.

[bailey_187]

god no

[Catmatic Leftist]

You should make an option called "Currently in the process of reading Capital".

I'm on Capital: Volume 1 at the moment. I think I'll have to read some of the other preliminary works such as Value, Price, and Profit, and Wage Labor & Capital.

[scarletghoul]

I read volume 1 some time ago, have no desire to read the other 2 volumes any time soon .. so fucking tedious. I mean, the points he makes arn't that difficult to grasp but he goes on and on its annoying. I guess some people find it fun to read long books and get really into the literary style etc, but if youre just trying to get the theoretical points and dont wanna spend 1000000 hours reading its pretty annoying. But thats victorian era european literature in general i guess.. bastards. .

[Kamos]

About halfway through Volume 1. Just recently started reading it, so I'm still in the process.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I've read volume 1 and parts of 2 and 3. One day I want to go back and study all three hard but I don't have time for that right now

[praxis1966]

I read volume 1 some time ago, have no desire to read the other 2 volumes any time soon .. so fucking tedious. I mean, the points he makes arn't that difficult to grasp but he goes on and on its annoying. I guess some people find it fun to read long books and get really into the literary style etc, but if youre just trying to get the theoretical points and dont wanna spend 1000000 hours reading its pretty annoying. But thats victorian era european literature in general i guess.. bastards. .

Thank fuck somebody said it before I did... I didn't wanna get called a heretic and chased round the village by a pitchfork and torch wielding mob.

I read an abridged version in Penguin's The Portable Karl Marx and found myself wanting to tear my hair out. I'm not anti-intellectual, I consider myself one in fact, but Victorian era literature does have a way of talking itself in circles/beating a dead horse. If only he'd been more laconic.;)

[Kenco Smooth]

Read part 1 of volume 1 a while back and think I got a decent grasp of it but found myself missing some references to previous political economists so decided to delay the rest till I have a better grounding in that area to understand it properly.

[Broletariat]

The reason why Marx repeats himself so much is because what he is saying often slips people's understanding, something that is quite ironic considering some of the posters posting in here saying he repeats himself too much >_>

[praxis1966]

The reason why Marx repeats himself so much is because what he is saying often slips people's understanding, something that is quite ironic considering some of the posters posting in here saying he repeats himself too much >_>

I get that and it's a fair point, but generally I'm capable of understanding literature the first time through... Anyway, I'd never say don't read him. In fact, I'd say you have to in order to be a real leftist of any stripe. It's really just a petty gripe about style is all.

Anyway, would you like me to get the poll edited to get what's below incorporated?


You should make an option called "Currently in the process of reading Capital".

[Broletariat]

I get that and it's a fair point, but generally I'm capable of understanding literature the first time through... Anyway, I'd never say don't read him. In fact, I'd say you have to in order to be a real leftist of any stripe. It's really just a petty gripe about style is all.

Anyway, would you like me to get the poll edited to get what's below incorporated?

Yes please, thanks.

[Sasha]

edited the poll on OP and local mod request

[DiaMat86]

"I've never read Marx's Capital, but I have the marks of capital all over me."

-Big Bill Haywood

[bcbm]

i don't think i've read any marx to be honest

[Princess Luna]

ummmmmmm, maybe, kind of, i have.......lovely weather isn't it? :blushing:

[Decolonize The Left]

I've read Vol. I entirely, and parts of the other two. I wouldn't say it's necessary to read Vol. I (or any complete book of Capital) but it's definitely important to understand the concepts contained therein.

- August

[Book O'Dead]

I did. I mean, I read Capital but the dog ate my homework.

[Kuppo Shakur]

I'm only on my fourth re-read currently, still have a few more to go.:closedeyes:

[-marx-]

I've picked it apart/read bits of V1 here and there. I just always seem to be reading something else to bother reading it from cover to cover although it has been in my thoughts a lot lately and soon I will study the entire 6 volumes. YES, 6 volumes. (3 volumes of "theories of surplus value" as the 4th volume of capital).:D

[Hebrew Hammer]

My vote: I read an abridged edition (Oxford).

It was in 'pop up' format. I dug it.

[28350]

I've read abridged versions in the past, and am now in the midst of Vol. I.

[Thirsty Crow]

I guess some people find it fun to read long books and get really into the literary style etc, but if youre just trying to get the theoretical points and dont wanna spend 1000000 hours reading its pretty annoying. But thats victorian era european literature in general i guess.. bastards. .
I'd just like to point out a screaming paradox contained in statements such as this one: isn't it quite presumptous to assume that the variety of literary and rhetorical discourses in the second half of the 19th century can be reduced to its Victorian model?

Other than Capital, which I'll dive into after I'm done with 1844 manuscripts and Grundrisse, I really enjoy Marx's writing (critique of Hegel, On the Jewish Question, German Ideology, Commie Manifesto). I like it when the author hammers the message home more than once.

[svenne]

I've read vol. 1 and has been reading vol. 2 for a while. But i'll propably stop reading the second one, and read the first - again. Pretty damn proud of myself, to be honest.

[Hit The North]

I've been an active Marxist for nearly thirty years and I've never read Capital volume one from cover to cover.

At the risk of sounding philistine, why would you bother, unless you wanted to be a Marxist scholar or scholar of political economy more generally?

[Kuppo Shakur]

Title should be "How many of you are total armchair revolutionary bastards?"

[Thirsty Crow]

I've been an active Marxist for nearly thirty years and I've never read Capital volume one from cover to cover.

At the risk of sounding philistine, why would you bother, unless you wanted to be a Marxist scholar or scholar of political economy more generally?
Maybe it would be a good idea to do that given the fact that, as a Marxist, you have surely based your own views on other Marxists' use of Marx's critique, and we all know that there are many of those Marxist "teachers" whose exegeses are, at best, flawed. So, what I want to sa is basically that any Marxist may end up in a dead end if she/he decides to go with other works employing the analytical tools exposed on and used by Marx, but in a wrong or insufficient way.

[Hit The North]

Maybe it would be a good idea to do that given the fact that, as a Marxist, you have surely based your own views on other Marxists' use of Marx's critique, and we all know that there are many of those Marxist "teachers" whose exegeses are, at best, flawed. So, what I want to sa is basically that any Marxist may end up in a dead end if she/he decides to go with other works employing the analytical tools exposed on and used by Marx, but in a wrong or insufficient way.

I have some sympathy for your position but I also think that August's point that one understands and can explain the core theory to other workers is more important than a close textual reading of Marx's work. Do I need to closely study all three volumes of Das Kapital in order to explain the LTV, the irreconcilability of the class struggle, or the tendency to crisis? I hope not.

As for the problem of secondary interpretation of primary sources, that is a problem in any intellectual tradition and is not overcome by multiplying those interpretations through encouraging everyone to add their own interpretation. Moreover, it encourages scholasticism, reducing Marxist activism to a cloistered activity of textual interpretation (as if the interpretation is the important thing). In fact, this resembles how much of the left operates, particularly the smaller sects. We spend too much time arguing over the details of doctrine.

Besides, Das Kapital is not an instruction manual for activism. It contains no theory of the party or the relations between party and class, class and state, the role of trade union bureaucrats, etcetera. It doesn't help us to organise strikes, protests, occupations, rent strikes, or whatever.

It is extremely important that we are clear about our ideas and can defend them in argument but, at the end of the day, workers respect people who fight and can organise.

I'm not saying people shouldn't read the primary sources, they should. But we don't want to miss the revolution because all the Marxists were at a summer school reading Capital vol three when they should have been at home organising workers councils!

I mean, we don't do this because we want to sit an exam. We do it to change the world.

[praxis1966]

To expound upon what Menocchio's saying, I'm not a Marxist per se, but I do find a lot of his criticisms and analysis useful. Furthermore, I feel like if I plan on being critical of Marxists I ought to at least be somewhat familiar with the origins of their thought processes. To me, whether you're a Marxist or not, if you claim to be either a proponent or detractor of the paradigm and you've never read any of his work, it's a bit like being critical of evolutionary theory yet never having bothered to at least read a few critical excerpts of On the Origin of the Species...

Obviously, there have been others who've added to, for better or for worse, both Marx's and Darwin's thinking, but the fundamental structures are still present in both modern day biology and Marxist thought. This doesn't mean you have to be a professional scholar to have an opinion, but some cursory familiarity is surely helpful. To borrow an analogy from Stephen J. Gould, it's something akin to the duomo at Milan. That structure was rather modest in the beginning but was subsequently added to over the course of centuries, eventually appearing to be something completely unfamiliar. However, the original four walls, the foundation, the the original load bearing tresses, all of those are still there. My question would be, if you didn't know that the duomo was like originally, how could you begin to understand what and where others had added to it?

As an aside, I think BtB has some great points as well... Couldn't have said it better if I'd tried.

[Tommy4ever]

I've read all of Volume 1 and plan to start Volume 2 tommorrow.

I tell you, the first half of Volume 1 was bloody hard going, it gets easier later on. I definately think it is worthwhile for anyone leftist (the vast majority of whom tend to at the every least accept Marx's critique of capitalism).

[ellipsis]

I've read selections of Vol 1 for a Marx and Marxisms class. I was talking to somebody at another school who was in a class where they were reading "all of marx" (it was the name of the class). So I asked if he was reading Kapital Volume 3 (some of marx). his response, "nobody reads volume 3"!

[Johnny Kerosene]

I read like a chapter of Volume 1, but I'm also not a Marxist, so, yeah.

[Zanthorus]

Do I need to closely study all three volumes of Das Kapital in order to explain the LTV, the irreconcilability of the class struggle, or the tendency to crisis?

This is the problem though. People who toss Capital aside as if it merely contains truths which are evident to all socialists like 'workers are exploited' usually end up reducing the content to a few hollowed out propositions for propaganda use. Also Capital is not just some kind of corrected version of Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' and Ricardo's 'Principle of Political Economy and Taxation', it contains material on things like the relation between subject and object and the individual and society which are not typically found in the narrow realm of political economy. Even more than that, how many people do we have on here who couldn't explain those three things if put under pressure? I'm going to take a guess and say quite a few.


Besides, Das Kapital is not an instruction manual for activism.

Yes, but that's sort of the whole point of the book.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Likely only DNZ and a few others can select the option for reading the entire work of Marx's Capital. (Three Volumes) :lol:

[-marx-]

I've been an active Marxist for nearly thirty years and I've never read Capital volume one from cover to cover.

At the risk of sounding philistine, why would you bother, unless you wanted to be a Marxist scholar or scholar of political economy more generally?


I don't know about everyone else but I intend on being one of the most educated Marxists around. I have well over 100 books on Marxism, a further 300 E-books on Marxism and I wont stop studying until I achieve this personal goal. Of course, it wont stop there and I have no intent of being an armchair Marxist.

I have a long way to go...

:D

[Die Rote Fahne]

I have all 3 volumes, as well as Luxemburg's "Accumulation of Capital", sitting in my room.

When i finish The Gunslinger, i plan on starting Capital.

[Welshy]

I'm currently making my way through Value, Price, and Profit (I'm a slow reader), but after I finish that and Grundisse I will begin Volume 1.

[Mr. Cervantes]

I have read volume one and small parts of two.

I never really got into volume three.

I'm in the process of reading all three volumes all over again which will take a great deal of many months.

[I.O.T.M]

I've read a beginners guide to it if that counts?

[SHORAS]

I've been an active Marxist for nearly thirty years and I've never read Capital volume one from cover to cover.

At the risk of sounding philistine, why would you bother, unless you wanted to be a Marxist scholar or scholar of political economy more generally?

Because you want to try and understand capitalism as best you can? If one considers themselves a communist they should read Capital and Marx in general it's as simple as that It really shouldn't have to be said. What did Engels say? It is the bible for every conscious worker. On a more general note I don't think there exists the thirst for knowledge or reading these days and this also effects the revolutionary or so called elements.

[Martin Blank]

Read all three volumes of Capital a few times (and Theories of Surplus Value, and the Grundrisse, and Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, and...). One time, a group of us did the ultimate Capital study: read it and Hegel's three-volume Science of Logic together. For hardcore communist theoreticians, that's like watching the Wizard of Oz and listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon synced together.

[The Man]

In the past 2 months I have three pages. :laugh:

[Rjevan]

Volume 1 so far and I definitely don't regret it. Tommy4ever is right about the first chapters, tough stuff. But once they're "overcome" it suddenly gets far more readable. The preface (not Engels) suggested that these first chapters might be responsible for countless frustrated Marxists quitting Kapital and never going beyond them. They certainly put me off when I attempted to read Kapital for the first time as over-enthusiastic Marxist freshman.

You may get some of the concepts from other, shorter works like "Value, Price and Profit" or "Wage Labour and Capital" but obviously they are far more outlined and supplemented in "Das Kapital". It's never bad to actually have a solid understanding of what you're talking about, saves a lot of embarrassment and giving ground to your opponent in arguments. ;)

[Revolutionair]

Done with Volume 1, in the process of reading the rest.

[Tommy4ever]

Volume 2 is slowly driving me towards insanity. I'm 150 pages in (I've been reading it kinda fast :p) and it all seems to be just as tough as the beginning of Volume 2. Plus the lack of footnotes taking up half the page make each section seem much longer. :/

I think I'm going to radically slow down my reading (150 pages over about 3 days seems to be way too much to properly grasp the text) to mabye 10-20 pages per day. Definately prefered Volume 1.

[Zanthorus]

Volume II is the worst of the three but it's worth persevering through it for the conclusions at the end with regards uneven and combined development etc as well as the fact that it forms the lead in for Volume III which picks up again in terms of readability and general theoretical interest.

[Decolonize The Left]

Read all three volumes of Capital a few times (and Theories of Surplus Value, and the Grundrisse, and Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, and...). One time, a group of us did the ultimate Capital study: read it and Hegel's three-volume Science of Logic together. For hardcore communist theoreticians, that's like watching the Wizard of Oz and listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon synced together.

This is the most nerdy thing I've ever read on this forum, and I love you for it.

- August

[Lyev]

Read all three volumes of Capital a few times (and Theories of Surplus Value, and the Grundrisse, and Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, and...). One time, a group of us did the ultimate Capital study: read it and Hegel's three-volume Science of Logic together. For hardcore communist theoreticians, that's like watching the Wizard of Oz and listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon synced together.This post made me laugh, but how do you get to the point where you can seriously study Hegel and get something meaningful out of it? Do you have some kind of background in philosophy or is it just more of an interest? I guess the secondary literature is always recommendable; there is probably a wealth out there. I imagine it is very rewarding at the end. Actually, reading it in a study-group environment probably helps somewhat too, I guess. Any thoughts?

[Zanthorus]

This post made me laugh, but how do you get to the point where you can seriously study Hegel and get something meaningful out of it?

I actually think understanding Marx especially texts like the Grundrisse is quite helpful in reading Hegel because Marx's ideas are more 'concrete' and easier to understand as well as being forged often in a theoretical struggle with Hegelianism so it is a good starting point for reading Hegel himself..

[Q]

I've picked it apart/read bits of V1 here and there. I just always seem to be reading something else to bother reading it from cover to cover although it has been in my thoughts a lot lately and soon I will study the entire 6 volumes. YES, 6 volumes. (3 volumes of "theories of surplus value" as the 4th volume of capital).:D

Did you also consider The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx (http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/index.htm), which is also considered by some to be a "fourth volume"?

[Android]

Did you also consider The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx (http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/index.htm), which is also considered by some to be a "fourth volume"?

Are you serious? DNZ's promotion of it does not count as a basis for it to become the fourth volume.

[Q]

Are you serious? DNZ's promotion of it does not count as a basis for it to become the fourth volume.

Yes, I am serious. Kautsky was the literary executioner of the will of Marx. Whatever you think of the man, this is surely a serious work.

[Jose Gracchus]

Lots of executioners shit all over their charges. I'll approach anything recommended by DNZ with a stick and a biohazard suit.

[Zanthorus]

Yes, I am serious. Kautsky was the literary executioner of the will of Marx. Whatever you think of the man, this is surely a serious work.

Eduard Bernstein was entrusted by Engels' with his estate, including among other things the manuscript for 'The German Ideology'. That certainly turned out brilliantly didn't it? Also what Marx thought about Kautsky is a matter of record and needless to say he was not exactly brimming with praise with regards Kautsky's intelligence or general understanding of anything:


And then he [Hirsch] has found a companion in Kautsky – at whom he scowled so darkly; Engels too has taken a much milder view of this Kauz since he has proved himself a very talented drinker. When this charmer first appeared at my place – I mean little Kauz – the first question which escaped me was: are you like your mother? Not in the very least, he assured me, and I silently congratulated his mother. He is a mediocrity with a small-minded outlook, superwise (only 26), very conceited, industrious in a certain sort of way, he busies himself a lot with statistics but does not read anything very clever out of them, belongs by nature to the tribe of the philistines but is otherwise a decent fellow in his own way. I turn him over to friend Engels as much as possible.- Marx to Jenny Longuet, April 11th 1881

Anyway, Marx was quite clear in the preface to the first edition that 'Theories of Surplus-Value' was the fourth volume so that hypothesis of the Kautskyites goes out the window. Oh yeah, and what else. Ah, I remember, the book is a bunch of horseshit and has been shown to be such by practically every modern commentator on Marx's works.

[Fopeos]

Am well into volume 1. I am finding it a bit tedious. It has helped me understand economics. Victorian literature is a bit difficult to slog through. I had the same trouble with Poe years ago

[Kuppo Shakur]

I've decided to write a Kuppo's Translation of Capital, so y'all can read it easier.

[praxis1966]

Not the place, Kuppo...

[-marx-]

Did you also consider The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx (http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/index.htm), which is also considered by some to be a "fourth volume"?
Nope, never considered it.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Not the place, Kuppo...
You ain't the boss of me, bro.

[praxis1966]

I don't want to issue a warning if I don't have to, so please, keep it on topic and the one-liners in Chit-Chat or I will.

[Q]

Eduard Bernstein was entrusted by Engels' with his estate, including among other things the manuscript for 'The German Ideology'. That certainly turned out brilliantly didn't it? Also what Marx thought about Kautsky is a matter of record and needless to say he was not exactly brimming with praise with regards Kautsky's intelligence or general understanding of anything:

- Marx to Jenny Longuet, April 11th 1881

Anyway, Marx was quite clear in the preface to the first edition that 'Theories of Surplus-Value' was the fourth volume so that hypothesis of the Kautskyites goes out the window.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-axKcEG-RXRw/S_C6uSHbzCI/AAAAAAACUhA/ceObQRIWSzA/IMGP7580.JPG

Well done, bravo.


Oh yeah, and what else. Ah, I remember, the book is a bunch of horseshit and has been shown to be such by practically every modern commentator on Marx's works.
And just when we get to substance, this is all you have?


Nope, never considered it.
Was there any particular reason for this?

Edit:
I might add that I've never read the Economic Doctrines myself, but as far as I know it was considered a standard work by the Bolsheviks and remained a standard up until 1934 (if I'm not mistaken). So to dismiss something like this, I expect a little better than lowly kneejerk gossip from another century.

So yes, substance please.

[Il Medico]

I didn't vote cause there was no option that said "Thumbed trough Vol. 1 as a source for a research paper in high school and couldn't give you a coherent explanation of whats in it if my life depended on it."

[Zanthorus]

And just when we get to substance, this is all you have?

Right, and your posts had so much more substance - pointing out that Kautsky was the executor of Marx's estate, and now apparently that the Bolsheviks used it up until 1934?

Anyway, if you're actually interested, Kautsky's book is problematic because he was one of the foremost exponenets of the historical interpretation of Marx's method whereby the development of the categories essentially follows their actual development in history. Although it is never quite made explicit in the text of Capital itself, Marx himself does state pretty clearly in the Grundrisse that his method of exposition followed a similar line to the development of categories in Hegel's Science of Logic, beggining not with the categories which were earliest in historical development but with those most important in the order of bourgeois society, and then moving from these abstract categories to the concrete, or to put it another way, from the essence of bourgeois society to it's forms of appearance. This comes out fairly clearly if you look at the subjects of discussion in Volume I - value and surplus-value mainly - then compare them to those of Volume III which deals with the forms of appearance of those categories - price and profit. Kautsky's historical interpretation butchers Marx's exposition by, among other things, viewing the transformation of values into prices of production not as a move from content to form but as an actual historical procedure in which an original society of simple commodity production in which all commodities exchange directly at their values is transformed into a capitalist society where commodities exchange at prices of production. In the very first chapter of the Economic Doctrines he muddles Marx's exposition of the value-form by regarding the development from the pure exchange of commodities at their values to the expression of the values of all commodities in the money commodity as a historical development whereas the whole point of Marx's analysis is that the money-form is the sole form adequate to the concept of value. Value does not exist prior to the development of the money commodity, nor in fact does it exist prior to capitalist production.

Ultimately though, the real problem I have with your parading around the Economic Doctrines as the 'Fourth Volume' of Capital is quite simply that it's another attempt to replace Marx with, well, not Marx. Kautsky is not Marx, and as such pretending that his Economic Doctrines forms a fourth volume of Capital really represents more of an ideological attempt to impose a certain reading of Marx as opposed to letting his texts speak for themselves.

[Rooster]

I've managed to read all three volumes because I travel a lot and I can't afford a game boy.

I suppose it must be kind of hard to read long winded books this day and age with all of the distractions of the modern world. Also, I think being forced to textually analyse a book is a good skill to be forced into doing...

[praxis1966]

After consultation with Wanted Man, we've come to the conclusion that this thread would be better off in the Theory forum.

Thus, moved.

[Wanted Man]

Removed image tag from massive picture for readability.

[Broletariat]

After consultation with Wanted Man, we've come to the conclusion that this thread would be better off in the Theory forum.

Thus, moved.

All my threads in chit-chat or non-political get moved here, no one posts here, that's why I put them there to begin with :/

[Quail]

I've read some of volume 1. I have to admit, I find it extremely boring and I can't really get myself to feel enthusiastic enough about it to read any more.

[praxis1966]

All my threads in chit-chat or non-political get moved here, no one posts here, that's why I put them there to begin with :/

Well, I left a permanent redirect in Non-Poli, so hopefully the folks who might've been looking for it will click through and post anyway.

[SacRedMan]

Volume 1 was only available in my country

[Nikolay]

Soon as I'm finished Grundrisse (with the study group) I'll start the long journey of reading all three volumes. I think this project will take me at least a year and a half.

[Blackburn]

For hardcore communist theoreticians, that's like watching the Wizard of Oz and listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon synced together.

Well, I've done that.... just not the Marx.

I'm only kinda new to all of this, but I have a copy of Das Kapital on my ipad :)

[Tenka]

I tried at least twice and never got past chapter 3 of volume 1. It's not that it's hard to read, but that it's so... so boring!

[ColonelCossack]

no... but in my defence, i am only 15. :blink:

[Martin Blank]

This post made me laugh, but how do you get to the point where you can seriously study Hegel and get something meaningful out of it? Do you have some kind of background in philosophy or is it just more of an interest? I guess the secondary literature is always recommendable; there is probably a wealth out there. I imagine it is very rewarding at the end. Actually, reading it in a study-group environment probably helps somewhat too, I guess. Any thoughts?

There is a dirty little secret to Capital: Marx lifted the literary architecture for Capital from Hegel's Science of Logic. Capital begins with that very long first chapter on the commodity, which is the foundation for everything that comes after. Science of Logic did that with Being. It's a great exercise for seeing how Marx built his analysis of capitalism on the method of materialist dialectics (through comparison and contrast with Hegel's idealist dialectic in SoL), and understanding how the contradictions inherent in the commodity (use-value and exchange-value) lead to motion and change within the entire mode of production.

[Tim Finnegan]

I've read whatever bits of Capital are in Robert C. Tucker's Marx-Engels Reader, which *let me check* contains extracts from Volume I and Volume III.

[scarletghoul]

Volume 1 was only available in my country
thats not true, i've seen it available in britain too

[Zugunruhe]

I've read a book that snipped pieces that the author found ideologically important from all three volumes, so I've read bits of all three. Right now, I'm trying to read volume I in the original German. It's slow going, though. I'm about half-way through the first volume. Oy.

[Barry]

Literally started to read an abridged version but waiting on the full works to arrive in the post

[bietan jarrai]

I stopped, I didn't really get to the middle of Vol.1, I think I'll download it, because the local library's time limit is bullshit, a friend told me it's useful to take notes as you're reading it.

[Rocky Rococo]

I think I got about 10 or 12 chapters in when I finally ran out of steam Since then I've read additional excerpts, which I've found much more useful than trying to plow this his, dare I say it, rococo argumentation, in terms of grasping the main principles he's trying to illustrate.