Reading Capital

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok, i started reading volume 1 of Capital today, i read about 10 pages of the introduction by Ernest Mandel, i stopped reading the introduction when i found out it was 90 pages long! My advice to everyone is to not read the introduction.

Anyway, this is what i got from the 10 pages of the introduction that i read:

Pre-capitalist modes of production = petty commodity production

Capitalist mode of production = generalized commodity production

Pre-capitalist modes of production were not subject to the law of value, since they were subordinate to organizations (agriculture for example) which were non-capitalist.

I read the first two pages, which deals with the use-value of a commodity:

Capitalist society (a developed one) = an immense collection of commodities.

Commodity = an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind. The nature of those needs makes no difference, nor does it matter how the commodity satisfies man's need.

Every useful commodity is a whole composed of many properties; it can therefore be useful in many ways. The discovery of these ways and hence the manifold uses of commodities is the work of history.

The usefulness of a commodity makes it a use-value, the usefulness is conditioned by the physical properties of the commodity.

The physical property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour which is required to appropriate its useful qualities.

Next is exchange-value.

[anomaly]

I disagree, comrade. I read the introduction, and now I've stopped for awhile. You probably know that Marx is, well, pretty much unreadable, so I saved the rest for after I get a basic grip on economics (hell, with my reading list, I might not get around to it until college). My advice is to read the introduction, as Mandel does a great job explaining some of Marx's theories, most importantly surplus value and his labor theory of value. Mandel, however, writes in language you may understand, while Marx's language is not only difficult to understand but also very boring. Read the intro.

[Clarksist]

Mandel, however, writes in language you may understand, while Marx's language is not only difficult to understand but also very boring.


This is too true.

Marx wrote at a time where the style was to be really drawn out, dry, and extremely redundant. Add to that the translations, and you get a really thick book of really boring material.

I choose to look at .GIF file diagrams, and what not not. :lol:

Call me lazy, but it explains it much better than talking about relating economics to geometric figures which could tessalate.

[ComradeRed]

www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/marx/ApxToC.html]Lazy (http://william-king.[url) people...rejoice![/url]

[Seeker]

I just added that link to my bookmarx :D

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You can also read Wage Labour and Capital (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/wagelab.html) and Value, Price, and Profit (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm). Two works by Marx that were aimed at regular working men of the time and that are very easy to understand. They put forward alot of what's in Capital.

[Led Zeppelin]

If you don't plan on reading Capital then stop calling yourself a Marxist.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If you don't plan on reading Capital then stop calling yourself a Marxist.

Now you are getting dogmatic.

"Son, if you don't read the bible, you are not a Christian, and that's a baaaaad thing"

[Led Zeppelin]

Now you are getting dogmatic.

"Son, if you don't read the bible, you are not a Christian, and that's a baaaaad thing"

I didn't say it was a bad thing, but you're right, you can't be taken seriously as a christian if you haven't read the bible, you also can't be taken seriously as a Marxist if you haven't read Capital.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So... since you haven't read it yet, that means you can't be taken seriously, right?

[Led Zeppelin]

So... since you haven't read it yet, that means you can't be taken seriously, right?

I am 16 and of no importance to the debate of Marxism, so yes, I can't and won't be taken seriously by more ideologically mature Marxists, not by people like you, in fact, the only person on this board who I consider ideologically mature is redstar2000.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

:lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

Can you please stop spamming.

[JazzRemington]

:lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

I visited your blog, it sucked.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

:lol:

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 3 2005, 10:20 AM

So... since you haven't read it yet, that means you can't be taken seriously, right?

I am 16 and of no importance to the debate of Marxism, so yes, I can't and won't be taken seriously by more ideologically mature Marxists, not by people like you, in fact, the only person on this board who I consider ideologically mature is redstar2000.
You may be dissapointed to learn that redstar hasn't read more than 2 or 3 chapters of Capital (that's what he told me). When I asked him some economic questions of mine, he honestly didn't know. And yet, after our little conversation, I didn't say 'man, redstar's not a Marxist'. You seem a bit immature, to be frank, based on your saying that 'those who have not read Capital are not Marxists'. Personal determinations of what makes one a Marxist can become wquite tricky, and, personally, I tend to reject them all. Being a Marxist is subjective. If you think you are a Marxist, you probably are (of course, as long as you agree with most or some of what Marx said).

Of course, don't bother reading any of this, or believing any of it, since I'm not 'ideologically mature'. Do I smell an elitist? Yes, I think I do!!

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:49 AM
www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/marx/ApxToC.html]Lazy (http://william-king.[url) people...rejoice![/url]
i read that before our economics teacher gave it to me it's not very good.

[Led Zeppelin]

You may be dissapointed to learn that redstar hasn't read more than 2 or 3 chapters of Capital (that's what he told me). When I asked him some economic questions of mine, he honestly didn't know. And yet, after our little conversation, I didn't say 'man, redstar's not a Marxist'.

That's strange, why doesn't he read them then?


You seem a bit immature, to be frank, based on your saying that 'those who have not read Capital are not Marxists'.

I didn't say that, I said those who have not read Capital are not serious Marxists and won't be taken seriously by those Marxists who have read and understood Capital.


If you think you are a Marxist, you probably are (of course, as long as you agree with most or some of what Marx said).

Of course, don't bother reading any of this, or believing any of it, since I'm not 'ideologically mature'. Do I smell an elitist? Yes, I think I do!!

Well this basically comes down to the debate of Marxism, do you think you can write on Marxist theory like Lenin, Gramsci, Kautsky etc. did without having read Capital? Of course you can, but the product would be crap and no one would take it seriously, since it would be full of flaws.

[NovelGentry]

since it would be full of flaws.

Well come on, that's not right. For all the reading Lenin, Gramsci, and Kautsky undoubtedly did, their work was full of flaws too. Too bad Engels wasn't in the wings long enough to counter Lenin like he did Kautsky.

[Led Zeppelin]

For all the reading Lenin, Gramsci, and Kautsky undoubtedly did, their work was full of flaws too.

Sure, but I was talking about basic Marxist economic flaws.


Too bad Engels wasn't in the wings long enough to counter Lenin like he did Kautsky.

Engels never countered Kautsky, that was Lenin.

[NovelGentry]

Engels never countered Kautsky, that was Lenin.

Engels had direct correspondence with Kautsky in which he critiqued much of his views on the British labor movements.

[Led Zeppelin]

Engels had direct correspondence with Kautsky in which he critiqued much of his views on the British labor movements.

Maybe, I don't know for sure, I'll take your word for it.

Anyway, he didn't critique Kautsky's revisionism of Marxism, Lenin was the theorist who destroyed Kautskyism as an ideological trend. Another theorist like Lenin is necessary to bury Trotskyism, orthodox Marxism, "Stalinism" and Maoism as ideological trends.

[eyedrop]

If you don't plan on reading Capital then stop calling yourself a Marxist.




Ummm, yes you can.

You just read other books trying to explain the same things with a language more suiting to your needs.

I'm sure you'll find plenty of modern written accounts of marxists economics.

[JazzRemington]

I'm planning on reading at least the abridged version of Das Kapital over winter break, after my horrid economics class is finished. Would this version suffice in putting across the main ideas of the book or should I just go a head and read the full sized version?

[Entrails Konfetti]

I've just finished reading Capital about two weeks ago.

I did skip most of the intro, I found the book easier to read than the intro, because the books first deals with basics then builds up.I'm thinking about going back and reading the intro, it may help summarize a bit.

I also didn't read the appendix,because its just old data from the 19th century.

Don't expect to be done with Capital anytime soon, unless all you do all day is read.

It took me about 4 or more months to read it.

The easiest parts to read is when Marx discusses the conditions of the working-class in the 19th century.

In the future I'm probably going to end up reading Capital again, just to rehash.
I reread part of the Communist Manifesto alot.

If anyone here is a beginning Marxist a great book to read is Introducing Marx by Rius, I read this book after I read the Communist Manifesto and when I was 4/5ths through with Capital, so I read the book in one sitting.


When reading Capital, you may have to go read one paragraph over and over again to continue on the next. Don't get intimidated with the style, he'll eventually get to the point. Its kind of like watching a movie with a drawn out plot development, but once it gets there its the most interesting movie ever.

[percept¡on]

You know Marx had plenty of other important theoretical and philosophical works besides Capital. Capital was just his attempt to fashion a science of economics to compete with Bourgioes economics. Capital is arguably one of his less relevant books in terms of today's world. Books like Grundrisse and even the Communist Manifesto are probably a better choice if you want to gain a mastery of Marx's thought.

[Led Zeppelin]

You know Marx had plenty of other important theoretical and philosophical works besides Capital.

Yes I know, but read the name of the thread, yeah that's right, it's "reading Capital".


Books like Grundrisse and even the Communist Manifesto are probably a better choice if you want to gain a mastery of Marx's thought.

Wrong.

[Lamanov]

Suggestion for everyone:

Don't start with Capital, but with something easyer: 'Wage Labor and Capital', 'Value, Price and Profit' [Marx, 1847 & 1865] and 'Sketch for the Critique of National Economics' [Engels, 1844]

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Don't start with Capital, but with something easyer: 'Wage Labor and Capital', 'Value, Price and Profit' [Marx, 1847 & 1865]

I already said that earlier in this thread :)

[Martin Blank]

Reading Capital is not hard, as long as you take your time, pace yourself and don't expect to do much else for a few months. That first chapter, on the commodity, is probably the hardest of them all. Once you get past that, however, you'll be fine.

As CDL and DJ-TC said, you may want to start with Wage Labour and Capital, and Value, Price and Profit. I might also suggest Engels conspectus on Capital, which is available on the Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/).

Now, if you want a REAL challenge, read Capital and G.W.F. Hegel's Science of Logic at the same time. That's a trip!

Someday, I'll have to scan in an annotated version of Vol. 1 of Capital I have in my archives (it was done back in the early 1990s, and was printed on a dot matrix printer).

Miles

[Led Zeppelin]

I made a schedule for it, I will start reading it from the beginning of October:

2005-2006

-October
Part 1: Commodities and Money
-November
Part 2: The Transformation of Money in Capital
-December
Part 3: The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value
-January
Part 4: Production of Relative Surplus-Value
-February
Part 5: The Production of Absolute and of Relative Surplus-Value
-March
Part 6: Wages
-April
Part 7: The Accumulation of Capital
-May
Part 8: Primitive Accumulation
-June

Seems like a long schedule but I also have school so I don't know how much spare time I have, school must be easy since I am in a class which is at the intellectual level of 10 year olds. (I hope one of my future classmates or teachers doesn't read this :lol: )

[Led Zeppelin]

Today I read about use and exchange value, here's what I got from it:

Every commodity has a use-value, the use-value of a commodity is determined, --or better yet established-- by the amount of social labour required to create it, i.e., appropriate its useful characteristics/attributes.

Then we have exchange value, the use-value of a commodity is the base for the exchange value, the exchange-value of a commodity is higher than the use-value because the capitalist wants to make a profit from the exchange of the commodity.

There is some other stuff I read....and forgot.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 3 2005, 09:33 AM

So... since you haven't read it yet, that means you can't be taken seriously, right?

I am 16 and of no importance to the debate of Marxism, so yes, I can't and won't be taken seriously by more ideologically mature Marxists, not by people like you, in fact, the only person on this board who I consider ideologically mature is redstar2000.
thanks a lot kid

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:21 AM
I disagree, comrade. I read the introduction, and now I've stopped for awhile. You probably know that Marx is, well, pretty much unreadable, so I saved the rest for after I get a basic grip on economics (hell, with my reading list, I might not get around to it until college). My advice is to read the introduction, as Mandel does a great job explaining some of Marx's theories, most importantly surplus value and his labor theory of value. Mandel, however, writes in language you may understand, while Marx's language is not only difficult to understand but also very boring. Read the intro.
Agreed; read the introduction, for it will help you get acquainted with Marxism.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to finish Capital as of yet; I got to the third chapter, and college kept bogging me down, so for now, I have been sticking to shorter works and such for now. As for reading Capital, I did not find it too hard, and for someone with a decent knowledge of dialectics and Marxism in general, the three volumes, from what I have been told, should be rather straightforward and basic. Never let the length of a book deter you from reading it, I say.

Also, many have stated that the hardest chapters are the first few, particularly the first. If you get past those and understand them well, you should not have any trouble with reading the book.

I hate what I am doing in college, so after this semester, I am going to take time off from college to get a full-time job so I can get out of my parents' house, have more spare time to read (I have all sorts of things to read. I want to get done with the three volumes of Capital and other long books I have, such as Hegel's Science of Logic and Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Hopefully I will also find a major that I enjoy, but knowing myself, it could take years before I find a major I like.

[KC]

READ THE INTRODUCTION!!! It is very good, it does away with a lot of criticisms of Capital, and it will set the tone for what lay ahead. It will give you a better understanding of Marx's work.

[RedJacobin]

One way to read Capital is to go through the last section of Primitive Accumulation first. I thought the historical material was a lot easier to grasp than "the commodity."

People struggling with Capital should check out these study notes written by a Marxist professor at the University of Utah: http://www.econ.utah.edu/~ehrbar/akmc.htm

It's a line-by-line (!!!) analysis of the bulk of the book. You can download a paper version to print or a screen version with big font to read off your computer. Hope you have some patience. :)

I read the first three chapters and the last section before I had to drop it to deal with more pressing literature. Got an understanding of Marx's political economy from the shorter works that people mentioned already.