Reading Marx's 'Capital': Tips, Questions, Theory, Support and Bookclub Bunfight...

[butchersapron]

Very interesting stuff danny la rouge, I think I am starting to understand a bit better.

So it is commodities that are central to the critique?

Part I
THE COMMODITY

The wealth of bourgeois society, at first sight, presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities, its unit being a single commodity. Every commodity, however, has a twofold aspect – use-value and exchange-value. [1]

On a thread discussing the book capital.

 

[butchersapron]

If you're asking whether or not Marx says commodities pre-existed capitalism; he did.

No he didn't!

 

[Athos]

No he didn't!

I've added to the post you quoted. But I thought he did. Else, what was he talking about with the simple exchange economy?

 

[butchersapron]

I've added to the post you quoted. But I thought he did. Else, what was he talking about with the simple exchange economy?

The whole point of the book is that the commodity relation (that is, products produced for their exchange-value) has replaced the simple exchange relation (which is use-value as a whole and maybe symbolic stuff) and that this is something specific to capitalism. That, literally, is what the book spends 500 pages establishing.

 

[Idaho]

On a thread discussing the book capital.

I have bits of the work on free audiobook. Unfortunately it's in a scruffy chapter format with lots of introduction and summary stuff (all uploaded separately as individual files - piss poor really) so I went to the first main chapter about use value and exchange value.

 

[Athos]

The whole point of the book is that the commodity relation (that is, products produced for their exchange-value) has replaced the simple exchange relation (which is use-value as a whole and maybe symbolic stuff) and that this is something specific to capitalism. That, literally is what the book spends 500 pages establishing.

Yes, I realise what the whole point of the book is. But, as I explained, I understood Idaho to be asking whether Marx said that commodities are a product of capitalism. Which he didn't. He clearly talks about commodities pre-capitalism.

 

[Idaho]

The whole point of the book is that the commodity relation (that is, products produced for their exchange-value) has replaced the simple exchange relation (which is use-value as a whole and maybe symbolic stuff) and that this is something specific to capitalism. That, literally, is what the book spends 500 pages establishing.

He is suggesting that production of commodities at scale specifically for market exchange is a recent phenomenon?

 

[butchersapron]

I have bits of the work on free audiobook. Unfortunately it's in a scruffy chapter format with lots of introduction and summary stuff (all uploaded separately as individual files - piss poor really) so I went to the first main chapter about use value and exchange value.

Great prep. A book that is very clear about it's internal logic and exposition - it starts with a specific example then moves dialectically through a series of modes relating to the original example. That's why we ended up with a beadle GOTCHA.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, I realise what the whole point of the book is. But, as I explained, I understood Idaho to be asking whether Marx said that commodities are a product of capitalism. Which he didn't. He clearly talks about commodities pre-capitalism.

Commodities are the specific product of capitalism. That's the argument of the book. What on earth is going on here?

 

[butchersapron]

He is suggesting that production of commodities at scale specifically for market exchange is a recent phenomenon?

Who is, the pre-modern marx?

 

[Athos]

Commodities are the specific product of capitalism. That's the argument of the book. What on earth is going on here?

I genuinely don't understand what's so controversial. Simple commodity production was the historical forerunner of capitalist production, wasn't it?

 

[Idaho]

I genuinely don't understand what's so controversial. Simple commodity production was the historical forerunner of capitalist production, wasn't it?

Butchersapron isn't well adjusted for the job of teaching. It requires a bit more empathy and human connection than he is comfortable with.

 

[butchersapron]

I genuinely don't understand what's so controversial. Simple commodity production was the historical forerunner of capitalist production, wasn't it?

And did marx argue that the limited examples were irrelevant/non-central to the mode of production?

 

[Athos]

And did marx argue that the limited examples were irrelevant/non-central to the mode of production?

I don't follow. Can you rephrase the question, please?

And, perhaps answer mine? Whether or not Marx conceived of commodities pre-existing capitalism, in what Engels called 'simple commodity production' (usually understood to take place under conditions Marx called 'simple exchange')? Because that was the whole of the point I made, and to which you seem to have taken objection.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't follow. Can you rephrase the question, please?

And, perhaps answer mine? Whether or not Marx conceived of commodities pre-existing capitalism, in what Engels called 'simple commodity production' (usually understood to take place under conditions Marx called 'simple exchange')? Because that was the whole of the point I made, and to which you seem to have taken objection.

I'll do both in one: Did marx and engels and (wiki) then argue that minor commodity production in any way help to charactrise that period. When they talked of it they talked of it irrelevant archaic and non-central. Which means, to answer yes to the monkey-man when he asks didn't commodity production always exist is to say yes, capital (the book) is wrong and there's always been capitalism - it's just our nature.

 

[Idaho]

butchersapron - you principally see politics as something to defend. Both an armour and a weapon. It's not something to be discussed but a shibboleth of who you are, which side you are on. Perhaps you are ill-suited to this thread, which is a shame as you clearly have detailed knowledge of this topic.

 

[Athos]

Which means, to answer yes to the monkey-man when he asks didn't commodity production always exist is to say yes, capital (the book) is wrong and there's always been capitalism - it's just our nature.

Come off it; that's a ridiculous leap!

An acknowledgement of the fact that Marx recognised that commodities pre-existed capitalism doesn't undermine Capital one bit. We both know it can't be reduced to the bare existence of commodities!

Of course, I wouldn't claim that capitalism is in our nature, or that it's there's always been capitalism. In fact, the post you took issue with explicitly talked about a time before capitalism!

 

[butchersapron]

Come off it; that's a ridiculous leap!

An acknowledgement of the fact that Marx recognised that commodities pre-existed capitalism doesn't undermine Capital one bit. We both know it can't be reduced to the bare existence of commodities!

Of course, I wouldn't claim that capitalism is in our nature, or that it's there's always been capitalism. In fact, the post you took issue with explicitly talked about a time before capitalism!

The whole point of idaho's - not marx's post - was that yeah so what commodities always existed, marx said nothing new. On a thread dedicated to a book that argued that a society organised around large scale commodity production is historically different from one where it basically was irrelevant.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

The whole point of the book is that the commodity relation (that is, products produced for their exchange-value) has replaced the simple exchange relation (which is use-value as a whole and maybe symbolic stuff) and that this is something specific to capitalism. That, literally, is what the book spends 500 pages establishing.

If the book takes 500 pages to establish what you’ve said in a single sentence it kinda suggests it could have done with a bettor editor

 

[Athos]

The whole point of idaho's - not marx's post - was that yeah so what commodities always existed, marx said nothing new. On a thread dedicated to a book that argued that a society organised around large scale commodity production is historically different from one where it basically was irrelevant.

Well, I didn't interpret what he said that way. If that is what he meant, he was completely wrong. I'm surprised that you thought I was agreeing with that, though.

And think it could have been cleared up quicker if you'd been more straightforward from the start (albeit I accept that you replied in the seconds before I edited in the second sentence: 'But, he describes capitalist society as "a society where the commodity-form is the universal form of the product of labour, hence the dominant social relation is the relation between men as possessors of commodities"'.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

If the book takes 500 pages to establish what you’ve said in a single sentence it kinda suggests it could have done with a bettor editor

There's more to it than that.

Fucking hell this thread started as a really useful discussion for people who were actually reading or going to read the book.

 

[bimble]

I just bought the (abridged) book. Won’t be venturing on here to ask anything though unless feeling extremely brave.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I just bought the (abridged) book. Won’t be venturing on here to ask anything though unless feeling extremely brave.

I think if people are giving it a good go, this thread has been very helpful. It was for me.

If you do want to give it a go, I would also really recommend the David Harvey lectures as video or podcasts here:
Reading Capital

Everyone should definitely read the first few chapters of volume 1.

 

[Idaho]

The whole point of idaho's - not marx's post - was that yeah so what commodities always existed, marx said nothing new. On a thread dedicated to a book that argued that a society organised around large scale commodity production is historically different from one where it basically was irrelevant.

Actually I was just trying to clarify that point. Whether marx suggested that previous societies didn't prioritise commodity production.

 

[Athos]

I think if people are giving it a good go, this thread has been very helpful. It was for me.

If you do want to give it a go, I would also really recommend the David Harvey lectures as video or podcasts here:
Reading Capital

Everyone should definitely read the first few chapters of volume 1.

This. And his book. I read the chapter in Marx, then Harvey's corresponding chapter, then watched the video, then sometimes read the chapter in Capital again, before understanding much of it.

 

[bimble]

What about Easter Island?
(Will shut up now till I’ve made a start).

 

[Athos]

Whether marx suggested that previous societies didn't prioritise commodity production.

No doubt butchersapron will correct me if I'm wrong (), but... Whilst commodity production existed to a limited extent before capitalism (most labour only producing use-values, back then), it was only only with the buying and selling of labour power that social relations became dominated by the logic of production for the purpose of exchange.

 

[Idaho]

Is that not just a matter of scale?

I need to read the bits he writes about "primitive" society. I think I would have lots of questions about that bit.

 

[Athos]

Is that not just a matter of scale?

I need to read the bits he writes about "primitive" society. I think I would have lots of questions about that bit.

No. It's nature, not extent.

 

[Idaho]

So the hypothesis is that the nature of commodities and how they are made and exchanged is different after a certain point?