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)


@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

5 points
*

This a channel I found last year while going through Capital, www.youtube.com/@DissidentTheory/. I think it might be useful for some people.

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

Roast of the Week™ — Chapter One Edition

brought to you by Starbucks


“Truly comical is M. Bastiat, who imagines that the ancient Greeks and Romans lived by plunder alone. But when people plunder for centuries, there must always be something at hand for them to seize; the objects of plunder must be continually reproduced. It would thus appear that even Greeks and Romans had some process of production, consequently, an economy, which just as much constituted the material basis of their world, as bourgeois economy constitutes that of our modern world. Or perhaps Bastiat means, that a mode of production based on slavery is based on a system of plunder. In that case he treads on dangerous ground. If a giant thinker like Aristotle erred in his appreciation of slave labour, why should a dwarf economist like Bastiat be right in his appreciation of wage labour?” — Karl Marx, Capital vol 1, ch 1, footnote 34


:dwarf-economist:

permalink
report
reply

this roast of the week idea is awesome

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterized by a total abstraction from use-value.

Does this get expounded on later? I realise that use-value gets abstracted as “demand” in liberal economics (the driver of everything, apparently, but obviously a shortage of food means prices go up and people are still hungry), but I feel like it can’t be discarded so early.

The labour-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.

He’s obviously talking about mass society here, can the total labour across society for yards of linen constitute a portion of total possible yards of linen across society? Is that a worthwhile line of thinking? (e.g. We produce, idk, a million yards of linen a year. We could produce 2 million yards of linen if we dismantled all our other exports and started putting people unsuited to linen weaving in there. If all of society didn’t care about food, bathing, etc… we could produce 2.5 million yards of linen. This scaling of commodity production across society and how technology interacts with it is our “socially necessary” labour time for a single yard of linen)

I should keep reading, trying to take it all in.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Does this get expounded on later?

Yes! Not limited to but including linen coats.

can the total labour across society for yards of linen constitute a portion of total possible yards of linen across society?

I think so but that would be a hell of a calculation to even think about. You’d have to imagine what a perfectly efficient linen-producing society would be, since there would of course be diminishing returns as we began to sacrifice more and more of subsistence/reproduction in favor of linen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You’d have to imagine what a perfectly efficient linen-producing society would be, since there would of course be diminishing returns as we began to sacrifice more and more of subsistence/reproduction in favor of linen

I guess that’s what I imagine “socially necessary” means, in relation to the best or worst linen producers in the land. At some point you’re going to be recruiting people and resources that are better bakers (I guess) than linen producers etc etc. Or something, idk

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

“Socially necessary” also includes the aspect of how much consumption there is, if something is produced so much that it can’t be consumed, part of the labor that went into the production would be not socially necessary. So your linenmaxxing society would also need to be really big linen consumers.

permalink
report
parent
reply

hey, add me to the list, i finally got myself logged in after the latest hexbear update (had to delete 72MB in hexbear.net cookies).

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Done

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
3 points

“Now is a great time to invest in The Hamptons” oh great thanks for this information Fortune (I guess nobody should be surprised lol).

There’s no magic middle class machine, just educated guesses. And the fields that porky is telling you to get into are the ones they want to proletarianize more thoroughly, like programming or certain trades. If they succeed in their goals, they’ll pay worse than advertised. Luckily they’re wrong pretty often. Doing some bullshit programmy will still get you paid better than most things.

permalink
report
parent
reply

theory

!theory@hexbear.net

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 137

    Monthly active users

  • 107

    Posts

  • 1.2K

    Comments