May
28
Capital: Volume One, For The First Time
As a summer project for myself I have started reading Karl Marx’s Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume One. I picked up the Penguin Classics edition translated by Ben Fowkes. I’ve long been intimidated by the thick text and the reputation of being an incredibly complex read, but since leaving the throes of liberalism these past couple of years and finding clarity in Marxist ideologies I’ve also felt a responsibility to read and understand the book. Recently, I was lucky enough to see David Harvey speak at a leftist forum and during one of the panels he mentioned of his book A Companion To Marx’s Capital and I knew that this could be my opportunity finally conquer Marx’s magnum opus.
So far I’m still finding my way through chapter one, and given Professor Harvey’s description it is no easy task, but I’m having a much easier time of it than I thought I would. This has me thinking that most people see the size of the book and the inability to scan, rather than read, its pages and thus assign it such a level of difficulty.
However, it’s already helping me better understand myself and where I fall in the social divisions of labor. As a web-developer by trade, I had a hard time understanding where my work fit in on this grand scheme, but the opening pages of Capital illuminated the ideas of the commodity and the use-value, exchange-value, and value that composes it. This idea, coupled with Hardt and Negri’s description of immaterial production in Multitude has really been something of a “eureka” moment for me.
If you haven’t already read Capital or want to better understand it, I thoroughly recommend Professor Harvey’s book. Though I predict that what would have taken a long time to read is now lengthened by reading Harvey’s book simultaneously, I sure don’t mind so far.
05/28/10 2:41 PM
Enjoy.
05/28/10 3:09 PM
Thanks, Jack. So far I really am.
06/3/10 1:45 PM
Gotta wonder why a person can’t see where his individual liberty, his power to imagine, his power to create, his “labor” — where all this fits — without reading Glossy Karl. I mean, a person doesn’t need to read The Bible to know how to treat his fellow human. Doesn’t need to read the Qur’an, the Torah, the writings of the Buddha.
As long as one confines one’s view of existential reality to the process of reality-filtration by Glossy Karl, one is imprisoning one’s self. Which I find rather ironic, given Glossy Karl’s suggestion that he was trying to liberate rather than shackle.
I’m pretty sure you could imagine where your personal power fits in the big picture without Glossy Karl’s help, fwoan. You only need the confidence in yourself –in your own ability to discern reality, I mean– to get there.
But I can’t deny the socializing (read: meeting others) power of Glossy Karlism. He’s definitely got the socializing power of Jesus of Nazareth, in certain circles. It’s a good secret handshake if you want to mingle with the -ists on the Left. Just mind that you don’t become inculcated into some bizarre Skull and Bones analog where reverence for Glossy Karl replaces the revered skeletal remains on Eli’s namesake campus.
06/3/10 2:18 PM
Hi, CF – Thanks for your comment. I don’t understand the term “Glossy Karl”, unfortunately. I understand it’s a reference to Marx but the specifics of the reference, I’m afraid, are lost on me. In regards to the rest of your comment, I’d love to get your opinion on some things I was able to pull out of it.
CF, would you disagree with the contention that we live in a world where one’s individual liberty, creative powers, and labor are continuously attacked and/or separated from herself? Are we not, without some sort of dispelling, reproduced in this society with an inability to control our own liberties, pursue our creative desires, or even think beyond what we are given? While I would say that it is possible – it would be an exception rather than a rule.
I find fault with your equating of Capital with “holy” texts (but this might be my own disregard of them)because no one (of sound mind) reads those texts to learn how to treat one another, for if they did this world would never have left the dark ages. The unspeakable acts and nonsensical rules demanded of adherents are not used and these texts are not sources for how people relate in our society. Rather they are ornaments, of a sort. However, we do live in a world were exploitation and greed dominate so-called “common-sense” policies of our world and at least some sort of dispelling is required. I don’t regard Marx or anyone to be a Christ-like door-man to the emancipation of humanity, which I feel is your main point and concern of me.
I appreciate your confidence and cautioning advice CF, as a major detriment to any progress on the left has been it’s tendency to be factional and fight itself rather than the forces of oppression. I don’t intend to fall into this trap and hope, with the cautioning of my fellow lefties like yourself, that it doesn’t happen despite my efforts. Thank you very much for your thoughts!
06/4/10 10:13 AM
You find “fault” with my sentiments?
That’s funny. Or sad.
You’re saying you need Glossy Karl to understand the world in which you live.
I’m saying you need only your brain, your powers of observation, and your desire to remain an autonomous being.
Now… trying to get me to agree with or refute a premise offered by Glossy Karl, that’s a dirty trick. I’m not saying Glossy Karl is wrong. I’m saying he’s like George Lakoff — saying the obvious, but in convoluted polysyllabic jargon, which makes his writing seem well-suited to secret handshakes, insider nudge-and-wink gestures, and exclusive acts of rejecting others.
As you are doing with me.
Congrats on becoming a Glossy Karlist. And on losing your self-confidence.
Bravo.
Can’t see the parallel to religious texts?
Chalk that one up to Glossy Karl’s cleverness with cults. He knew who would become a Glossy Karlist. That’s who he wrote Das Kapital for. Jonestown off the starboard bow, Cap’n! Break out the Flav-R-Aid!
06/4/10 11:11 AM
CF, unfortunately you didn’t answer any of my questions, decided to label me with terms I (un)forunately don’t quite understand, and put words in my mouth.
That I have so offended you by reading a book of philosophy that in your own words is not wrong and only tries to help explain “obvious” concepts that are forcibly obfuscated in our world, is beyond my responsibility to fix. I’m happy that you think these things are obvious – as most in our society don’t seem to understand the concepts in the least. I wish books like these weren’t needed to help understand the exploitative nature of our world, for that world would be a great one indeed!
I certainly haven’t required any secret knowledge on this site, rejected anyone for any reason, and have gone to great lengths not to be factional like you accuse. Your paranoid fantasy of me “rejecting” you is rather unfounded.
I tried to have a constructive and egalitarian conversation with you, but seeing your inability to reciprocate leaves me to believe that this will not happen.
07/27/10 3:03 PM
Charles F. just wants you to think for yourself. If you can manage to do that AND read Marx’s Capital, you’ll get no problems from him!
Stick with it. You’ll learn a ton and be better off for it in the long run. That’s what I’ve found anyway.
07/27/10 3:12 PM
Hi JRB! Yeah, I’ve come to understand CF’s point since then. I’m grateful for an interactive audience so that I can keep myself from becoming an echo-chamber. It also helps keep my ego in check, heh.
I’m still slogging through it, in chapter 3. However I go back and forth between it and other books in hopes that I don’t get frustrated and simply throw it out my window.
08/11/10 4:51 PM
CF is in the trade of heaping scorn on the most vital and liberating thinkers, claiming they merely belabor the obvious. He also likes to suggest that he himself is a superior source.
Meanwhile, have you seen these?
http://www.amazon.com/Read-Karl-Marx-Ernst-Fischer/dp/0853459746
http://www.amazon.com/Marxs-Das-Kapital-Biography-Changed/dp/0802143946/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281559805&sr=1-3
Both are excellent, and their authors write way more clearly than David Harvey does.
08/12/10 11:02 AM
Hi Michael, I’ve seen Wheen’s book before but have read neither of them. What don’t you like about Harvey’s writing? I kind of like his style. Next time I’m in my local bookshop, I’ll try a couple pages from the both of them if I can find it!
Also, let’s try and keep the character assassination to a minimum. This comment section is too tense as it is!