Hop in, comrades, we are reading Capital Volumes I-III this year, and we will every year 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. Let me know if you want to be added or removed.

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: https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=AA342398FDEC44DFA0E732357783FD48

(Unsure about the quality of the Reitter translation, I’d love to see some input on it as it’s the newest one)

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. Also, please let me know if you spot any errors with the bookmarks so I can fix them!


Resources

(These are not expected reading, these are here to help you if you so choose)


2024 Archived Discussions

If you want to dig back into older discussions, this is an excellent way to do so.

Archives: Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6Week 7Week 8Week 9Week 10Week 11Week 12Week 13Week 14Week 15Week 16Week 17Week 18Week 19Week 20Week 21Week 22Week 23Week 24Week 25Week 26Week 27Week 28Week 29Week 30Week 31Week 32Week 33Week 34Week 35Week 36Week 37Week 38Week 39Week 40Week 41Week 42Week 43Week 44Week 45Week 46Week 47Week 48Week 49Week 50Week 51Week 52


2025 Archived Discussions

Just joining us? You can use the archives below to help you reading up to where the group is. There is another reading group on a different schedule at https://lemmygrad.ml/c/genzhou (federated at [email protected] ) (Note: Seems to be on hiatus for now) which may fit your schedule better. The idea is for the bookclub to repeat annually, so there’s always next year.

N/A

  • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I would like to describe the structure of chapter one. This is best explained in Rubin’s writings[1][2], where he calls this Marx’s dialectical or “genetic” method. I’m still trying to wrap my head around it, so this summary is partly to clarify it to myself.

    Marx starts from empirical observation and, through analysis (splitting into smaller parts) reduces the concrete reality of commodities to abstract categories of use value, exchange value, value, and labor.[3] The concepts move from concrete to abstract.

    Having analyzed the commodity in its concrete, fully developed form and discovered the abstract categories lying underneath, Marx is only halfway done with his investigation. It is imperative to reverse direction, to move back from abstract to concrete using the concepts thus derived.

    Marx criticizes the field of classical political economy for stopping its investigation at this point:

    Quote about political economy

    Political Economy has indeed analysed, however incompletely, value and its magnitude, and has discovered what lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour time by the magnitude of that value. These formulæ, which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulæ appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself. Hence forms of social production that preceded the bourgeois form, are treated by the bourgeoisie in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions.

    Political economy discovered that labor is the content or substance of value, but could not push past this limit because of the analytical direction of its approach (concrete to abstract). Labor is the content of value, but this is only abstractly true. To see how this truth manifests itself in the material world, we have to develop the concept in light of the specific, historically given world being studied. It has to be understood what kind of labor makes up value.

    For Marx it was important not only to discover the abstract category of value, but to then build up this category and its interconnections with other categories in order to return to the concrete capitalist reality again, this time with an understanding of the movements happening under the surface. Marx wrote in a letter that the easy part is to discover the law of value; but “[w]here science comes in is to show how the law of value asserts itself.”[4]

    The remainder of chapter one, and really the rest of Capital, is Marx developing these abstract categories in order to recover concrete reality again. This is the dialectical-materialist method of Marx, which to him is the only way to sufficiently answer questions of science.

    As a final remark, I’ll compare this method with the dialectic of Hegel of which I have only a basic understanding. Hegel wanted a presuppositionless logic by which one could acquire knowledge without influence from preconceived notions. In his Science of Logic this means starting from the concept of pure Being, a total abstraction. Marx was also interested in doing science, acquiring knowledge without preconceptions creeping in. However, for Marx, the correct starting point is not the pure concept, but sensuous, measurable reality. Science presupposes nature. Therefore Marx took inspiration from Hegel’s method but inverted it, transforming it from an idealist method into a materialist one:[5]

    Marx Hegel quote

    My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

    The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of Das Kapital, it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Ἐπίγονοι [Epigones — Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

    In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.


    1. 1: https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/abstract-labour.htm ↩︎

    2. 2: https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/ch12.htm ↩︎

    3. 3: Other concepts appear such as “form of value”. This is not an exhaustive list. ↩︎

    4. 4: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_07_11-abs.htm ↩︎

    5. 5: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm ↩︎

    • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Great write-up! Marx’s dialectical process seems apparent from the very beginning, and seeks to correct areas which dialectics sufficiently filled in the gaps of prior knowledge.

    • Sasuke [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      The remainder of chapter one, and really the rest of Capital, is Marx developing these abstract categories in order to recover concrete reality again.

      I feel like this has to be one of the greatest value of reading Capital today. Not sure how to word this properly (especially not on mobile), but to me it seems capitalism creates layers of abstraction (beginning with the fact that all commodities, regardless of use-value, can be reduced to a ‘third thing’ in its exchange form), and that these layers, which obfuscated the material reality of commodities and commodity production, only intensifies over time.

      Great read, thank you for the write-up!