Fig 1

Fig 1.
Fig 2.

What should i read instead? I basically know nothing about Marxist theory

Attached: Fig 2.png (633x758 5.42 KB, 56.27K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Its not that hard.
If you're having trouble DON'T look at some sort of lecture or explanation especially not David Harvey as most of them have some kind of bias or horrible misunderstanding. Try wage labor and capital but keep in mind that when he says cost of production he means labor costs.

I mean sometimes I have a hard time understanding books, so its all good. I would recommend reading crit. of the gotha program, Wage Labor and Capital, and some hegel first.

Jumping into capital with no prior marxist theory takes balls. My man I am proud of you for attempting
That said, read wagelabour and capital, value price and profit first. They're condensed and less complex marxist theories (eg. No real math involved)

Google "Appendix to the 1st German edition of Capital". It might help as you go a long.

Thanks for the replies looks like Wage Labor and Capital it is

i'll check it out thanks

boy, got i the perfect flag to post with for you

Attached: leontiev_politicaleconomy_chapter3.pdf (leontiev_politicaleconomy_….pdf)

I don't get it sorry

Oh boy at my current reading speed i'll probably die reading all of it

Thanks is this complete or just an excerpt?

Oh yeah, Hegel is sooooo much easier to understand than Marx.

Attached: BC68BCF9-D871-49CE-9451-2BA4FFCFED16.jpeg (1200x1600, 1.16M)

Go straight to the chapter on the effect of the machine on Labour it’s the easiest to understand and you get all the key concepts, it’s a nice easy way to get into how Marx thinks. If not the German ideology is also a nice intro

State and Revolution, by Lenin

wage-labour and capital

value-price and profit

Law of Value video series

There's also the Holla Forums Marxism Reading List. If you read through the introductory list top to bottom, you'd get a good gist of what Marxism is all about. It may look overwhelming at first glance, but the Rudimentary Texts are just a couple pages long each and most of the Introductory Texts are each around 20-50 pages long, with the exception of State and Revolution which is around 100 pages.

Attached: Marxism_Reading_List.jpg (1310x1300, 404.48K)


Aside from the advice about reading CotGP, WLC etc., when you do restart Capital I'd suggest you take it slow, don't try to consume a massive amount of new info all at once. I've been reading maybe 40 pages a day on my commute, interspersed with occasionally staying up on nights where I have a late start the next day to go for as many as I can before I start falling asleep. Seems to be working fine so far, just chuck in a periodic recap so you can consolidate what you've learned over time into a more coherent form.

Attached: 32f.png (497x358, 46.11K)

Attached: 304ad19d8df4f0276f17031645dd4361627202e7891b60acdc0c022b7380855f.png (205x246, 4.81K)

The fact that you bought capital instead of downloading it should have told you you arent smart enough to read it.

what a brainlet



40 pages a day is mental, i've been managing with about 50/week because i'm lazy and have like 3 side-projects (hegel, althusser and so on), although i've checked ahead and the discussion drops in conceptual density, so i might be able to pick up the pace.

if you're ever confused just read "science and critique in Capital" by Jacques Ranciere it's hands down the most concise and insightful reading of volume 1.

Attached: 1433367340020.jpg (257x307, 11.01K)

What's wrong with David Harvey?

I'm not saying there isn't anything wrong with him, I just keep seeing people say he misinterprets Dad Kapital, but never explain how.

he doesn't understand abstract labour

I mean, my commute is relatively long and it's the only thing I'm reading right now, plus I read too quickly if anything.

Attached: 1e928cef669b966b8077905c7612615c3aa28401fcc38db9be04ccd9be965f40.png (658x901, 58.87K)

modern technology was a mistake

I most strongly advice Karl Kautsky's works.

Not only they are easier to read, they are simply faster and less boring (due to practical analysis of modern day irrelevant 19th century economy being omitted)

On politeconomic parts:

On historic materialist parts:


Ereaders my dude
One time investment, you start saving money after 6 books.

Harvey is very well read on stuff relating to Smith, Ricardo, etc. But has absolutely no knowledge of Hegel or continental philosophy so his interpretation isn't surprising in that regard.

Not him or OP, but this sounds like Harvey is exactly what I need if I ever read Capital since economy is what I'm mostly a brainlet at

You need to be aware of other thinkers of the day like Hegel before you can read Kapital.

Might be good to start w secondary lit or more basic marxist texts on the subject (Wage Labor and Capital as well as Value Price and Profit are good short texts to help you generally get your bearings on this subject. I would actually highly recommend Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (Zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie) as well.)

Ultimately though I feel like often the reason why people have so much trouble with Capital is that they end up reading it wrong. In my case the first couple times I read Capital I was reading it with the intent of combatting rightist dorks online so I was mostly just looking for quotable material and shit. This is a mistake, obviously. Anyways it might help if you could give us a bit more detail abt what specifically you're having trouble on.

Also generally helps, especially in the first chapters to think through what questions he's trying to answer and why that motivates him to move to the questions he does. Hegeldorks will obviously know more about this than relative illiterates like me and if you want to really get Hegel that'll take a lot more work than getting the basics of Marx.

Take note of where he starts his work with the wealth of capitalist societies being represented as an immense accumulation of commodities. Think about what exactly that means. Certainly, every human society has produced useful objects and therefore a kind of wealth, but why does our wealth take the form of a mass of commodities? What is a commodity? What can we deduce about our society's structure and the way labor is carried out from the fact that our society produces wealth in the form of a mass of commodities?

"On the other hand, under the rural patriarchal system of production, when spinner and weaver lived under the same roof – the women of the family spinning and the men weaving, say for the requirements of the family – yarn and linen were social products, and spinning and weaving social labour within the framework of the family. But their social character did not appear in the form of yarn becoming a universal equivalent exchanged for linen as a universal equivalent, i.e., of the two products exchanging for each other as equal and equally valid expressions of the same universal labour-time. On the contrary, the product of labour bore the specific social imprint of the family relationship with its naturally evolved division of labour. Or let us take the services and dues in kind of the Middle Ages. It was the distinct labour of the individual in its original form, the particular features of his labour and not its universal aspect that formed the social ties at that time. Or finally let us take communal labour in its spontaneously evolved form as we find it among all civilised nations at the dawn of their history. [3] In this case the social character of labour is evidently not effected by the labour of the individual assuming the abstract form of universal labour or his product assuming the form of a universal equivalent. The communal system on which this mode of production is based prevents the labour of an individual from becoming private labour and his product the private product of a separate individual; it causes individual labour to appear rather as the direct function of a member of the social organisation. Labour which manifests itself in exchange-value appears to be the labour of an isolated individual. It becomes social labour by assuming the form of its direct opposite, of abstract universal labour."
-Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

English is not my native language and even I could read it and understand it. You're way to smart than me, I'm sure you can understand and even teach about it later.

Capital is not a difficult book. Marx explains it as simply as he can, with literate factory workers in mind.

The only chapter I could see as providing any difficulties whatsoever is the beginning of Chapter 3, on money, and perhaps his writings on the relative and equivalent forms, though again he goes to great lengths to clarify what he's trying to explain.

Good grief.

Attached: Anglo Stare.jpg (175x268, 44.07K)

I'm here talking of Volume 1.

Volume 2 & 3 are also not difficult in regards to the concepts expounded, but the dense and inaccessible prose puts many off. However, they are ESSENTIAL.

There is no math in Capital, past the basic ratios. Volumes 2 & 3 contain more, but nothing difficult by modern standards.

Commie Manifesto, On contradiction, and Profit Over People.

Those are pretty much the best books I can think about for New people.

Attached: stalin PIPE PIX.jpg.opt498x664o0,0s498x664.jpg (498x664, 61.92K)