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

[Riklet]

I'm towards the end third chapter now, I don't really have any interesting questions or ideas so far haha. I'm finding it really interesting even though it's hard going. I think I broadly understand a fair bit, but there's also a lot that's rather confusing, especially the first half of chapter 3, which seems less wordy/longwinded than chapter 1 but still a bit obscure and isn't that clear to me yet.

Looking forward to seeing where chapter 4 and the next part go, and hoping my understanding of the first 3 chapters solidifies a bit through the reading of the rest of the book, and watching the Harvey vids, however bloody long that will take!

This is the most reading i've done in ages (sadly); 200+ pages in a week and a half...

p.s. I think breaking the threads down into chapter/topic discussion is quite a good idea. Thoughts so far?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I'm towards the end third chapter now, I don't really have any interesting questions or ideas so far haha. I'm finding it really interesting even though it's hard going. I think I broadly understand a fair bit, but there's also a lot that's rather confusing, especially the first half of chapter 3, which seems less wordy/longwinded than chapter 1 but still a bit obscure and isn't that clear to me yet.

Looking forward to seeing where chapter 4 and the next part go, and hoping my understanding of the first 3 chapters solidifies a bit through the reading of the rest of the book, and watching the Harvey vids, however bloody long that will take!

This is the most reading i've done in ages (sadly); 200+ pages in a week and a half...

p.s. I think breaking the threads down into chapter/topic discussion is quite a good idea. Thoughts so far?

You should get hold of Harvey's companion book to Capital. It is based on the lectures but is much quicker and handier to use whilst reading the main book.

I haven't read through Chapter 3 yet, but have watched the vids and read the companion chapter in advance. It's good we are getting a bit further with this attempt at a reading group.

 

[magneze]

I read chapter 4 yesterday. It's a relief to get a nice short chapter which really builds on the concepts in the first three, specifically expanding the M-C-M transactions and using that as a basis for explaining what capital actually is. (A process).

 

[phildwyer]

I read chapter 4 yesterday. It's a relief to get a nice short chapter which really builds on the concepts in the first three, specifically expanding the M-C-M transactions and using that as a basis for explaining what capital actually is. (A process).

Why do you say that capital is a process? Because it grows? Because it expresses a relation between people? Because it is not material? Some other reason?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Marx himself defines it as a process. Last line of chapter 4:

M-C-M' is therefore in reality the general formula of capital as it appears prima facie within the sphere of circulation.

That 'prima facie' suggests that Marx is going to make qualifications, mind you - to show how the difference between M and M' can only come about through the capitalist taking some of the workers' labour value, not through the actual expansion of value - as he says, 'money that is worth more money, value that is greater than itself'.

That's my understanding at the moment, given that I've not read much further than that.

 

[phildwyer]

Marx himself defines it as a process.

Hang on a second, I don´t see how the quotation you cite supports this interpretation.

The formula M-C-M´ refers to a process of which capital forms a part, not to capital per se. When Marx calls it ¨the general formula of capital¨ he means that this is the logical and historical conclusion of the processes of exchange (having grown out of C--C originally). He doesn´t mean that it is the key or the definition of capital.

 

[butchersapron]

Ah well. Good luck fozzie and IWNW.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hang on a second, I don´t see how the quotation you cite supports this interpretation.

The formula M-C-M´ refers to a process of which capital forms a part, not to capital per se. When Marx calls it ¨the general formula of capital¨ he means that this is the logical and historical conclusion of the processes of exchange (having grown out of C--C originally). He doesn´t mean that it is the key or the definition of capital.

Well, the way I would take that is that a merchant uses M-C-M' as the process by which to make a living. I may be oversimplifying here, but isn't he saying that the capitalist makes a living by this same process, but that the 'C' in that circuit is the labour of the workers? So the capitalist buys the labour at one price (the wage he pays) then sells it at another, higher price.

Capitalism is perhaps a process by which an economy is controlled by those who are engaged in this process M-C-M', turning money into more money by buying and selling commodities. Those who do not have the capital to start off an M-C-M' exchange can only do C-M-C. Thus they can be exploited by those with money, who mediate their exchanges in such a way that they receive less for the commodity they sell - which ultimately is their labour - than it is really worth.

 

[phildwyer]

Well, the way I would take that is that a merchant uses M-C-M' as the process by which to make a living. I may be oversimplifying here, but isn't he saying that the capitalist makes a living by this same process, but that the 'C' in that circuit is the labour of the workers? So the capitalist buys the labour at one price (the wage he pays) then sells it at another, higher price.

No. The C can be any commodity, so the formula just refers to the process of using money to buy a commodity and then sell it for a profit.

In advanced capitalism, the most powerful and common form of this process is M-M' ie when money generates more money through interest.

 

[butchersapron]

produce a commodity. *Why*

 

[rorymac]

I see it like the simplest of uncomplicated and pure ideals
Like I buy one piece of cloth and cut it into two .. sell one and buy another bigger piece and cut it into three, sell two and buy three etc
Although it's gone awry as a concept and I must get round to reading Marx tbf

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hello rory.

 

[butchersapron]

I see it like the simplest of uncomplicated and pure ideals
Like I buy one piece of cloth and cut it into two .. sell one and buy another bigger piece and cut it into three, sell two and buy three etc
Although it's gone awry as a concept and I must get round to reading Marx tbf

Rors, good to see you.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

produce a commodity. *Why*

I don't get what this is getting at?

 

[butchersapron]

The C can be any commodity, so the formula just refers to the process of using money to buy a commodity and then sell it for a profit.

The sort of point of the book.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You mean that the commodity is produced in order to produce capital?

 

[butchersapron]

What is a commodity?
(one does not simply read 250 pages of capital - and then ask these questions)

 

[rorymac]

Thanks you guys .. nice to see you too
I've been thinking lots about capitalism recently but I actually know tiny amounts re Marx/philosophy etc

Like I know it in the here and now but for sure a bit of history wouldn't go a miss !

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Something in the world that we have some use for, that can satisfy some need.

 

[JimW]

What is a commodity?
(one does no simply read 250 pages of capital - and then ask these questions)

I make no claim to have grasped much but that does seem to be the entire point of what Marx has been explaining in the parts I read so far, and he begins there for a reason.

 

[butchersapron]

Something in the world that we have some use for, that can satisfy some need.

No, the exact opposite - something that a use for but whose value is only recognised in the market - through exchange value. You sure you read them 270 pages?

 

[butchersapron]

I make no claim to have grasped much but that does seem to be the entire point of what Marx has been explaining in the parts I read so far, and he begins there for a reason.

Exactly, he goes to some length to explain it, insisted it be placed at the start of the book, so to get that wrong - as lbj has - is appalling.

*continues to break own rule*

 

[phildwyer]

Thanks you guys .. nice to see you too
I've been thinking lots about capitalism recently but I actually know tiny amounts re Marx/philosophy etc

Like I know it in the here and now but for sure a bit of history wouldn't go a miss !

RORY!

Great to see ya back Dude, youve been sadly missed!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What is a commodity?
(one does not simply read 250 pages of capital - and then ask these questions)

In terms of trying to grasp the role of the capitalist, why do you say that? To the capitalist, the commodity is produced to produce capital, isn't it? I thought that was the point.

 

[butchersapron]

How is the commodity produced? What is a commodity?

 

[phildwyer]

How is the commodity produced?

In the mind. Nowhere else.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, I probably have got this wrong. I thought the point Marx was making about commodities was that their value inhered in the labour expended to produce them. The commodity is that value.

 

[phildwyer]

Ok, I probably have got this wrong. I thought the point Marx was making about commodities was that their value inhered in the labour expended to produce them.

It is.

Maybe I should clarify? Things are manufactured by labor, but a thing turns into a commodity only in the mind.

 

[JimW]

It is.

Maybe I should clarify? Things are manufactured by labor, but a thing turns into a commodity only in the mind.

In a social process - if you say the mind it makes some individual act of consciousness the focus, even if you intend to say generally.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It is.

Maybe I should clarify? Things are manufactured by labor, but a thing turns into a commodity only in the mind.

Yes, because of its perceived use value, which in turn gives it exchange value. Abstracting a commodity entirely from a material basis doesn't work, though. There is some material basis to a commodity - it is a commodity because of the value that is attached to it by us, but it is still something 'out there'. It has a material basis even if it is a process.

I have a feeling I'm going to continue to struggle with Marx. As soon as transcendence is introduced, I lose a feeling for it.