We are reading Volumes 1, 2, and 3 in one year. This will repeat yearly until communism is achieved. (Volume IV, often published under the title Theories of Surplus Value, will not be included, but comrades are welcome to set up other bookclubs.) This works out to about 6½ pages a day for a year, 46 pages a week.
I’ll post the readings at the start of each week and @mention anybody interested.
Week 1, Jan 1-7, we are reading Volume 1, Chapter 1 ‘The Commodity’
Discuss the week’s reading in the comments.
Use any translation/edition you like. Marxists.org has the Moore and Aveling translation in various file formats including epub and PDF: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
Ben Fowkes translation, PDF: http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=9C4A100BD61BB2DB9BE26773E4DBC5D
AernaLingus says: I noticed that the linked copy of the Fowkes translation doesn’t have bookmarks, so I took the liberty of adding them myself. You can either download my version with the bookmarks added, or if you’re a bit paranoid (can’t blame ya) and don’t mind some light command line work you can use the same simple script that I did with my formatted plaintext bookmarks to take the PDF from libgen and add the bookmarks yourself.
Resources
(These are not expected reading, these are here to help you if you so choose)
-
Harvey’s guide to reading it: https://www.davidharvey.org/media/Intro_A_Companion_to_Marxs_Capital.pdf
-
A University of Warwick guide to reading it: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/postgraduate/masters/modules/worldlitworldsystems/hotr.marxs_capital.untilp72.pdf
-
Reading Capital with Comrades: A Liberation School podcast series - https://www.liberationschool.org/reading-capital-with-comrades-podcast/
@invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net @Othello@hexbear.net @Pluto@hexbear.net @Lerios@hexbear.net @ComradeRat@hexbear.net @heartheartbreak@hexbear.net @Hohsia@hexbear.net @Kolibri@hexbear.net @star_wraith@hexbear.net @commiewithoutorgans@hexbear.net @Snackuleata@hexbear.net @TovarishTomato@hexbear.net @Erika3sis@hexbear.net @quarrk@hexbear.net @Parsani@hexbear.net @oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net @Beaver@hexbear.net @NoLeftLeftWhereILive@hexbear.net @LaBellaLotta@hexbear.net @professionalduster@hexbear.net @GaveUp@hexbear.net @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net @Sasuke@hexbear.net @wheresmysurplusvalue@hexbear.net @seeking_perhaps@hexbear.net @boiledfrog@hexbear.net @gaust@hexbear.net @Wertheimer@hexbear.net @666PeaceKeepaGirl@hexbear.net @BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net @PerryBot4000@hexbear.net @PaulSmackage@hexbear.net @420blazeit69@hexbear.net @hexaflexagonbear@hexbear.net @glingorfel@hexbear.net @Palacegalleryratio@hexbear.net @ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml @RedWizard@lemmygrad.ml @joaomarrom@hexbear.net @HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net @impartial_fanboy@hexbear.net @bubbalu@hexbear.net @equinox@hexbear.net @SummerIsTooWarm@hexbear.net @Awoo@hexbear.net @DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml @SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net @YearOfTheCommieDesktop@hexbear.net @asnailchosenatrandom@hexbear.net @Stpetergriffonsberg@hexbear.net @Melonius@hexbear.net @Jobasha@hexbear.net @ape@hexbear.net @Maoo@hexbear.net @Professional_Lurker@hexbear.net @featured@hexbear.net @IceWallowCum@hexbear.net @Doubledee@hexbear.net
Section 3: The Form of Value or Exchange Value
The purpose of section 3 is to trace the “genesis” of money, from exchange value to “the dazzling money-form.”
In all subsections, a value relation is any relation that manages to express, or reveal, the value of a single commodity.
A. Elementary or Accidental Form Of Value
x commodity A = y commodity B
The left side of the equation is the relative form, the commodity that has its value expressed. The right side of the equation is the equivalent form, the commodity that expresses value by acting as an equivalent.
This elementary form of value is symmetrical, so reading it either direction is equally valid and merely a different perspective; but in either case, only one or the other commodity expresses its value.
The equation implies equivalence of both quantity and quality. The word for this ability to compare quantity, by virtue of identical quality, is commensurability. The value of the relative-form commodity takes on an existence in the bodily form, in the use value, of the equivalent-form commodity. This sounds really odd, but think of it like mentally substituting “y commodity B” everywhere you see “x commodity A”, not just in quantity, but in quality too. The physical body of commodity B gives a physical, independent existence for the purely social value-substance from our analysis which is imprisoned inside the use value of commodity A.
Think about the consequence of value taking on the physical form of the equivalent-form commodity (the coat in Marx’s example). If the physical body of a commodity is value itself, in the context of a single elementary value relation, can you guess what commodity might be universally recognized as value?
Finally, because value relations are relative, they do not tell us the absolute amount of value in a commodity. If commodities A and B both dropped in value by half, they would still happily exchange at a rate of x to y respectively.
This was a part which I kept getting hung up on. It seems so straightforward but the way it is worded in Capital, and a bit here too, is difficult for me to fully intellectualize for some reason. The analogy Marx gives of “weighing” makes it pretty clear, so I don’t understand why I find it so complicated lol
Yeah it’s pretty weird and still gives me trouble. Some of these more nuanced points aren’t that important for following the book. The points still matter but they aren’t necessary for understanding exploitation.
It seems like you have a pretty solid understanding of chapter 1 so far, as well as anyone else at least. It’s a chapter that makes more sense when you return to it after finishing the book, or even years later after reading other stuff.
It’s why I recommend reading volume 4 (theories of surplus value) after volume 1. It is Marx’s notes on all the major political economists, contextualizing their theories in terms of his own, in order to explain where they got stuck or went wrong. It’s invaluable for understanding the esoteric points in volume 1. Often they were born of arguments he had in the past, or realizations about subtle missteps that other economists made.
Also, volume 2 is far drier in tone, and has a lot more computation. So many people give up there. To be honest I mostly skimmed volume 2, it was too painful lol.
Chapter 2 next week should be a breeze. It’s not too complicated and only a few pages. So that should give us all time to pause and let some questions percolate.
Yeah that makes sense, the footnotes where he directly critiques classical political economy are interesting. I’m not very well read on this, so seeing how Marx understand his own project as different from what came before is a bit obscure for me right now.
My only exposure to it are through secondary sources dealing with the different “circuits”. Looking forward to it lol
So so much shorter lol, I feel like we could have split chapter 1 into two parts