What do you think?
Rate this book
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Still the best book on money in world economic literature.
266 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1859
127 people are currently reading
1173 people want to read
About the author
Karl Marx
3,175 books6,349 followersWith the help of Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx wrote
The Communist Manifesto
(1848) and
Das Kapital
(1867-1894), works, which explain historical development in terms of the interaction of contradictory economic forces, form many regimes, and profoundly influenced the social sciences.
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
February 20, 2022
In Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx studies the commodity and money or simple circulation, developing systematically and thoroughly his theory of value and his theory of money. It is one of the most important sources – the other is Capital – to study his economic thought.
October 10, 2012
Another five star book, by Marx? Who would have thought!?
There's a lot of good information in this book, and it also serves as great source for watching Marx develop his devastating critique of Political Economy. This book is most famous for the preface, where Marx re-introduces the world to his theory of Historical Materialism, and he develops this cogent theory in roughly 250 words. Marx was a true master of saying a whole lot, with very little. But, as anyone whose read his larger works knows, he also can say very little, with a whole lot.
If one actually reads the preface in its entirety, there's no mistaking Historical Materialism for the neo-deterministic theory many liberals, and totalitarian Marxists think it is. Marx is very careful and deliberate with his wordings, about conditioning, and influence, not determination, and necessity.
The rest of this book serves as a fantastic introduction to the first three chapters of Capital. Moreover, he develops his theory of money in this book in a way that makes it completely compatible with a non-gold standard system, to the chagrin of Austrian economist!
If you're a bit scared to enter the dialectical waters of Capital Volume I, this is a great place to start. Abstract labor, and value, are explained with analytic clarity, not dialectical profundity. Although it needs to be pointed out that this book still isn't his complete theory of exploitation, labor, labor power, and socially necessary labor time. This cannot serve as a replacement to Capital, merely a good introduction.
There's a lot of good information in this book, and it also serves as great source for watching Marx develop his devastating critique of Political Economy. This book is most famous for the preface, where Marx re-introduces the world to his theory of Historical Materialism, and he develops this cogent theory in roughly 250 words. Marx was a true master of saying a whole lot, with very little. But, as anyone whose read his larger works knows, he also can say very little, with a whole lot.
If one actually reads the preface in its entirety, there's no mistaking Historical Materialism for the neo-deterministic theory many liberals, and totalitarian Marxists think it is. Marx is very careful and deliberate with his wordings, about conditioning, and influence, not determination, and necessity.
The rest of this book serves as a fantastic introduction to the first three chapters of Capital. Moreover, he develops his theory of money in this book in a way that makes it completely compatible with a non-gold standard system, to the chagrin of Austrian economist!
If you're a bit scared to enter the dialectical waters of Capital Volume I, this is a great place to start. Abstract labor, and value, are explained with analytic clarity, not dialectical profundity. Although it needs to be pointed out that this book still isn't his complete theory of exploitation, labor, labor power, and socially necessary labor time. This cannot serve as a replacement to Capital, merely a good introduction.
August 1, 2023
ENGLISH
This review concerns only the famous preface of this book. Having read the three volumes of “The Capital”, I’m not reading this entire book, as it is a first essay on crucial themes later exhaustively covered in Marx’s magnum opus.
Interpreters see what they call a “general theory of History” in passages of this preface where Marx affirms apparently in a general manner that societies tend to evolve in a way that the means of production end up clashing with the relations of production, and then revolutions occur.
This would be reinforced in a passage where Marx affirms that Asian, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production could be seen as “progressive epochs in the formation of economic society”. Those interpretations allude to Marx’s famous argument, present in his thought, on the inevitability of a clash between bourgeoisie and proletariat in the capitalist society to reinforce the point on the existence of the “general theory of History”.
Others criticize such interpretation, however, responding that those passages allow no extrapolation to a general system of History, where said results would be supposedly inevitable.
There seems to be less controversy about what is called “Historical dialectic materialism”, though. “Materialism” in Marx’s thought refers to the study of all the material aspects and connections of reality, which then leads the analyst to derive principles. “Historical materialism”, thus, is the study of the reality throughout time, particularly to humans’ production and modes of production — unlike the Hegelian idealistic, metaphysical thought that societies are characterized by the intellectual spirit of its time. For Marx the way of thinking of the individual is shaped by society and not the other way around. “Dialectic” refers to the omnipresence of the opposition of interests between exploiting and exploited ones in social relations, particularly economic relations. Thus, “Historical dialectic materialism” refers to the study of the modes of production and relations of oppression in societies throughout History, which resulted and still develop, particularly in the capitalist society.
This circumstance, however, wouldn’t allow for seeing a “general theory of History”, as Marx would have never proclaimed the existence of necessary factors or aspects in whatever societies that would inevitably produce the same results as a rule. This criticism seems well grounded as Marx himself in a letter to a Soviet newspaper denied and even felt offended with the allegation that he saw such general rules for whatever society (MARX, Karl. “The class struggle in Russia: letter to the editors of the Russian newspaper Patriotic Notes”).
There are some tautologies in the preface — like when Marx basically says that a form of society is over when it’s over; i.e., when the aspects that sustain it are no longer able or present enough to keep it, and then a new form of society emerges.
Although short, the preface addresses an important point in Marx's thought. As in many of his works, it is a gift for his legions of fans, who seem to delight and struggle in complex interpretations the more nuances and mysteries he has left in his works.
PORTUGUÊS
Esta resenha refere-se apenas ao famoso prefácio deste livro. Tendo lido os três volumes de “O Capital”, não pretendo ler este livro inteiro, pois é um primeiro ensaio mais simples sobre temas cruciais posteriormente cobertos exaustivamente na obra prima de Marx.
Intérpretes veem o que chamam de “teoria geral da História” em passagens deste prefácio onde Marx afirma aparentemente de maneira geral que as sociedades tendem a evoluir de forma que os meios de produção acabam chocando-se com as relações de produção, e aí ocorrem as revoluções.
Isso seria reforçado quando Marx afirma que os modos de produção asiáticos, antigos, feudais e burgueses modernos poderiam ser vistos como “épocas progressivas na formação da sociedade econômica”. Essas interpretações aludem, para reforçar o ponto de vista sobre a existência da dita “teoria geral da História”, ao famoso argumento de Marx, presente em seu pensamento, sobre o inevitável embate entre burguesia e proletariado na sociedade capitalista.
Outros criticam tal interpretação, porém, respondendo que aquelas passagens não permitem extrapolação para um sistema geral da História, onde tais resultados seriam supostamente inevitáveis.
Parece haver menos controvérsia sobre o que é chamado de “materialismo histórico dialético”, no entanto. O “materialismo” no pensamento de Marx refere-se ao estudo de todos os aspectos e conexões materiais da realidade, o que leva o analista a derivar princípios. O “materialismo histórico”, portanto, é o estudo da realidade ao longo do tempo, particularmente da produção e dos modos de produção humanos — ao contrário do pensamento metafísico idealista hegeliano de que as sociedades são caracterizadas pelo espírito intelectual de seu tempo. Para Marx, a forma de pensar do indivíduo é moldada pela sociedade e não o contrário. “Dialética” refere-se à onipresença da contraposição de interesses de exploradores e explorados nas relações sociais, particularmente nas relações econômicas. Assim, o “materialismo histórico dialético” refere-se ao estudo dos modos de produção e das relações de opressão nas sociedades ao longo da História, que resultaram e se desenvolvem em particular na sociedade capitalista.
Essa circunstância, porém, não permitiria vislumbrar uma “teoria geral da História”, pois Marx nunca teria proclamado a existência de fatores ou aspectos necessários em quaisquer sociedades que inevitavelmente produziriam os mesmos resultados como regra. Essa crítica parece bem fundamentada, já que o próprio Marx, em carta para um jornal soviético, negou e até se sentiu ofendido com a alegação de que enxergaria tais regras gerais para qualquer sociedade (MARX, Karl. “A luta de classes na Rússia: carta à redação do jornal russo Notas Patrióticas”).
Existem algumas tautologias no prefácio — como quando Marx basicamente diz que uma forma de sociedade acaba quando acaba; ou seja, quando os aspectos que a sustentam não são mais capazes ou presentes o suficiente para mantê-la, surge então uma nova forma de sociedade.
Apesar de curto, o prefácio enfrenta questão importante do pensamento de Marx. Como em muitas de suas obras, é um presente para sua legião de fãs, que parecem se deleitar e digladiar em interpretações das mais complexas quanto mais nuances e mistérios ele tenha deixado em seus textos.
This review concerns only the famous preface of this book. Having read the three volumes of “The Capital”, I’m not reading this entire book, as it is a first essay on crucial themes later exhaustively covered in Marx’s magnum opus.
Interpreters see what they call a “general theory of History” in passages of this preface where Marx affirms apparently in a general manner that societies tend to evolve in a way that the means of production end up clashing with the relations of production, and then revolutions occur.
This would be reinforced in a passage where Marx affirms that Asian, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production could be seen as “progressive epochs in the formation of economic society”. Those interpretations allude to Marx’s famous argument, present in his thought, on the inevitability of a clash between bourgeoisie and proletariat in the capitalist society to reinforce the point on the existence of the “general theory of History”.
Others criticize such interpretation, however, responding that those passages allow no extrapolation to a general system of History, where said results would be supposedly inevitable.
There seems to be less controversy about what is called “Historical dialectic materialism”, though. “Materialism” in Marx’s thought refers to the study of all the material aspects and connections of reality, which then leads the analyst to derive principles. “Historical materialism”, thus, is the study of the reality throughout time, particularly to humans’ production and modes of production — unlike the Hegelian idealistic, metaphysical thought that societies are characterized by the intellectual spirit of its time. For Marx the way of thinking of the individual is shaped by society and not the other way around. “Dialectic” refers to the omnipresence of the opposition of interests between exploiting and exploited ones in social relations, particularly economic relations. Thus, “Historical dialectic materialism” refers to the study of the modes of production and relations of oppression in societies throughout History, which resulted and still develop, particularly in the capitalist society.
This circumstance, however, wouldn’t allow for seeing a “general theory of History”, as Marx would have never proclaimed the existence of necessary factors or aspects in whatever societies that would inevitably produce the same results as a rule. This criticism seems well grounded as Marx himself in a letter to a Soviet newspaper denied and even felt offended with the allegation that he saw such general rules for whatever society (MARX, Karl. “The class struggle in Russia: letter to the editors of the Russian newspaper Patriotic Notes”).
There are some tautologies in the preface — like when Marx basically says that a form of society is over when it’s over; i.e., when the aspects that sustain it are no longer able or present enough to keep it, and then a new form of society emerges.
Although short, the preface addresses an important point in Marx's thought. As in many of his works, it is a gift for his legions of fans, who seem to delight and struggle in complex interpretations the more nuances and mysteries he has left in his works.
PORTUGUÊS
Esta resenha refere-se apenas ao famoso prefácio deste livro. Tendo lido os três volumes de “O Capital”, não pretendo ler este livro inteiro, pois é um primeiro ensaio mais simples sobre temas cruciais posteriormente cobertos exaustivamente na obra prima de Marx.
Intérpretes veem o que chamam de “teoria geral da História” em passagens deste prefácio onde Marx afirma aparentemente de maneira geral que as sociedades tendem a evoluir de forma que os meios de produção acabam chocando-se com as relações de produção, e aí ocorrem as revoluções.
Isso seria reforçado quando Marx afirma que os modos de produção asiáticos, antigos, feudais e burgueses modernos poderiam ser vistos como “épocas progressivas na formação da sociedade econômica”. Essas interpretações aludem, para reforçar o ponto de vista sobre a existência da dita “teoria geral da História”, ao famoso argumento de Marx, presente em seu pensamento, sobre o inevitável embate entre burguesia e proletariado na sociedade capitalista.
Outros criticam tal interpretação, porém, respondendo que aquelas passagens não permitem extrapolação para um sistema geral da História, onde tais resultados seriam supostamente inevitáveis.
Parece haver menos controvérsia sobre o que é chamado de “materialismo histórico dialético”, no entanto. O “materialismo” no pensamento de Marx refere-se ao estudo de todos os aspectos e conexões materiais da realidade, o que leva o analista a derivar princípios. O “materialismo histórico”, portanto, é o estudo da realidade ao longo do tempo, particularmente da produção e dos modos de produção humanos — ao contrário do pensamento metafísico idealista hegeliano de que as sociedades são caracterizadas pelo espírito intelectual de seu tempo. Para Marx, a forma de pensar do indivíduo é moldada pela sociedade e não o contrário. “Dialética” refere-se à onipresença da contraposição de interesses de exploradores e explorados nas relações sociais, particularmente nas relações econômicas. Assim, o “materialismo histórico dialético” refere-se ao estudo dos modos de produção e das relações de opressão nas sociedades ao longo da História, que resultaram e se desenvolvem em particular na sociedade capitalista.
Essa circunstância, porém, não permitiria vislumbrar uma “teoria geral da História”, pois Marx nunca teria proclamado a existência de fatores ou aspectos necessários em quaisquer sociedades que inevitavelmente produziriam os mesmos resultados como regra. Essa crítica parece bem fundamentada, já que o próprio Marx, em carta para um jornal soviético, negou e até se sentiu ofendido com a alegação de que enxergaria tais regras gerais para qualquer sociedade (MARX, Karl. “A luta de classes na Rússia: carta à redação do jornal russo Notas Patrióticas”).
Existem algumas tautologias no prefácio — como quando Marx basicamente diz que uma forma de sociedade acaba quando acaba; ou seja, quando os aspectos que a sustentam não são mais capazes ou presentes o suficiente para mantê-la, surge então uma nova forma de sociedade.
Apesar de curto, o prefácio enfrenta questão importante do pensamento de Marx. Como em muitas de suas obras, é um presente para sua legião de fãs, que parecem se deleitar e digladiar em interpretações das mais complexas quanto mais nuances e mistérios ele tenha deixado em seus textos.
June 14, 2021
It’s strange that Marx thought the introduction to this was too complex/not worth keeping in, because I thought it was one of the most useful parts of the book, really put the project into perspective and showed exactly where and why he differed from his predecessors
January 12, 2017
A Contribution to The Critique of Political Economy is a book about economics by the famous economist Karl Marx. As one would expect, Marx explains his views of how value should be determined, and how money should be used. It was originally written in German, as that is Marx’s native language, so some thoughts may have been lost in translation. Still, book is very intense and gives a unique new perspective on how trade, money and value should work, compared to how they work in today’s society. Although it is a short read, the level of intelligence needed to understand Marx’s ideas is very high. For example, here is a quote taken from page 15: “The conversion of commodities into labor-time is no greater abstraction nor a less real process than the reduction of chemical bodies into air. Labor, thus, measured in time does not appear in reality as the labor of different individuals, but on the contrary, individuals appear as mere organs of labor; or, in so far as labor is represented as exchange values, it may be defined as human labor in general.” This is how most of the book is written, as theories and ideas worded very intelligently. I would recommend this book to anyone fascinated by economics or someone who is up for a challenging read.
July 9, 2025
Marx was in his bag when he wrote this one.
August 12, 2024
The sustained analysis of the value-form is conspicuously missing. The historical notes on theories of value and money were too erudite for me to retain anything… but cool!
December 23, 2016
First published in 1859, this pamphlet would later become the first three chapters of Capital: Volume 1. It is here however, that Marx first spells out in analytical detail how the relations of production; that bond between people which is forged out of their joint activity, becomes reified from a relation of simple use value to a relation of exchange value and the emergence of market mechanisms. This forms the essence of a method that would be known as dialectical materialism, and explains the necessity of the emergence of money as a form of equivalence which evaluates and mediates labour power.
What such an encapsulation cannot hope to do justice to however is the sheer rigor brought to bear in such a thesis. A rigor which begins not simply by presuming the existence of money but by beginning from the ‘form giving fire’ that produces goods and services via joint activity and natural resources - human labour. Demonstrating how, historically changing conditions of the fertility of soil for example, predicates the value at which linen may be sold for, and how this effects, the value of coats for example, even if it still requires only 20 yards of linen to make one.
This foregrounds a fundamentally important distinction in economics - between use value and exchange value or what we can do with resources, goods and services, vis-a vis what we may be able to exchange them for. This transmutation of the nature of value itself is what Marx follows through in his argument to demonstrate the point at which money as a function becomes necessary to evaluate a multiplicity of goods and services, hence demonstrating how, in the final analysis, it remains, a reification of human labour power, therefore consolidating the labour theory of value.
What such an encapsulation cannot hope to do justice to however is the sheer rigor brought to bear in such a thesis. A rigor which begins not simply by presuming the existence of money but by beginning from the ‘form giving fire’ that produces goods and services via joint activity and natural resources - human labour. Demonstrating how, historically changing conditions of the fertility of soil for example, predicates the value at which linen may be sold for, and how this effects, the value of coats for example, even if it still requires only 20 yards of linen to make one.
This foregrounds a fundamentally important distinction in economics - between use value and exchange value or what we can do with resources, goods and services, vis-a vis what we may be able to exchange them for. This transmutation of the nature of value itself is what Marx follows through in his argument to demonstrate the point at which money as a function becomes necessary to evaluate a multiplicity of goods and services, hence demonstrating how, in the final analysis, it remains, a reification of human labour power, therefore consolidating the labour theory of value.
September 29, 2021
nice intro to some concepts covered in capital
July 26, 2022
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy is an interesting historical and economic text, one which shows Marx in dialogue with his contemporaries and predecessors in the field. However interesting it may be, its current importance is relegated to an exposition of Marx's theories concerning commodity circulation and money. A large portion of the text has more or less been rendered obsolete since the collapse of the Bretton-Woods system and the advent of fiat currency, nevertheless, Marx's exposition of the roots of monetary systems and the *function* of currency are illuminating and worthy of study.
A short text, worthwhile, but unless you're really going deep into the works of Marx, you can probably stick to Marx's better-known works and perhaps the Grundrisse (of which there is a passage conveniently located in the appendix of this edition!).
A short text, worthwhile, but unless you're really going deep into the works of Marx, you can probably stick to Marx's better-known works and perhaps the Grundrisse (of which there is a passage conveniently located in the appendix of this edition!).
February 3, 2022
"A fome é fome, mas a fome que se satisfaz com carne cozida, que se come por meio de uma faca ou de um garfo, é uma fome muito distinta da que devora carne crua com ajuda das mãos, unhas e dentes."
October 22, 2024
Tough at times, incredibly detailed. But very useful nonetheless.
March 20, 2025
não foi exatamente esta edição
September 9, 2021
Finally got around finishing this book after 2 months
As many others have already mentioned, not a very essential work wrt Marxist thought. And it is not an easy to read work in any way. Most of its parts are incorporated in the first vol of Das Kapital in a much better and contained way. A huge part of the book is also focused on the gold standard which is now outdated.
In this book, Marx mainly accumulates and either compliments or criticizes the economic theorists till his time, like Smith, Riccardo, Sismondi, Say etc while not offering any new, revolutionary insight in the thought of his predecessors. Still though, the book was a very important aspect of Marx which he needed to base his latter, groundbreaking work, Das Kapital.
Again, as already mentioned, the 'introduction' part after the main part of the book was extraordinary, and this is what is essential in the basic Marxist thought. A peculiar but excellent analysis of production, distribution and consumption in a Spinozian and Hegelian sense which shows exactly how much Marx was influenced by these two and how this thought was founded to create Das Kapital as a work.
4/5
As many others have already mentioned, not a very essential work wrt Marxist thought. And it is not an easy to read work in any way. Most of its parts are incorporated in the first vol of Das Kapital in a much better and contained way. A huge part of the book is also focused on the gold standard which is now outdated.
In this book, Marx mainly accumulates and either compliments or criticizes the economic theorists till his time, like Smith, Riccardo, Sismondi, Say etc while not offering any new, revolutionary insight in the thought of his predecessors. Still though, the book was a very important aspect of Marx which he needed to base his latter, groundbreaking work, Das Kapital.
Again, as already mentioned, the 'introduction' part after the main part of the book was extraordinary, and this is what is essential in the basic Marxist thought. A peculiar but excellent analysis of production, distribution and consumption in a Spinozian and Hegelian sense which shows exactly how much Marx was influenced by these two and how this thought was founded to create Das Kapital as a work.
4/5
January 26, 2025
Das Kapital isn't available in English on Project Gutenberg and is actually a three-volume work that I was kind of dreading reading on my economics reading list, given its length. I've read that it is actually at points enjoyable, with humor and anecdotes, but my guess is that it's similar to Smith's Wealth of Nations, insofar as the anecdotes were obviously of their time and so not necessarily easily referenced to things occurring in our day and also full of responses to economic writing of the day. So I settled on this shorter work, which is available for free at Project Gutenberg and is, in some ways, apparently, a kind of distillation of Marx's economic thinking. My fear that on some level its density would prove daunting proved to be somewhat true. I'd have had to spend a lot more time with it to really comprehend what Marx was saying, and I likely would have had to review Smith's work as well as read up on the work of a few other theorists.
The book begins with a basic premise, which is that at base all compensation/money/production is based on labor. When we swap goods, we are swapping man hours. It takes person X 6 hours to buld a book shelf; it takes person Y 3 hours to put a new fuel injector system into a vehicle. I swap two fuel injector system installations for one book shelf. Of course, this sort of direct swap isn't really workable, so money gets involved as an intermediary. Most often this has been gold or silver, because these are stable production units, as opposed to, say, a bag of flour, which eventually goes bad. So then the commodity is swapped for money, which is then swapped for another commodity (C > M > C). As silver or gold become more rare or abundant, the amount needed to swap also goes up and down, just as with commodities, creating changes in prices. In time, rather than carrying gold or silver, paper began to be used as a stand-in for the gold or silver (after all, even gold and silver wears down with time, so it's safer to lock away an ounce of gold than to carry it around). (Interestingly, I hadn't thought of it before, but British money has terms like pound and sterling, which likely refer to the weight of the metal originally serving as money.) Theoretically, the paper can be turned in for the gold and silver. But of course, sometimes, with the rise or fall of the value of that gold or silver, the paper might end up being worth more than the actual gold or silver as a commodity (or even the coin); when that happens, it woud be tempting to melt down the silver dime, for example, and recoup the value of the silver rather than use the coin itself. Paper, as such, Marx seems to kind of frown on as essentially useless/pointless. (Another book, which I'll read later but which I have read a few chapters of previously, called Debt makes the point that there never really was a barter economy, that we've always had money of a sort, and that money is really a form of IOU. In that case, paper with a number on it is as workable as a monetary unit as anything else. You pay me 6 hours for the book shelf; I pay you 3 hours for the fuel injector installation, and I pay Jay, down the street, 3 hours for trimming my trees.)
Near the end of the work, Marx shows how commodities, distribution, exchange, and production are actually all just forms of production. I'm not quite sure I buy this argument. It's true, insofar as to produce something one has to distribute it and exchange it, and also as Marx notes, any given commodity is also often the source of production. That is, the book shelf is made from other commodities—the tree one planted and then cut down, the lumber that was manufactured from that tree, as well as the nails, paint, etc., that went into the shelf. But I could as easily say that production is just a form of commodity. In fact, as far as public economy goes, I'd be more inclined to say the latter. Why? Marx, of course, wants to come back to labor, which is production. But that puts the emphasis on the amount of time spent making something. Whereas, all that labor, to me, seems pointless if in the end no one wants the commodity. If we produce six book shelves but can only sell two, then we have excess production. We might as well just burn the extra book shelves, which means there as good as never existing. If we fail to distribute the shelves, we have production without commodification. Really, the labor is only worth something outside of the home if/when that labor is distributed and commodified via exchange. I can produce a lot of spittle, but I can't commodify it. As such, does the time spent producing spittle amount to any kind of applicable labor unit?
In a final appendix, Marx argues that the greatest artistic works come from baser societies—that is, ones in which production is more rooted in humans than in the machines they have created. He uses Greek literature as his example, saying that those were the greatest works of all, better than Shakespeare or anything since. In an age in which labor rests within a steam engine, it is harder to write about the real essence of life, than, say, when one is wrestling against so-called gods of the elements. It's another argument I don't buy.
The book begins with a basic premise, which is that at base all compensation/money/production is based on labor. When we swap goods, we are swapping man hours. It takes person X 6 hours to buld a book shelf; it takes person Y 3 hours to put a new fuel injector system into a vehicle. I swap two fuel injector system installations for one book shelf. Of course, this sort of direct swap isn't really workable, so money gets involved as an intermediary. Most often this has been gold or silver, because these are stable production units, as opposed to, say, a bag of flour, which eventually goes bad. So then the commodity is swapped for money, which is then swapped for another commodity (C > M > C). As silver or gold become more rare or abundant, the amount needed to swap also goes up and down, just as with commodities, creating changes in prices. In time, rather than carrying gold or silver, paper began to be used as a stand-in for the gold or silver (after all, even gold and silver wears down with time, so it's safer to lock away an ounce of gold than to carry it around). (Interestingly, I hadn't thought of it before, but British money has terms like pound and sterling, which likely refer to the weight of the metal originally serving as money.) Theoretically, the paper can be turned in for the gold and silver. But of course, sometimes, with the rise or fall of the value of that gold or silver, the paper might end up being worth more than the actual gold or silver as a commodity (or even the coin); when that happens, it woud be tempting to melt down the silver dime, for example, and recoup the value of the silver rather than use the coin itself. Paper, as such, Marx seems to kind of frown on as essentially useless/pointless. (Another book, which I'll read later but which I have read a few chapters of previously, called Debt makes the point that there never really was a barter economy, that we've always had money of a sort, and that money is really a form of IOU. In that case, paper with a number on it is as workable as a monetary unit as anything else. You pay me 6 hours for the book shelf; I pay you 3 hours for the fuel injector installation, and I pay Jay, down the street, 3 hours for trimming my trees.)
Near the end of the work, Marx shows how commodities, distribution, exchange, and production are actually all just forms of production. I'm not quite sure I buy this argument. It's true, insofar as to produce something one has to distribute it and exchange it, and also as Marx notes, any given commodity is also often the source of production. That is, the book shelf is made from other commodities—the tree one planted and then cut down, the lumber that was manufactured from that tree, as well as the nails, paint, etc., that went into the shelf. But I could as easily say that production is just a form of commodity. In fact, as far as public economy goes, I'd be more inclined to say the latter. Why? Marx, of course, wants to come back to labor, which is production. But that puts the emphasis on the amount of time spent making something. Whereas, all that labor, to me, seems pointless if in the end no one wants the commodity. If we produce six book shelves but can only sell two, then we have excess production. We might as well just burn the extra book shelves, which means there as good as never existing. If we fail to distribute the shelves, we have production without commodification. Really, the labor is only worth something outside of the home if/when that labor is distributed and commodified via exchange. I can produce a lot of spittle, but I can't commodify it. As such, does the time spent producing spittle amount to any kind of applicable labor unit?
In a final appendix, Marx argues that the greatest artistic works come from baser societies—that is, ones in which production is more rooted in humans than in the machines they have created. He uses Greek literature as his example, saying that those were the greatest works of all, better than Shakespeare or anything since. In an age in which labor rests within a steam engine, it is harder to write about the real essence of life, than, say, when one is wrestling against so-called gods of the elements. It's another argument I don't buy.
April 19, 2011
More proof that theoretical treatises are over my head and don't really interest me. Much of this book is an analysis of the gold standard, which is hard to see as relevant in today's world.
January 3, 2024
Marx here addresses concepts that would later be dealt with more systematically, certainly more fully in Capital. He describes the role of money, never able, it seems, to shake off the assumption that value can only be ascribed to quantities of precious metals. The intrinsic value of gold is, for him, bound up with the amount of human labour needed to extract, refine and mint it.
He also deals with concepts such as use value and exchange value. He emphasizes that one use value is realized, then that commodity becomes an item of consumption and thus worthless. Realizing use value thus becomes the end of a cycle that might involve several stages with multiple transactions. He describes at length how commodities can be exchanged for money and how that money can then be used to buy more commodities. He inverts the process and maintains that the result is somehow fundamentally different in character.
Her we also have a superb analysis of prices and inflation, though he does not regularly employ the term. Long before the Chicago school we have her a monetary theory that specifically ascribes rising prices to an over-supply of money. He himself does not seem to adopt the argument, and he proposes a professedly different interpretation whose detail passed way above this reader’s head.
Marx also examines what happens to exchange when it is hoarded. It thus becomes a commodity in its own right and indeed has a price of its own. Marx does not seem to be happy with the prospect of paper money, by the way.
At times, this work seems to stem from a stream of consciousness. Rather often, we the readers seem to go round in circles only to repeat the process in the next section. There also seem to be several occasions when he wrote the wrong word, which was not then edited.
Marx also shows himself very much a man of his time when it comes to presumptions on race and gender. It is not a criticism. What else could he have been? Take for example this passage that displays racial stereotyping. “… this indifference of the Russians as to the kind of work they do, corresponds to their traditional practice of remaining in the rut of a quite definite occupation until they are thrown out of it by external influences.” It seems quite strange for a thinker who would be apparently sensitive to social differences that racial differences were assumed as given.
As ever with Marx, the text is quite difficult. What to him seems obvious is just not so for many readers. Perhaps this was a work in progress resulting in the fact that a modern reader sees the fraying seams before the whole.
He also deals with concepts such as use value and exchange value. He emphasizes that one use value is realized, then that commodity becomes an item of consumption and thus worthless. Realizing use value thus becomes the end of a cycle that might involve several stages with multiple transactions. He describes at length how commodities can be exchanged for money and how that money can then be used to buy more commodities. He inverts the process and maintains that the result is somehow fundamentally different in character.
Her we also have a superb analysis of prices and inflation, though he does not regularly employ the term. Long before the Chicago school we have her a monetary theory that specifically ascribes rising prices to an over-supply of money. He himself does not seem to adopt the argument, and he proposes a professedly different interpretation whose detail passed way above this reader’s head.
Marx also examines what happens to exchange when it is hoarded. It thus becomes a commodity in its own right and indeed has a price of its own. Marx does not seem to be happy with the prospect of paper money, by the way.
At times, this work seems to stem from a stream of consciousness. Rather often, we the readers seem to go round in circles only to repeat the process in the next section. There also seem to be several occasions when he wrote the wrong word, which was not then edited.
Marx also shows himself very much a man of his time when it comes to presumptions on race and gender. It is not a criticism. What else could he have been? Take for example this passage that displays racial stereotyping. “… this indifference of the Russians as to the kind of work they do, corresponds to their traditional practice of remaining in the rut of a quite definite occupation until they are thrown out of it by external influences.” It seems quite strange for a thinker who would be apparently sensitive to social differences that racial differences were assumed as given.
As ever with Marx, the text is quite difficult. What to him seems obvious is just not so for many readers. Perhaps this was a work in progress resulting in the fact that a modern reader sees the fraying seams before the whole.
June 8, 2025
Fascinant de pouvoir enfin comprendre la naissance du capitalisme à travers la dislocation d’une de ses composantes les plus génériques et abstraites : la marchandise (prise en tant que telle, elle regroupe un ensemble non concret).
À travers une dialectique que Marx déploie en attribuant à la marchandise ses différentes formes dans le processus de circulation : usage, argent, prix, numéraire et valeur d’échange. Le passage d’une économie ou la valeur d’usage (produire pour consommer) est à son centre et où l’échange ne se déploie qu’à sa marge(échange de l'excédent), ou l’argent est un médium de l’échange, une représentation formelle de celui-ci, à une économie ou l’échange domine où l’on produit uniquement pour échanger ou l’argent devient du capital et permet d’acheter la marchandise ultime : la puissance de travail, qui celle-ci permet à travers un déploiement sans fin de l’argent-devenu du capitale-son accumulation et sa multiplication (de l'argent).
Force de travail qui rend la consommation elle-même comme potentielle multiplication de la marchandise consommée à travers la reproduction du travailleur (nous mangeons pour pouvoir vivre et reproduire notre travail). Consommation qui signifie pourtant la mort du produit, en signifie à travers cette nouvelle configuration, sa perpétuation à l’infini.
Accumulation qui autrefois ne se faisait que par la thésaurisation, c'est-à-dire par son retrait de la circulation et de l'économie en constituant un trésor, se fait aujourd'hui par son redéploiement incessant dans celle-ci.
Pouvoir identifier le processus derrière l’une des absurdités de l’économie moderne- à savoir ce que j’appelais personnellement son extraversion-celui de la circulation développée ou l’objet directs de la production est l’échange, non l'usage et qu’il résulte du déploiement de l'argent sous sa nouvelle forme de capital et en fait notamment son propre produit à travers le médium de la puissance de travail, c'est tout juste une sensation de satisfaction et de curiosité et d’espoir accru dans les possibilités de pouvoir un jour déployer d’autre processus nous permettant une organisation plus cohérente et plus moderne de l’économie.
À travers une dialectique que Marx déploie en attribuant à la marchandise ses différentes formes dans le processus de circulation : usage, argent, prix, numéraire et valeur d’échange. Le passage d’une économie ou la valeur d’usage (produire pour consommer) est à son centre et où l’échange ne se déploie qu’à sa marge(échange de l'excédent), ou l’argent est un médium de l’échange, une représentation formelle de celui-ci, à une économie ou l’échange domine où l’on produit uniquement pour échanger ou l’argent devient du capital et permet d’acheter la marchandise ultime : la puissance de travail, qui celle-ci permet à travers un déploiement sans fin de l’argent-devenu du capitale-son accumulation et sa multiplication (de l'argent).
Force de travail qui rend la consommation elle-même comme potentielle multiplication de la marchandise consommée à travers la reproduction du travailleur (nous mangeons pour pouvoir vivre et reproduire notre travail). Consommation qui signifie pourtant la mort du produit, en signifie à travers cette nouvelle configuration, sa perpétuation à l’infini.
Accumulation qui autrefois ne se faisait que par la thésaurisation, c'est-à-dire par son retrait de la circulation et de l'économie en constituant un trésor, se fait aujourd'hui par son redéploiement incessant dans celle-ci.
Pouvoir identifier le processus derrière l’une des absurdités de l’économie moderne- à savoir ce que j’appelais personnellement son extraversion-celui de la circulation développée ou l’objet directs de la production est l’échange, non l'usage et qu’il résulte du déploiement de l'argent sous sa nouvelle forme de capital et en fait notamment son propre produit à travers le médium de la puissance de travail, c'est tout juste une sensation de satisfaction et de curiosité et d’espoir accru dans les possibilités de pouvoir un jour déployer d’autre processus nous permettant une organisation plus cohérente et plus moderne de l’économie.
September 3, 2025
الكتاب هو أول ما نشره المفكر الاقتصادي الثوري والفيلسوف الألماني كارل ماركس سنة ١٨٥٩ بعنوان "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy " وقد اضطلعت دار الطليعة عبر المترجمين مروان صقال وأسامة دليقان بنقله إلى العربية بعنوان "مساهمة في نقد الاقتصاد السياسي" وبترجمة جيدة جدا، كما كتب مقدمة الكتاب رفيق درب كارل ماركس والمفكر الشيوعي الثوري، فريدريك إنجلز في صورة مراجعة تعريفية للكتاب، نشرت ضمن مقالين صحافيين في حينه، في صحيفة الشعب.
يفكك ماركس في كتابه هذا الاقتصاد البرجوازي الرأسمالي (في القرن التاسع عشر) إلى مكوناته (وعملياته) الأسياسية بهدف تحليلها ضمن سياقها التاريخي وواقعها في أوروبا الغربية، في سبيل تقديم صورة كليانية مركبة لهذا النظام الاقتصادي وبالتالي الاشارة الى مكمن الخلل المفاهيمي وخلل النموذج ومن ثم تقديم أطروحة نقدية تقف على مكامن التناقضات وتطرح الأسئلة التي يجب الاشتباك معها ومعالجتها وفق المنظور الاجتماعي، الاقتصادي والسياسي.
يقسم ماركس كتابه هذا إلى ثلاث فصول رئيسية، تليها ملاحق من مسودات ماركس قام المترجمون باضافتها لمادة الكتاب بهدف الاثراء واكمال الفكرة.
يحلل ماركس في الفصل الأول ماهية "البضاعة" والسياق التاريخي لتكون مفهوما وطرق تبادلها، ومن بعد، يشرح في الفصل الثاني مفهومي "النقد" و "التبادل البسيط" (بضاعة، نقد بضاعة أو نقد، بضاعة، نقد)، ساردا مسيرة تطور النقد (النقد المعدني ثم الورقي ..) والنظريات التي قدمها في حينه المفكرون والاقتصاديون المعاصرون عن النقد كما قدم نقده على هذه النظريات. ماضيا بعد ذلك لتفكيك وتبيان عملية التداول وتكون القيمة و"الاكتناز"، وصولا، في الفصل الثالث، الى مقدمات عملية إنتاج الرأس مال (والذي سيخصص فيما بعد كتابا بعنوان "الرأس مال" ليكون كتابه الأشمل والأشهر في نقد الاقتصاد الرأسمالي).
يأتي هذا الكتاب ضمن الانتاجات الفكرية النوعية التي قدمها ماركس في تحليل نموذج الاقتصاد البرجوازي الرأسمالي الذي أنتجته الثورة الصناعية بمنظور علمي وبمنظور اقتصادي-اجتماعي نقدي منطلق من معاناة الطبقات الكادحة جراء الاستغلال الطبقي الذي مارسته الأقلية البرجوازية على الطبقة العاملة التي جردتها من كل شيء ما عدا قوة عملها لتصبح هذه الأخيرة هي البضاعة الوحيدة التي يملكها العامل ليبعها في السوق وهي كذلك الوسيلة الأساسية للرأسمالي لتكوين الرأسمال.
أنصح به.
يفكك ماركس في كتابه هذا الاقتصاد البرجوازي الرأسمالي (في القرن التاسع عشر) إلى مكوناته (وعملياته) الأسياسية بهدف تحليلها ضمن سياقها التاريخي وواقعها في أوروبا الغربية، في سبيل تقديم صورة كليانية مركبة لهذا النظام الاقتصادي وبالتالي الاشارة الى مكمن الخلل المفاهيمي وخلل النموذج ومن ثم تقديم أطروحة نقدية تقف على مكامن التناقضات وتطرح الأسئلة التي يجب الاشتباك معها ومعالجتها وفق المنظور الاجتماعي، الاقتصادي والسياسي.
يقسم ماركس كتابه هذا إلى ثلاث فصول رئيسية، تليها ملاحق من مسودات ماركس قام المترجمون باضافتها لمادة الكتاب بهدف الاثراء واكمال الفكرة.
يحلل ماركس في الفصل الأول ماهية "البضاعة" والسياق التاريخي لتكون مفهوما وطرق تبادلها، ومن بعد، يشرح في الفصل الثاني مفهومي "النقد" و "التبادل البسيط" (بضاعة، نقد بضاعة أو نقد، بضاعة، نقد)، ساردا مسيرة تطور النقد (النقد المعدني ثم الورقي ..) والنظريات التي قدمها في حينه المفكرون والاقتصاديون المعاصرون عن النقد كما قدم نقده على هذه النظريات. ماضيا بعد ذلك لتفكيك وتبيان عملية التداول وتكون القيمة و"الاكتناز"، وصولا، في الفصل الثالث، الى مقدمات عملية إنتاج الرأس مال (والذي سيخصص فيما بعد كتابا بعنوان "الرأس مال" ليكون كتابه الأشمل والأشهر في نقد الاقتصاد الرأسمالي).
يأتي هذا الكتاب ضمن الانتاجات الفكرية النوعية التي قدمها ماركس في تحليل نموذج الاقتصاد البرجوازي الرأسمالي الذي أنتجته الثورة الصناعية بمنظور علمي وبمنظور اقتصادي-اجتماعي نقدي منطلق من معاناة الطبقات الكادحة جراء الاستغلال الطبقي الذي مارسته الأقلية البرجوازية على الطبقة العاملة التي جردتها من كل شيء ما عدا قوة عملها لتصبح هذه الأخيرة هي البضاعة الوحيدة التي يملكها العامل ليبعها في السوق وهي كذلك الوسيلة الأساسية للرأسمالي لتكوين الرأسمال.
أنصح به.
September 22, 2025
Almost all economists agree Marx is… I don’t know, an idiot? But he explains economics way more thoroughly than any Econ class I’ve ever taken and is flush with citations of the big names of economics from his era; Adam Smith the most prominent, being generally cited as the godfather of capitalism. The major disagreement seems to be in the relationship of money to commodities. Most economists label money as a commodity while Marx breaks down this conflation by representing the circulation of exchange between commodities and money and how this is manipulated. The circulation and velocity of it determines the strength of an economy.
I struggled with this one. My mind wanders reading over and over slightly different examples of the flow of capital through money and commodities back to money. Occasionally he explains where he was going with all of that and you realize the point he was building towards. Should probably read through this once more and take better notes, but I might visit with some of his points of reference to give me a better grounding first.
Definitely glad I started with this before diving into Capital because my lack of understanding of commodities has always been what held me back from grasping his work. I generally don’t trust myself to make any strong claims of how economics works since I felt like my brain was never wired that way, but wrestling with this one has definitely built up my confidence.
I struggled with this one. My mind wanders reading over and over slightly different examples of the flow of capital through money and commodities back to money. Occasionally he explains where he was going with all of that and you realize the point he was building towards. Should probably read through this once more and take better notes, but I might visit with some of his points of reference to give me a better grounding first.
Definitely glad I started with this before diving into Capital because my lack of understanding of commodities has always been what held me back from grasping his work. I generally don’t trust myself to make any strong claims of how economics works since I felt like my brain was never wired that way, but wrestling with this one has definitely built up my confidence.
December 31, 2020
Absolutely beautiful work, the perfect introduction to Marx's Capital. It's difficult, not gonna lie, but this book has a perfect view (understanding it as an historic perfect view) about the economic science in his epoque. The developed marxism thoughts about basic economic in such a complete way, explaining more than what his master piece about the money, and about social relations, the implicit base of all Marx works. The money is a social relation, the capital too, and also the commodity. They exist, firstly, because they have material form, and the most important one, the social form. The commodity exists not because of his usage, but because of the capability of being sold and bought, in other words, his material form is what it is, which function, neccesity fulfils, and his social form is the existence as a good that must be sold, that only exists to be sold and bought, and once you have bought/sold it, isn't a commodity anymore, but a good that you use, etc. The true nature, the social form, or the social relation behind the material form (fetishism of commodity) is the one that Marx constantly refers to, and the same with capital. The things develop thanks to social relations that develop with material advances, etc.
May 26, 2022
Re-reading Marx
In what better language can this tome be reviewed than by the following words of Engels?
"Closer consideration shows immediately that already the first consequences of the apparently simple proposition, that the consciousness of men is determined by their existence and not the other way round, spurn all forms of idealism, even the most concealed ones, rejecting all conventional and customary views of historical matters.
The entire traditional manner of political reasoning is upset; patriotic magnanimity indignantly objects to such an unprincipled interpretation. It was thus inevitable that the new point of view should shock not only the exponents of the bourgeoisie but also the mass of French socialists who intended to revolutionise the world by virtue of the magic words, liberté, égalité, fraternite.
But it utterly enraged the vociferous German vulgar democrats. They nevertheless have a partiality for attempting to plagiarise the new ideas in their own interest, although with an exceptional lack of understanding."
In what better language can this tome be reviewed than by the following words of Engels?
"Closer consideration shows immediately that already the first consequences of the apparently simple proposition, that the consciousness of men is determined by their existence and not the other way round, spurn all forms of idealism, even the most concealed ones, rejecting all conventional and customary views of historical matters.
The entire traditional manner of political reasoning is upset; patriotic magnanimity indignantly objects to such an unprincipled interpretation. It was thus inevitable that the new point of view should shock not only the exponents of the bourgeoisie but also the mass of French socialists who intended to revolutionise the world by virtue of the magic words, liberté, égalité, fraternite.
But it utterly enraged the vociferous German vulgar democrats. They nevertheless have a partiality for attempting to plagiarise the new ideas in their own interest, although with an exceptional lack of understanding."
December 19, 2021
An incredible piece of political economy from Marx, it is very clear and concise and packed to the brim with theory. I think it’s an excellent follow-up to the shorter, introductory Marx works on political economy, Wage-Labour and Capital and Value, Price, and Profit. It might not be essential Marx reading in the face of Capital, but it might be a helpful, more accessible introduction to the more complex elements of basic Marxist political economy, such as the contradiction inherent to money.
It’s also exceedingly short, 226 pages if you count the appendices, which are made up of an excerpt from the first notebook of the Grundrisse (which is the manuscript Marx was going to turn into this book before dropping the project), and the first two parts of a Engels review of the book.
Recommended read for all people interested in Marxist political economy, especially if Capital intimidates you.
It’s also exceedingly short, 226 pages if you count the appendices, which are made up of an excerpt from the first notebook of the Grundrisse (which is the manuscript Marx was going to turn into this book before dropping the project), and the first two parts of a Engels review of the book.
Recommended read for all people interested in Marxist political economy, especially if Capital intimidates you.
November 24, 2019
Production. Consumption. Distribution. Circulation. Reproduction ... in a Hegelian fashion are stitched in a never-ending economic cycle. Surprisingly Marx doesn't give in to idealism and acknowledges differences in cultures, and supports arguments pertinent to Western Economy. He goes in quite some depth, really deep actually, in dissecting production and consumption in their minutest details. Different types are elaborated on complete with examples from different economies or times. Production and consumption might seem like the two ends of the economic see-saw, but on closer inspection they are nothing but two economic realities holding hands running towards a bourgeoisie sunset. You cant really separate them.
Appendix by Engels focuses primarily on the German State and summons logic and theory of the philosophers Hegel and Kant for necessary validations.
Appendix by Engels focuses primarily on the German State and summons logic and theory of the philosophers Hegel and Kant for necessary validations.
April 18, 2023
Que manía de las editoriales de meterle veinte mil textos de apéndices a los libros con tal de vender más. Pero bueno, he de reconocer que al menos metieron uno primordial, la introducción general a la crítica de la economía política de 1857 (de tanta controversia sobre sí debía ser la introducción de este libro o de los grundrisse, ya no sé, según yo debía ser de la contribución).
La exposición que marx hace de su crítica de las categorías y análisis de la economía política, partiendo de la mercancía, pasando por el dinero hasta llegar a la formación de este en capital es concisa y clara en la forma, y brillante en el fondo. Me parece un buen comienzo en su crítica económica, como se menciona en la introducción, un buen preludio para el capital.
La exposición que marx hace de su crítica de las categorías y análisis de la economía política, partiendo de la mercancía, pasando por el dinero hasta llegar a la formación de este en capital es concisa y clara en la forma, y brillante en el fondo. Me parece un buen comienzo en su crítica económica, como se menciona en la introducción, un buen preludio para el capital.
January 9, 2025
Extenso livro em que Marx expõe os assuntos que farão parte do primeiro volume d'O Capital.
Está dividido em 3 partes: a própria "Crítica da Economia Política"; a introdução da mesma, e o fragmento da versão primitiva da mesma (que acaba por repetir alguns assuntos abordados).
A primeira parte aborda assuntos como o capital, a mercadoria, a moeda, a circulação e metais preciosos.
A segunda fala de produção, distribuição, trocas, etc.
Com a eventual posterior leitura d'O Capital, talvez este livro se torne inútil e repetitivo.
Está dividido em 3 partes: a própria "Crítica da Economia Política"; a introdução da mesma, e o fragmento da versão primitiva da mesma (que acaba por repetir alguns assuntos abordados).
A primeira parte aborda assuntos como o capital, a mercadoria, a moeda, a circulação e metais preciosos.
A segunda fala de produção, distribuição, trocas, etc.
Com a eventual posterior leitura d'O Capital, talvez este livro se torne inútil e repetitivo.
January 10, 2023
The version that I read included a review of the materials from Engels at the end. Which was perhaps not the smartest manouvre as it highlighted how much better a writer he was than Marx lol.
Personally, I didn't find much in the political and economic analysis that I hadn't already considered, but I can see that it's a good building block towards understanding more complex theories on production an exchange.
Personally, I didn't find much in the political and economic analysis that I hadn't already considered, but I can see that it's a good building block towards understanding more complex theories on production an exchange.
May 2, 2022
I don't know if I am right in pointing that I find it a little baffling to accept the fact that the mode of productions of material life conditions the foremost aspects of our lives like social, political and even intellectual one. It's not about oversimplification but I think Marx's ideas are based on a flagrant materialistic notion which overlooks several subtle features.
December 7, 2022
no puedo decir con claridad si merece la pena leerlo a modo de prólogo de el capital en vez de leerlo directamente ya que los temas que trata son los mismos que en los primeros capítulos de el capital solo que unos años antes pero está bien igualmente además la reseña de engels a este mismo texto está bien y sobretodo el prólogo de marx
June 11, 2023
Impressionante toda a digressāo que o Marx faz mapeando os conceitos de mercadoria e dinheiro. E mais impressionante ainda me parece ser o fato desses conceitos serem apenas uma introduçāo a um objeto de estudo ainda mais colossal: o Capital.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews