Capital Thread

I'm fairly well versed on all three volumes of Capital so I thought I might keep a thread up where I answer any questions for first time readers or those who aren't feeling equipped to dive in yet. I have a somewhat heterodox reading of Marx's project but it's well founded in Marx's own work and secondary literature. Marx was such a theoretically productive bastard that he often failed to understand just how wide the implications of his theoretical work stretched. I take Marx more as a critical social theorist than economist, but accept that Marx was always working on the terrain of classical political economy. Though it's important to remember that classical political economy is qualitatively different from modern economics and had wider social concerns.

Anyways, here's a rough sketch of Marx's project in Capital:

Volumes 1 and 2 deal with the essential, internal logic of capital when analyzed into its two distinctive spheres: production and circulation. The analytic separation is not a clean one though and often, elements of production and elements of circulation will find themselves theoretically enmeshed with one another in Volumes 1 and 2. This is to be expected given that the object of analysis is itself the unity of both of these moments in the total reproduction of the social whole.

The fundamental architectonic of the Critique of Political Economy can be roughly sketched as follows:

Volume 1: The Production of Capital

Production should here be understood as both production in its immediate presentation, as capital is commonly understood (industrial production of goods) and production in the mediated, theoretically constructed sense. Capital as a social relation is something that is produced in the immediate production process but not reducible to it. Others have suggested that Marx may have had in mind a meaning closer to "The Constitution of Capital".

Volume 1 has as its first goal, analyzing the immediately visible logic of capital: exchange. Through an analysis of the exchange relation, Marx lays down the logic of the commodity-form, the contradictory dynamics of the value-form, and the necessity of value's appearance in the money-form.

Capital proper only appears once these terms have been placed in their necessary relation to one another. The question becomes, where does the growth particular to capital come from given that the objects of exchange are all transformations of equivalent values? The answer is that there is a special commodity, labor-power.

The bulk of Volume 1 details the manner in which labour-power is incorporated into the production of commodities as the condition for the production of surplus value.

Marx ends by outlining some possible tendencies of long-term capitalist development and tracing the historical genesis of a social logic that presents itself as an ahistorical, structural whole.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=stgrSjynPKs
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch04.htm
digamo.free.fr/elson79-.pdf
digamo.free.fr/elson79.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Volume 2: The Circulation of Capital

Marx focuses here on what happens to the commodity. But first, he establishes the circuits of capital–the various forms value takes that when considered in their necessary unity constitute a relation of object-mediated social activity signified by the term capital. Capital is no thing, it's a form, a synthetic unity of many different moments.

Marx then establishes the needs capital has once in its commodity form to realize its value. Production may produce potential value, but it is only once commodities have been exchanged for money that value is realized.

Lastly, Marx very, very roughly schematically represents a highly abstract model that unifies production and circulation into a movement of total social reproduction. Here we see the contradictory, fraught movements of capital when its the form mediating total social reproduction. The production of capital clashes with the circulation needs of capital. Capital's own products are its necessary conditions for reproduction and yet the movement of that circle, from conditions to products is held back by the logic of value–that commodities as particular, material goods are faced with an autonomous expression of their value: money.

Volume 3: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole

Here, the work is operating at two levels of theoretical activity. It's tackling the traditional problems of political economy which only ever saw the surface of capital and laying claim to a scientific deduction of the necessary relation between the forms of appearance within capital and the inner essential relations that inhere to those forms and yet are invisible in the representation.

The problem is transforming value (an invisible relation) into its appearances as prices, profit, rent, interest, etc… The ultimate project is a critical one, a determination the ways in which capital conceals itself through forms that distort its logic but are its only ways of appearing and working.

I'm monitoring this thread

I've read summaries of it and plan to try and read a volume when I get some time, would jumping straight in be the best option?

Something that's been bothering me is the shift of capitalism to producing IP and services rather than material goods in developed areas and how this mutation should be addressed from a Marxist perspective.

What does Marx say on Yung Lean?

youtube.com/watch?v=stgrSjynPKs

I would recommend just reading Volume 1. It's a joy to read really–Marx was a master stylist and he was truly attempting to produce something that could be popular knowledge given that the reader was dedicated enough.

Harvey's companion is good for getting you to finish it and is valuable simply for that. Unfortunately, he fails to grasp the significance or present the signify be of the first three chapters. I recommend reading essays from "The Constituion of Capital" for that theoretical core. Harvey's a great geographer though and brings out some interesting points about time/space in capitalist production.

I also highly recommend Michael Heinrich's Introduction to the Three Volumes of Capital once you've been in the Capital waters for a bit.

And marx does address your question. Commodities do not have to be discrete, material products. Commodities can be services given that the labour that constitutes them has a certain form.

Okay I've been grappling with the concept of value for some time. How is it socially necessary labour time? It seems totally a priori when Marx says its the substance of value and a hundred other things could be the 'identity' between two exchange values.

Good question. I will post something a bit more substantive when I'm at my computer but for now I can leave you with a few remarks.

Most contemporary readers of Marx, even those that embrace him rather uncritically, will accept that value and labour time are rather tenuously connected in the first chapters. The point of explicating absolute surplus value and relative surplus value is to provide the theoretical substance for that rather empty initial identification.

Without labour time governing the sociality of private production and it's expression in the money form as value's appearance, a whole lot of capital's dynamics remain unexplainable in any rational system. Marx holds that there is a rationality to capital, that there are lawful movements that determine it. Labour time is at the center of explaining that specific rationality.

Thanks margs-bro. I feel like this concept is the crux upon which the whole marxian tradition stands on (unless you're a fag like althusser) so its kinda important to get down.

Thanks marx poster

Bump
Get serious comrades.

Time to dig this old topic up again.

In volume 1, Marx was explicit that money must be a commodity in capitalism, ie it must embody or represent some amount of socially necessary labor time.

Since fiat currency can essentially be created ex nihlo (ie Ben Bernanke dropping billions of dollars on Wall Street, Quantitative Easing), and since central banks arguably create dollars/euros/whatever every time they lend, it is doubtful that the dollar can represent any meaningful amount of socially necessary time.

Therefore, we live in a time period that contradicts Marx's theory of money and value. How would you resolve this contradiction? Or would you say that the appearance of this contradiction is indicative of the evolution of capitalism, something that was not predicted by Marxists? Or is the actual money commodity obscured from the mainstream eye instead of being held at a public exchange rate?

pls come back and enlighten me on this…

Inflation happens


Close enough basically, yeah

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch04.htm


In the sense that money is a commodity all commodities are money for the purposes of theory, kinda. You follow?

What do you think about Lenin's remark in his philosophical notebooks about studying Hegel to understand Marx's Capital?

to understand Marx’s Capital, and es-
pecially its first chapter, without having
thoroughly studied and understood the
whole of Hegel’s Logic

[spoiler] have you read hegel? [spoiler]

Why are you saying that althusser is a fag?

How do you feel about Piero Sraffa and how do I into Sraffian Marxists?

because he largely skipped over the commodity form in his exposition of alienation

How did marx intend the LTV to be used and can you explain how exactly it works?

Awesome post OP. Let's keep this thread alive!
My question is; is it a good idea to start reading 'The Capital' in its own or is it imperative to have some kind of secondary literature along with it?

Not OP but I read capital vol.1 and it wasn't hard. You can read it on its own.

To pinpoint any one objective or excellent to Marx is well, excellent. Marx was simultaneously working in two different fields: a political economy which recognizes the structural, formal nature of capital and treats it as a science treats as natural object and a critical social theory that attempts to determine the particular form of labour, of the highly mediated social activity through which capital as a set of formal conditions and mechanisms reproduces itself. How does the social distribution of labor under asocial conditions of production manage to reproduce a social whole? How is human activity determined by a historically contingent and yet manifestly "structural" social form?

An interesting essay that explores the latter: digamo.free.fr/elson79-.pdf

What Marx is NOT doing with the LTV is substantiating any left-Ricardian ethical socialism. It's not about defending labour against capital on capital's terms, on the notion that the working class should receive the profits it's products serve as the base for.

I'm of the school of thought that considers reading Marx to be the only thing you need to do to understand Marx.

And Lenin's understanding of Hegel was very poor.

How so?

wordfilter: problematik -> excellent

Because I said so.

yo marxposter, any news on that fresh exposition of LTV? Still pretty confused by the whole thing

Read Geoffrey Kay's essay in this, it's a critique of Bohm-Bawerk's critique of the LTV:

digamo.free.fr/elson79.pdf

It's one of those concepts that really only makes sense when its necessary relation to every other concept in Marx's system is explicated. Only after surplus value has been fully determined in its manifold and its relation to labour time made apparent as the only explanatory variable that can give us a workable, rational diagnostic of capitalist dynamics. Without the LTV, any understanding of capitalism ceases to be scientific and devolves into irrationality. The ultimate irrationality of course being contemporary economics which has thrown up its hands at the problem of value and made all such determinations take place through a purely subjective decision at the point of exchange.

sweet, many thanko

Let's bump things up a notch.