We are 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.

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: http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=9C4A100BD61BB2DB9BE26773E4DBC5D

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.

Resources

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

  • Harvey's guide to reading it: https://www.davidharvey.org/media/Intro_A_Companion_to_Marxs_Capital.pdf

  • A University of Warwick guide to reading it: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/postgraduate/masters/modules/worldlitworldsystems/hotr.marxs_capital.untilp72.pdf

  • Engels' Synopsis of Capital or PDF

  • Reading Capital with Comrades: A Liberation School podcast series - https://www.liberationschool.org/reading-capital-with-comrades-podcast/

@invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net @Othello@hexbear.net @Pluto@hexbear.net @Lerios@hexbear.net @ComradeRat@hexbear.net @heartheartbreak@hexbear.net @Hohsia@hexbear.net @Kolibri@hexbear.net @star_wraith@hexbear.net @commiewithoutorgans@hexbear.net @Snackuleata@hexbear.net @TovarishTomato@hexbear.net @Erika3sis@hexbear.net @quarrk@hexbear.net @Parsani@hexbear.net @oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net @Beaver@hexbear.net @NoLeftLeftWhereILive@hexbear.net @LaBellaLotta@hexbear.net @professionalduster@hexbear.net @GaveUp@hexbear.net @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net @Sasuke@hexbear.net @wheresmysurplusvalue@hexbear.net @seeking_perhaps@hexbear.net @boiledfrog@hexbear.net @gaust@hexbear.net @Wertheimer@hexbear.net @666PeaceKeepaGirl@hexbear.net @BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net @PerryBot4000@hexbear.net @PaulSmackage@hexbear.net @420blazeit69@hexbear.net @hexaflexagonbear@hexbear.net @glingorfel@hexbear.net @Palacegalleryratio@hexbear.net @ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml @RedWizard@lemmygrad.ml @joaomarrom@hexbear.net @HeavenAndEarth@hexbear.net @impartial_fanboy@hexbear.net @bubbalu@hexbear.net @equinox@hexbear.net @SummerIsTooWarm@hexbear.net @Awoo@hexbear.net @DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml @SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net @YearOfTheCommieDesktop@hexbear.net @asnailchosenatrandom@hexbear.net @Stpetergriffonsberg@hexbear.net @Melonius@hexbear.net @Jobasha@hexbear.net @ape@hexbear.net @Maoo@hexbear.net @Professional_Lurker@hexbear.net @featured@hexbear.net @IceWallowCum@hexbear.net @Doubledee@hexbear.net

  • Doubledee [comrade/them]
    ·
    10 months ago

    Maybe oversimplified here, but what about particularly difficult, dangerous, or unpleasant jobs? An hour in the mines is surely worth more than an hour driving trains. I can think of a lot of ways to properly value different jobs without resorting to trying to value the product, but it's odd it's not mentioned here when the next quote is.

    I believe the quote that immediately follows is partially addressing this, insofar as it argues that it's most reasonable to express all labor as a modified quantity of an abstract "mean unskilled labor in a given society." Skilled and otherwise difficult labor might be "worth" a multiple of unskilled labor but you are expressing the same social reality by just referring to it in terms of the unskilled mean. My copy also has a note to remind the reader that we aren't talking about wages yet, we are trying to understand what it means to express that commodities are interchangeable in a consistent way. Eventually we will get to money and wages but I think those are all logically dependent on what Marx means here with value in commodities as a social reality.

    If you emphasize the this in the phrase this value, I think we are meant to distinguish the kind of value at play from other kinds, such as the usefulness of what is produced or the material substance of it as a potentially useful thing.

    • Melonius [he/him]
      ·
      10 months ago

      Thanks, I think I'm getting caught up in the valuing over commodities as being a function of their labor. If my labor produces 20 linens, then my labor is worth 20 linens - the cost of the goods (inc depreciation of capital and transportation) to make the 20 linens. I can wait until the wages discussion to reopen that box though.

      So without getting too far ahead, if it takes 1 hour of abstractly difficult work to get X ore, and 1 hour of abstractly easy work to get Y corn, we can safely assume that X ore is worth > Y corn, all else equal? Or would we require more information on other equivalent exchange rates?

      • Doubledee [comrade/them]
        ·
        10 months ago

        So without getting too far ahead, if it takes 1 hour of abstractly difficult work to get X ore, and 1 hour of abstractly easy work to get Y corn, we can safely assume that X ore is worth > Y corn, all else equal?

        I believe Marx would say that when they are compared as commodities, the point at which they are equal in value is a statement of the amount of social labor congealed into each thing. So, no, what you would have to do is compare them (X ore = Y corn) and in that comparison you would be declaring the social labor of the ore to be the exchangeable with the use value of the corn. Essentially society is unconsciously declaring unlike things to be exchangeable because they have a common property, human labor. If I understand correctly, that is.

        Remember, he's trying to explain commodities, not intrinsic value or use value. Commodities are produced to be exchanged, and manifest a different kind of value to other sorts of products.