Reading Marx's Capital

[The Feral Underclass]

I've noticed a few people talking about Capital and how they are struggling with it. Just trying to sit down and read the book without any context or basic understanding isn't going to be very useful or easy, especially if you are not already familiar with the theories.

You should probably understand that Marx was not a good writer in any case, and if you are struggling it may very well be that you are only struggling because of the bad way Marx expresses himself, not because you are incapable of understanding the idea. This problems becomes even more difficult as you go into the second and third volumes where most conventions on writing appear to have been abandoned.

A friend of mine introduced me to David Harvey's free lectures: If you have a copy of the book there is a series of lectures by David Harvey that you can watch for free and that go through the book methodically in order to give you an easier and more in depth understanding of the book(s). Here is some background on who David Harvey is (it's just wikipedia): David Harvey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harvey_(geographer))

They are video lectures and you will need a couple of hours for each one in the series. They are definitely worth sticking with if you wish to understand what is probably one of the most important pieces of writing ever produced.

The lectures will go through the chapters in detail. You should probably approach these lectures as you would approach any lecture. Pay attention, take notes, do the extra reading.

You can find the series on Harvey's website here: Reading Marx's Capital with David Harvey (http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/)

[Q]

I agree Marx could have expressed himself a little better. If he would've used a few more diagrams explaining basic concepts it would've been clearer and saved in pages. Much of Capital is also a long accusation against practices of the time, which are a little superfluous to understanding the underlying ideas.

But besides these notes I think Capital is often made to appear more difficult than it really is. For all its shortcomings Marx intended to have the book read by the masses of the proletariat.

The prime difficulty flows from his approach where he starts out in the abstract in the first few chapters and then moves to the more concrete. Since most of the stuff is so obvious to all our lives, it's a little difficult to take a step back and study elements of reality which are commonly perceived in their totality.

Beyond these starting chapters, Capital is really not that hard to follow.

[Kirillov]

I do not know David Harvey's book, but I'd strongly disagree with the notion that Marx wrote much essentially dispensable words. I do not know if there's something like Michael Heinrich's (Neue Marx Lektüre) "reading helper" in english, but he's literally (and rightfully) spending passages discussing a sentence. I think - quite the contrary - Marx wasn't even close to elaborate sufficiently (read: unmistakably) and especially in respect of an audience so far away from the 19th century. Just look at all the controversies between serious Marxists today on whether his theory of value was in fact substantialist, non-substantialist or ultra-substantialist and if so, whether it has to be corrected.

I'd recommend discussing Das Kapital in a reading group. Because that way one doesn't just scan over the text. However OP is very right about understanding being difficult with no background at all, and I'd add and highly recommend Richard D. Wolff's classes: rdwolff.com/classes

[The Feral Underclass]

I hope people who are coming here and reading this thread take the opportunity to use this amazing resource. I fear that many young people who come into contact with the radical left don't really want to read.

[Zukunftsmusik]

You should probably understand that Marx was not a good writer in any case [...]

I disagree. I think he was a good writer, although he expresses himself in (too) complex ways at times. One of my favourite texts by Marx is The 18th Brumaire (or, more correctly, the parts i've read), simply because of the language.


The prime difficulty flows from his approach where he starts out in the abstract in the first few chapters and then moves to the more concrete. Since most of the stuff is so obvious to all our lives, it's a little difficult to take a step back and study elements of reality which are commonly perceived in their totality.

I agree with the last part, I often find myself struggling with long passages, which, when taking a step back, are saying quite obvious things.


Beyond these starting chapters, Capital is really not that hard to follow.

The first three chapters are, however, in many ways the most important ones, perhaps in addition to the chapters on capital.

I know some people suggest tongue-in-cheek to read Capital backwards, or, more seriously, to save the first three chapters to read when you're finished with the rest. I don't think it's a good idea to follow these suggestions literally. I think one should take Capital as it is, but one should be aware that the first three chapters might be a hindrance. However, if one discusses them with others they're not that hard to get a grasp on.

[The Feral Underclass]

Someone who expresses themselves badly or inaccessibly is not a good writer.

[Slippers]

Thank you for this. This ought to be an excellent resource. About half-way into the first lecture.

Capital has been very difficult for me to read. I will keep on it though.

[Pravda]

You should probably understand that Marx was not a good writer in any case, and if you are struggling it may very well be that you are only struggling because of the bad way Marx expresses himself
Lol
No, Marx was actually a brilliant writer.

[The Feral Underclass]

Lol
No, Marx was actually a brilliant writer.

Not by any standard that aims to express ideas clearly and accessibly, but I'm glad to see that my thread trying to help people understand Capital better has been turned into a discussion about whether or not Marx was a good writer. Well done guys.

[subcp]

It's a very valuable text; that can aid your understanding no matter how many times you re-read or go back to it. I'd recommend avoiding all of the academics, who twist and alter and re-conceptualize the text (and Marxism in general); it's not that hard of a read, despite the gap of a century and a half, especially if you do your own 'reading guide' (looking up things you don't understand or asking questions or re-reading the text or moving on then coming back later etc. I don't understand how the way Capital was written (whats available is an unfinished text- parts of which weren't published or made available until the 1970s) makes Marx a 'bad writer'

[black magick hustla]

capital isn't really hard to understand. there isn't much jargon going on. it's just really fuckin long, and 1000 pgs of theory can be a little too much.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's just not helpful for people to say "it's not that hard to read" or "it's not that hard to understand," since clearly that is not the case for a great many people.

If it is the case that some of you have read the book once and managed to understand the breadth and depth of the ideas and theories, and been able to grapple with and imbibe all the richness of the references to history and the creativity he draws upon, then well done. But I wager than anyone who claims this has either read the book superficial, has a misplaced sense of their own abilities or is a liar.

In any case, Harvey doesn't bring his own politics into this series, he simply draws upon his 40 years of experience of reading and studying the text of this book and presents the ideas, context and depth of the books content in a way that is easy for people to understand and that challenges people's conceptions.

If others are so arrogant as to think they can do without what David Harvey is saying, then I wish you all the luck in the world.

[Desy]

You can find the series on Harvey's website here: davidharvey.org/reading-capital Reading Marx's Capital with David Harve]

Thank you. Saved the link, and I can't wait to start this!!

I also want to thank all of the other revleft users that are putting study guides up and helping new comers, like me, transition faster and easier to leftist theory.

[The Feral Underclass]

Thank you. Saved the link, and I can't wait to start this!!

I also want to thank all of the other revleft users that are putting study guides up and helping new comers, like me, transition faster and easier to leftist theory.

Enjoy :)

[black magick hustla]

It's just not helpful for people to say "it's not that hard to read" or "it's not that hard to understand," since clearly that is not the case for a great many people.

sorry for sounding flippant. i wasn't being anti-harvey or questioning you. i was just remembering some people arguing how "the working class cant read capital" and i guess i was just fighting that ghost. it's a really deep book, and it's in some ways hard to understand, but not because of the "language". :)

[l'Enfermé]

Regarding Marx being a bad writer, I thought it was universally acknowledged that Marx was a master of literary German?

[Paul Cockshott]

I think that the best introduction to Capital is Marx's own short book Wages Prices and Profit, which will give you the key ideas before moving on to Capital. WPP is an easy book to include in an introductory reading group with texts like the Communist Manifesto, Condition of the Working Class in England, 18 Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, and the Civil War in France.

[TheEmancipator]

Regarding Marx being a bad writer, I thought it was universally acknowledged that Marx was a master of literary German?

Undoubtedly Marx is considered an expert writer and certainly his English translations suggest to me he is one.

I recommend reading Louis Althusser's works on reading Das Kapital. He also criticises it quite a bit by saying we must remember that Capital is purely theoretical and must be seen that way, and that it doesn't reach out to the prollies enough. Keep in mind Althusser ended up in a asylum though...