this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
143 points (100.0% liked)

theory

611 readers
22 users here now

A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for !literature@www.hexbear.net will be removed.

The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
143
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Vampire@hexbear.net to c/theory@hexbear.net
 

Format

  • 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. Discuss the week's reading in the comments.

  • Use any translation/edition you like.

Resources

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (13 children)
[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Pro tip, don't skip the footnotes

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 11 points 10 months ago (18 children)

Let me know if you would like to be removed from the notification list or added to it.

[–] glingorfel@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago

put me in coach

[–] Pluto@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago

For me, I'm fine with it.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Sasuke@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago

hell yeah i'm ready

arm-L marx-goth arm-R

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ok fine, I'll quit being a lib and read some large adult theory

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 24 points 10 months ago

We love our big adult son, don't we folks

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 25 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I have finished sections 1 and 2 just now. I have already a lot to chew on, and questions that I would ask if I weren't pretty sure that they all get answered later on (or even in what I already read, if I just comprehended it better). I looked at David Harvey's guide beforehand and it would certainly seem like I'm not alone in this.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Actually, you know what, having questions but not asking them for fear of embarrassing oneself is for LIBs:

What is price? It would have to be some combination of use value and exchange value, right?

Edit: Ope, I'm supposed to discuss under the parent comment, sorry!

[–] star_wraith@hexbear.net 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I like how Radhika Desai describes it: value is like gravity. The “value” of a commodity is an object (or really, the gravity of that object) and price moves around that object like comets and planets move around the sun, if that makes sense.

Value is what determines price all things being equal, but in reality all things are not equal. There are an uncountable number of factors that move the price off the value.

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Similar excerpt from Value, Price, and Profit (basically a cliff notes version of Capital):

Excerpt - supply and demand do not explain value

“Supply and demand regulate nothing but the temporary fluctuations of market prices. They will explain to you why the market price of a commodity rises above or sinks below its value, but they can never account for the value itself. Suppose supply and demand to equilibrate, or, as the economists call it, to cover each other. Why, the very moment these opposite forces become equal they paralyze each other, and cease to work in the one or other direction. At the moment when supply and demand equilibrate each other, and therefore cease to act, the market price of a commodity coincides with its real value, with the standard price round which its market prices oscillate. In inquiring into the nature of that VALUE, we have therefore nothing at all to do with the temporary effects on market prices of supply and demand.”

Now, this concept of an ideal price was not innovated by Marx. Adam Smith (regarded by Marx as one of the two great political economists, along with David Ricardo, in Capital chapter 1 footnote 33) thought of this as well and called it natural price.

In fact, Marx was not even the first to come up with a labor theory of value. Adam Smith, a man held in esteem today by modern bourgeois economists, actually himself based his theory on a labor theory of value.

Capital is Marx’s original ideas posed as a critique of political economy (hence the subtitle). So he took these ideas that had already been put forward by Smith, Ricardo, and others, and carried them out systematically to their conclusion, in some aspects more consistently than the original authors.

A flaw in Adam Smith’s theory of labor is the mud pie argument so often thrown at Marx, when really Marx made the theoretical advancement that overcomes it. Smith did not determine what kind of labor creates value and hence counts as social labor. So, someone who makes something socially useless, like mud pies, all day could earn an income in Smith’s model.

What distinguishes Marx’s labor theory from earlier theories is in his recognition of the dual character of labor^1^, that a singular act of labor is regarded in two different ways in the real practice of capitalism. On one hand, concrete labor produces use values, but on the other hand, abstract labor produces value. Throughout capital, concrete ≈ natural/physical, and abstract ≈ social. All societies produce use values, but only in the capitalist epoch does society behave as though these use values have a distinct property called value, due to being commodities.

1 - Letter from Marx to Engels

”The best points in my book are: 1) the two-fold character of labor, according to whether it is expressed in use value or exchange value. (All understanding of the facts depends upon this.) It is emphasized immediately, in the first chapter; 2) the treatment of surplus value independently of its particular forms as profit, interest, ground rent, etc.”

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

The elementary expression of the relative value of a single commodity, such as linen, in terms of the commodity, such as gold, that plays the part of money, is the price form of that commodity.

In other words, price is the expression of a commodity's value through its relation to the money commodity. Alternatively, its "exchange value in terms of money".

In a market of N total commodities, each commodity has (N-1) relative expressions to other commodities which are all valid expressions of its value; but exactly one of these expressions has money as the equivalent. This one special expression is price. Notice that there is nothing essentially different about price compared to all the other relative expressions. What makes price stand out is that, in practice, the money commodity is used as the universal equivalent.

I would note this question as it will be considered more in detail in later chapters, I think chapter 3.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's what tracks according to what was already laid out in these first two sections, and according to what I've heard from others, but it still confuses me to think that the actual quality of something does not affect its price.

I mean, surely if two of the exact same thing were made in the exact same timespan, but the one was made in a sweatshop while the other was made in a factory with good conditions and pay, then the latter would be more expensive, right?...

...

...Oh, the latter would just be overpriced, wouldn't it?

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Correct. There is a single market price, and competition forces all producers to a minimum of labor expenditure.

If the quality of something is inseparable from what it is, say a gold bar with 99.99999% purity compared to a gold bar that is 98% pure, then you can consider them as two separate commodities because the labor process is distinct for each, and they will have different prices reflecting that.

The method in this chapter is one of observation, observing the real behavior of capitalist society. It is a fact that there are “going rates” for things, quantitative relations between all the commodities (mainly with money, ie prices).

This is basically the Hegelian immanent critique. That is outside the scope of this book, but I thought I would mention it. The commodity is being considered strictly by its own internal logic, without imparting what we already “know” about it. As much as possible, we are observing as it exists in itself and as it relates to other things.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 10 points 10 months ago

Mindblowing!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 15 points 10 months ago

good way to start the year

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How does a reading group work?

[–] KurtVonnegut@hexbear.net 20 points 10 months ago

Typically, in real life, people read an entire book on their own and then get together once a month to discuss it, with food, drinks, etc.

On the internet, we are breaking this up into one-week chunks. People read the week's chunk on their own, then come to this thread to ask questions, provide answers, and make their own speculations. For example, this week we are all reading Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of Das Kapital, and next week we will all read the second chapter, etc. until the end of the book.

Honestly, Capital Volume I is a slow build that first poses basic concepts and then builds on top of them to a more interesting general conclusion. So the discussions in this first thread are naturally going to be less interesting than threads later in the year, when we have more context and more overall content to discuss.

Also, you can also listen to an audiobook instead of reading. Here's a YouTube playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmgycyY5saM&list=PLUjbFtkcDBlSHVigHHx_wjaeWmDN2W-h8

[–] Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net 20 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Oh shit oh god what have I commited to

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 18 points 10 months ago (5 children)

It's about 10 minutes per day

[–] professionalduster@hexbear.net 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

10 minutes of precious TikTok time! fuck!

[–] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 10 months ago (2 children)

maybe I'm just slow, but reading and comprehending an arbitrary six-page sequence of Capital in ten minutes sounds very optimistic

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 20 points 10 months ago

This year has an extra day, so you have less work to do each day.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 12 points 10 months ago

It is, but to the folks who may have trouble comprehending everything on the first pass (I expect to be one!), it may help to at least read it all so you have the basics in your head, then count on the discussions to help the rest fall into place. That's been my experience with reading groups.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It takes me ten minutes to read three sentences!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net 9 points 10 months ago

Thats not so bad

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pluto@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago

I say go for it.

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago

You in 1 year:

[–] boiledfrog@hexbear.net 18 points 10 months ago

OK, I'm joining. Now or never lets-fucking-go

[–] Kynuck97@hexbear.net 16 points 10 months ago

This will repeat yearly until Communism is achieved

Im gonna be reciting this shit from memory when the revolution finally comes to the imperial core lmfao

[–] Des@hexbear.net 15 points 10 months ago (3 children)

anywhere where the entire book is posted free online?

[–] seeking_perhaps@hexbear.net 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Guess I have no excuse now. Let's do it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] star_wraith@hexbear.net 13 points 10 months ago

The podcast Reading Capital with Comrades from Liberation School is also a great resource for going along with vol 1.

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What is the relationship between labor and labor-power?

[–] Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Idk... labor-power is the maker's skill and labor is its result?

[–] star_wraith@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

“Labor” is just actual work. In this sense I think “labor” is a verb.

“Labor power” is the commodity of labor. When I sell one hour of my labor to a capitalist, I am selling my labor power as a commodity. I’m selling my labor in the same way a farmer sells apples he grows. Unlike a farmer I don’t have an apple tree - I have no capital, I only have my labor. So that’s all I have to sell and selling my labor as a worker is one of the defining characteristics of capitalism.

Marx will get more into this later, but it’s critical to understand that Marx views labor as a commodity that is sold to a capitalist just like how coal or steel is sold to a capitalist. And the final commodity that a capitalist sells - like a car - is an amalgamation of various commodities. In this case, the commodity steel and the commodity labor power.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

marxists.org is an excellent place to read this for free. They even offer it in various formats including ePub, which you can read on your e-reader including Kindles. I much prefer using my e-reader so I can easily save highlights (lots of goodies in Capital).

There are occasional typos — I have had success getting these corrected by emailing this legend

Additional resource: List of ePub files of Marx & Engels authorship

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 10 months ago
[–] commiewithoutorgans@hexbear.net 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is the plan to discuss here or will we open a discussion thread on the 7th or so?

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] stigsbandit34z@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Are there any prerequisites for understanding? I’ve never taken things like calculus or Econ, for example :(

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 13 points 10 months ago

The difficulty is almost entirely in understanding the concepts. Math-wise, it does not surpass simple algebra. Even then, if you have not learned algebra, then you can take Marx's word for the numerical calculation and continue reading his explanation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 8 points 10 months ago (8 children)

At risk of spamming this thread (I have work tomorrow so getting my thoughts out now) I wanted to pose a starter question just to get some discussion flowing.

What are use-value and exchange-value? Why does Marx highlight these two things and their relationship in the first chapter?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›