Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

I'm reading chapter 5 now, not been rushing it really, takes a while to sink in... that said, I am gripped haha.

I've been using David Harvey's accompanying book, and finding it more useful than the video lecturers actually. The 'second' lecture and the third one i'm currently reading about chapter 3 have been really useful, he certainly has a way with words. maybe it's just me... written words are a bit easier to process/remember and I get distracted when i'm faffing about on a computer.

There are links on his website to downloading the lectures in .mp3 audio format too. Will find a link if peeps can't find it. Found the Harvey book combined with capital part 1 (penguin newer translation) as a torrent, both in .mobi format for kindle and both relatively glitch free. brilliant. :)

was having a ponder over the idea of an .mp3 as a commodity and tbh I couldn't see how one could not consider it as one, just in a slightly more abstract form.
 
I'm having to read Capital for an exam soon. Should have already read it but haven't.

I could up load the lecture power points, does anyone know the best way to do this?

They are largely critical of Capital.
 
I don't know anything about how this stuff is taught in universities - but i'd be willing to bet a huge amount of money on it not being a requirement to actually read, in total, the main primary texts for such a class - are you seriously saying that for that module you have to read all of wealth of nations (all five books), principles of political economy, capital (all three volumes) etc.. and all this for just one module?

If so i've seriously underestimated universities
 
love detective said:
I don't know anything about how this stuff is taught in universities - but i'd be willing to bet a huge amount of money on it not being a requirement to actually read, in total, the main primary texts for such a class - are you seriously saying that for that module you have to read all of wealth of nations (all five books), principles of political economy, capital (all three volumes) etc.. and all this for just one module?

If so i've seriously underestimated universities
Click to expand...

You'd be mostly correct. It's a really old school course. Read the primary texts for a year then have a 100% exam at the end. Shitting myself...

We don't have to read them in their entirety but I'd say the vast majority. Here is the reading list:


Primary Reading (essential reading –also see the file headed Additional Course Material)

Value and Distribution (excluding the ‘real measure of exchangeable value’)

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (WN).
Book I, Introduction and Chapters 1-4 (skim), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (omitting Part II), 11; Book II, Chapter 4, para 8 (i.e. II.iv.8), II.v.12; Book V Chapter 2, especially V.ii.f.1-2.

The ‘real measure of exchangeable value’

WN Book I Chapter 5.


Accumulation

WN Book I, Introduction and Chapters 1-3, 11 (Conclusion); Book II, Introduction and Chapters 1, 3, 5.


Advantages and limitation of ‘the system of natural liberty’ (additional to previous references) and the ‘invisible hand’

WN Book I, Chapter 10 Part II, Book II Chapter 5, Book III Chapter 4, Book IV Chapters 1, 2 and Chapter 3 especially IV.iii.c.9-10, Chapter 5 especially IV.v.b.43, Chapter 7 especially IV.vii.b.44 and IV.vii.c.88, Chapter 8, Chapter 9 especially IV.ix.51; Book V Chapter 1. (N.B. Book II Chapter 5 and Book IV Chapter 2 are particularly relevant to understanding the ‘invisible hand’ reference in WN.)
Click to expand...


Rent, Wages, Profits and Growth

David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (Principles), ed. 3.
Preface. Chapter 1 Sections I-III, Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 19, 21.

Price Determination

Principles Chapters 4, 30.

Problems with the Labour Theory of Value

Principles Chapter 1: compare the versions in editions 1 and 3.


David Ricardo, “Absolute Value and Exchangeable Value” (Later Version). In P.Sraffa, ed., The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol IV.
Click to expand...



See, especially, the entry on Mill in DNB by Jose Harris.

J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with Some of their Applications to Social Philosophy (hereafter Principles). Preface to the first edition (1848).


Value

Principles, ed. 7 (1871), Book III Chapters 1-6, 15, 16, 26 (see especially Mill’s references to an “invariable standard”).

Rent

Principles, Book I Chapters 12, 13; Book II Chapter 16; Book III Chapter 5.

Wages

Principles, Book I Chapter 10; Book II Chapter 11; Book III Chapter 26.

Profits and Interest

Principles Book II Chapter 15; Book III Chapters 23, 26.

Crises and the ‘Law of Markets’

Book III Chapters 12, 14, 23.

Growth and ‘Progress’

Book IV Chapters 2, 3, 4, 6, 7.
Click to expand...


Value/Surplus Value

Capital vol I Chapters 1 (possibly omitting sub-sections 3a-3c), 2, 4-9, 12, 16, 19.
Capital vol III Chapter 48.

Accumulation, Crises and the Falling Rate of Profit

Capital vol I Chapter 25.
Capital vol III Part III and Chapter 30.

Transformation of Values into Prices of Production

Capital vol III Chapters 1,2, 8-12.
Click to expand...


The Theory of Political Economy

Jevons, The Theory of Political Economy (second or later edition). Preface to eds. 1 and 2. Chapter 1, 3 (sections i-vi), 4 (sections i-iv, ix-x, xxv), 5 (sections I, iii, v-vii, x), 6, 7 (sections xi), 8.
Click to expand...
 
looks alright - the history of economic thought modules seem to be the only time this stuff gets a look in in universities - to make sure its studied as a historical artefact rather than something that provides a useful framework for looking at the world around us, then and now

(although for capital i'd say the reading represents around 20% of the total thing, and Smith & Ricardo roughly around 30% - although it's still a lot more than I expected)

edit: it's good though that they make you engage with the primary text, but got to say given the nature of how Capital unfolds itself (dialectical mode of exposition etc.. zzz...), it's a potentially misleading approach to just read selected chapters - as you do miss out on the unique nature of the way each thing dealt with is presupposed by what went before it, so that nothing just drops into the analysis out of the air from nowhere - that's what makes reading it so gripping once you eventually get into it because it has such a good flow - can imagine you'd miss out quite a bit on that by selectively reading certain chapters (and for example not a thing from vol 2) - not to say you won't get anything from it like
 
love detective said:
looks alright - the history of economic thought modules seem to be the only time this stuff gets a look in in universities - to make sure its studied as a historical artefact rather than something that provides a useful framework for looking at the world around us, then and now

(although for capital i'd say the reading represents around 20% of the total thing, and Smith & Ricardo roughly around 30% - although it's still a lot more than I expected)

edit: it's good though that they make you engage with the primary text, but got to say given the nature of how Capital unfolds itself (dialectical mode of exposition etc.. zzz...), it's a potentially misleading approach to just read selected chapters - as you do miss out on the unique nature of the way each thing dealt with is presupposed by what went before it, so that nothing just drops into the analysis out of the air from nowhere - that's what makes reading it so gripping once you eventually get into it because it has such a good flow - can imagine you'd miss out quite a bit on that by selectively reading certain chapters (and for example not a thing from vol 2) - not to say you won't get anything from it like
Click to expand...

Fair enough. To be honest it is one of the best courses I've ever done. The Smith part was fantastic.

The lecturer was highly critical of Marx though. Particularly over the Transformation Problem.
 
ItWillNeverWork said:
As a module within an economics course, or as a stand-alone thing? It sounds really interesting whatever it is.
Click to expand...

It was an economics module. I study History and Economics.

We dont really have pathways here. You just pick from a selection of modules each year. Most don't relate to any of the previous years modules.

It was very interesting. The lecturer was really good too which is important.
 
most of the economics degrees & MA's that i've looked at the syllabus for, always seem to have a standard history of economic thought module - always thought it would be treated somewhat contemptuously by those teaching them - and always as a dead historical artefact in a kind of quaint patronising look at how they used to do it way
 
love detective said:
most of the economics degrees & MA's that i've looked at the syllabus for, always seem to have a standard history of economic thought module - always thought it would be treated somewhat contemptuously by those teaching them - and always as a dead historical artefact in a kind of quaint patronising look at how they used to do it way
Click to expand...

I've never looked into it personally. However it depends what institution you look at. History of economic thought was the speciality of the lecturer who taught mine. His enjoyment at teaching it was obvious which in turn made it enjoyable for me. All my lectures are like that to be honest, the modules are based on the lecturer and what their speciality is. I suppose I'm lucky to go to a Uni like that, but to be honest I thought they were all like that.

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/terry.peach/ -- thats my lecturer.

If you're super interested love detective, send me your email address and I'll send you all the materials of the course or just for the economist you're interested in. Peach has wrote some good articles on Smith. He's critical of the perception of Smith being some sort of right wing monster (Invisible Hand etc). I think Smith is his favourite. I can send you the journal articles.

I've got a couple of lecture recordings too, I'd send them too.
 
yeah i've had a fair few discussions where i've argued similar about smith - it's only when you actually read him you find out how much of a social democrat he actually was (and most of the left's disparaging of smith comes from blindly accepting the picture painted of him by the narrowly selective quoting of free marketers. You should check out his moral philosophy - theory of moral sentiments - if you liked what you saw of smith in relation to political economy)

cheers for the offer of the stuff but i've plenty on all that as it is
 
I've not been reading it so much the past month or so, but i'm on chapter 7 of Capital now and read about a quarter of harvey's guide to it.

i wish i had some vaguely interesting questions, but tbh i'm still pondering it all over, and nothing massive springs to mind. we'll see.
 
i'm sure there's loads of interesting and thought provoking stuff going on in your own head as you make your way through it though - that's more important than keeping us entertained with interesting questions
 
I've managed to get through Chapter 3 and the change in pace in the following 2 chapters is a relief. Even though both Marx and Harvey spell out that this is to be expected and why, I did have a nagging doubt that the whole book was going to be as dense as Part 1.

I'm still not as convinced as I would like to be by the rigid distinction between quantitative and qualitative aspects which seems to underpin his analysis. I think I see why he is doing this, but sometimes it seems to be a means of avoiding obvious but undesirable conclusions rather than a methodological tool, if that makes sense.

When the book was written, the labour theory of value was part of the canon of political economy. Marx's critique must have seemed much more powerful at that time than it does now, when mainstream, neo-classical economics has reconstructed itself without the concept of value. Even if you recognise that this move was provoked in part, or even largely, by Marx, I am left wondering how this impacts on the relevance of his argument today.

Value seems to become a bit of a slippery and occluded concept in Marx's hand. It hides behind fluctuating or distorted prices and it is equal to socially necessary labour time, but also capable of including a surplus element at the same time. I'm no fan of Popper and I realise that there are problems with falsificationism, but I have to admit that I am left wondering if he may have had a point.

To some extent I am playing devil's advocate here in the hope of getting a robust defense of Marx's method, or at least some interesting responses.
 
on chapter 9 now (looking forward to chapter 10 more) but was a hiatus for over 2 months as my bastarding kindle broke. amazon have since replaced it for free, boom.

to lurkers n readers n whoever: PM me if you'd like .mobi ebooks of fawkes translation of Capital vol 1 and also Harvey's companion book.
 
10 is good. Lots of historical details. 11 and 12 are also very good. The 12 covers some interesting stuff about competition, the labour movements and regulation. All through these three there are parallels with today - Sunday trading for example.
 
RMF Capital Reading Group

(RMF is Research on Money and Finance - does what it says on the tin, people like Costas Lapavitsas involved - btw read this book: Profiting Without Producing - info here).

The group is aimed at those with an interest in Marx but who have not necessarily read Capital, as well as being open to those more experienced with the text. Members need not be economists, as multidisciplinary membership enriches the content of our discussions.

We are following the Penguin Classics edition of Capital, so prospective members should make sure in advance that they will have access to this edition of the text. It can be purchased relatively cheaply from Amazon. We are starting with volume 1, but then intend to go on to tackle volumes 2 and 3.
Members of the group read the portion of the text scheduled for each session in advance. The group organisers introduce the sessions through short presentations, which are then followed by open discussion.
Click to expand...
 
Finished Volume 1 last night.

It took me 2 years, but I had a massive hiatus in the middle when various tedious domestic issues took priority. (reproduction of labour blah blah blah).

Alternating chapters with David Harvey audio was a good way of doing it for me because it meant I could have a think about it all on the way to work or doing the washing up or whatever.

I really enjoyed it and I think got a lot out of it too. I mean, I wouldn't want to sit an exam or anything, but it has given me a lot to think about.

Now re-reading chapter one, as per David Harvey's instructions in the penulitmate lecture. :rolleyes::D

Thanks to everyone for the encouragement earlier in the thread.

Might start on volume 2 next year...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yugoslav
On Marxism-Leninism
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
255
Views
5K
Yugoslav
Yugoslav
brixtonscot
Sexual Liberation and/or Capitalist Assimilation ?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
yield
Y
A380
Happy Marx Day!
Replies
2
Views
334
Ming
Ming
S
My friend got Karl Marx’s Capital Volume I for Christmas
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Rimbaud
R
Artaxerxes
Environmental Reading
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
RedRedRose
RedRedRose
Back
Top Bottom