What would 6 volumes of Capital have looked like? And what is the closest thing to those books we never got?
What would 6 volumes of Capital have looked like? And what is the closest thing to those books we never got?
Sebastian Martinez
Josiah Lee
inb4 some shithead says Cockshot
Nathaniel Murphy
It would probably look like something between the WTC and the Taipei 101.
Austin Johnson
Lel
Aaron Morgan
Bukharin's work on economics TBH
Oliver Rogers
Like this but longer.
libgen.io
Nicholas Collins
We have 4. Volume 1-3 and theory's of surplus value.
Dylan Diaz
...
Jace White
Some people argue that he changed his plans and gave up the idea of writing Capital in 6 volumes:
openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au
Nicholas Wilson
>But the series of simplifying as sumptions was not exhausted by the considerations already mentioned. The other simplifying assumptions that resulted from his excellent meant that Marx could not start with the empirically given partial forms of income without labour: industrial profit, interest, ground rent, merchant’s profit, etc. He had, rather, to use their ideal aggregate in the common, fundamental form of surplus value, as the distinctive category of his analysis. For, to start with, the division of surplus value among particular groups of capitalists did not interest Marx. Instead, what interested him was the problem of surplus value itself, the magnitude of surplus value that could be obtained and its variations, i.e. its developmental tendencies, in the course of capital accumulation. If taxes are high, then the portion of surplus value remaining for the capitalists is smaller. If the interest rate is low, then the portion of surplus value remaining for the industrial and merchant capitalists, etc. is larger. The total magnitude of the surplus value originally produced is not altered by changes in the division of surplus value among the state, the banks, the industrialists, etc. From the standpoint of his excellent, Marx thus had to put aside the specific forms into which the surplus value is divided. For this reason, however,adherence to the original plan of 1859 was impossible. Where it is a matter of the total magnitude of surplus value, how could capital and ground rent now be treated as separate subject areas? After all, ground rent is merely a partof surplus value. In thisway, under the compulsion of his excellent, Marx hadto give up the treatment
according to separate subject areas. Instead of the analysis of the empirically given subject areas – interest, rent, merchant’s profit, etc. – he had to place the function of surplus-value creationin the foreground; i.e. he had to make theprocess of productionthe chief object of analysis. For this is at the same time the process of surplus-value production. Thus surplus value is grasped at its source, beforeits division into its component forms, which immensely facilitates the analysis of the magnitude of surplus value in its totality; in fact, makes this possible. ‘On the other hand’, says Marx, ‘we treat the capitalist producer as the owner of the entire surplus value … as the representative of all those who will share the booty with him … The break-up of surplus value into various fragments does not affect either its nature or the conditions under which it becomes an element in accumulation.
Daniel Scott
what the fuck is this
Christopher Ramirez
a meme
Joseph Ortiz
A good book.
Nicholas Turner
...
Jonathan Edwards
LOW BLOW, MAN, LOW BLOW!
Dominic Anderson
.t left liberal
Owen Taylor
A lot of what Marx said is bullshit, commidity production and markets are inevitable, it's part of human nature to spread your inventions and want to acquire products that maybe you wont need but make things more comfortable/easier
Logan Collins
This is what keeps me away from Marxism, why are commidities bad to them? Seems like that something a poor hobo would say
William Hill
...
Luke Anderson
Im not a capitalist apologist nor a social democrat, but commodity production isn't bad as long as it's not excessive,what i said about the markets is retarded though im sorry
Dylan Taylor
Do you even know what "commodity production" means?
Kayden Kelly
Oh boy. What does not excessive even mean to you? 50% of production? 80% of production? Without growth?
Aiden Lopez
probably 10-15% of users here have even read anything of the actually existing volumes of Capital, how are you to expect them to imagine three more volumes?
Christopher Parker
Stop having opinions about things you don't understand.
Thomas Sanders
Ahistorical nonsense. Inventions were either used to gain a personal advantage in subsistence production or to further everyone in your tribe, village, or country. When Feudalism came around, scientists were nobles who practiced science for the sake of furthering knowledge. The inventions that came with it were not sold as patented ideas. They were either, again, used by the country to further their own potential against other countries or shared with their allies. Merchants always profited from buying and selling, so they didn't actually invent anything, aside from optimizing trade routes and storage techniques. You can create things to make life easier without having to establish commodity production. You just need to find scientists and engineers who do it for the sake of knowledge and progress, and some fame, instead of money. Then you can compensate the scientists with products of surplus. You know. Like we have done over the span of thousands of years before capitalism. Humans want their labour to be useful for society, and to make life easier. What would be beneficial than everyone being able to devote themselves and their labour to each other? Instead of engaging in a continued war against each other on the free market.
Nolan Mitchell
Imagine these three combined into some ebin memeplex
Anthony Reyes
He probably would have developed a more concrete theory of the State in later volumes.
Nathan Martin
I agree that would be extremely Based, but are you actually basing this on anything?
Nathan Parker
If it’s human nature then explain primitive communism.