El Capital

Capital #1-3

by Karl Marx

Este ebook presenta El Capital (Tomos I, II, III), con un sumario dinámico y detallado. Considerada como la obra esencial de Karl Marx, El capital es un magno tratado en tres volúmenes. El primero se publicó en Hamburgo en 1867; el segundo y el tercero fueron publicados por Engels después de la muerte del autor, respectivamente en 1885 y en 1894.

El Capital, su texto fundamental, es uno de los libros de teoría política más influyentes de la historia de la humanidad. Es una obra de facetas múltiples: filosófica, económica, antropológica, política e histórica, en una escritura de varios estilos y con un alto valor literario.

Karl Heinrich Marx, conocido también en español como Carlos Marx (1818 – 1883), fue un filósofo, intelectual y militante comunista alemán de origen judío. En su vasta e influyente obra, incursionó en los campos de la filosofía, la historia, la ciencia política, la sociología y la economía.

Genres: Philosophy, Economics, Politics, Nonfiction, Classics, History, Theory

444 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1867

About the author

With 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...

Reviews

[Nelson G Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Try to call me an uneducated socialist now, bitches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jon Nakapalau · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did not agree with everything Marx said...but there is no doubt that this book has changed the world. Over the years I don't think I have ever encountered a more misunderstood philosopher; I have had several people tell me they think he is evil incarnate - but when I ask them to tell me why they think that way (and ask if they have ever read any of his works) they say 'I will never read anything by him!' Go figure!

[Berry Muhl · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ugh.

Soul-crushing in its hatred of human nature, and irritating in its misconstruing of economic maxims. Beginning with a vast oversimplification of Adam Smith's theory of value, Marx proceeds to describe, for ants, bees and other insectile collectivists, the kind of economics he wishes had evolved among humans. He then offers--via a distortion of the Hegelian dialectic, which is itself a distortion of logic--a historicist, "scientific" account of how the "proletariat" will inevitably rise and take control of the world.

Conspiratorial, ignorant, brutally authoritarian. Bring antidepressants.

[Bart · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had Marx avoided moral judgments in this tome, had he stuck only to symptoms of capitalism’s maladies, this book might still be read in the West today. Instead, Marx and his labor theory of value are considered discredited by economics departments and worthy of little more than synopses and essays about the work – Das Kapital is still cited by many and read by none – and this is probably because Marx’s moral remedy led to greater woes than capitalism did.

This book is also too long by about 2/3. I would recommend reading it the following way: Review the title and first two pages of each chapter. If you grasp what Marx is after, move along to the next chapter – otherwise, keep reading until you do have a grasp on it. Marx will repeat himself tirelessly and occasionally leaven things with mathematical formulae that are entirely unnecessary for a contemporary reader. If you’re reading Das Kapital for its economics insights, you may skip large parts of the book’s second half. If you are reading it for a condemnation of the moral failures of free-market capitalism, you may skip large parts of the book’s first half – and most of the first halves of each chapter.

Is this book still timely in some of its observations? Absolutely. Is it worth the 40 or so hours it takes to read cover-to-cover? Probably not.

Here are the book’s two greatest insights, I believe:

1. The farther money moves from human labor, the more dangerous it becomes.
2. At every moment capitalism reduces the value of every existing commodity and subsequently the value of every skill set required to provide it.

The overarching insight that Marx had about capitalism, the one we’re contending with right now, is that it eventually cannibalizes itself.

Trouble is, Marx insisted on putting faces on the system. He insisted on chronicling the immorality of some English capitalists of the 1860s. In so doing, he failed to predict today’s United States of America: Everybody is a participant, an exploiter and an exploited, and all are ruined by the system. Today’s corporate officer works 100 hours/week. Today’s lower middle-class laborer works 40 hours/week. One envies the other’s wealth. One envies the other’s time. Neither is fulfilled or content. Both realize capitalism’s constant revolution and reinvention will render them obsolete at least once in their lives.

Capitalism’s fundamental instability is incompatible with human contentment.

But the acceleration of capitalism’s cycles is not something Marx explicitly predicted. Make no mistake, though: Were Marx able to stand in the middle of today’s Manhattan and behold the meltdown of a commissions-based economy in which trillions of dollars are made by electronically moving capital from one place to another, he would say, “What took so long?”

[Peiman E iran · Rating 4 out of 5]

دوستانِ گرانقدر، این کتاب یکی از دشوارترین کتاب هایی است که در زمینهٔ فلسفه و فلسفهٔ سیاسی و اقتصادی، به چاپ رسیده است
عزیزانم، در زمان خواندن کتاب، برایِ معنی کردنِ برخی از واژه هایِ فلسفی و سیاسی و فهمِ برخی از جملاتِ این کتاب، بهتر است که از کتب یا رفرنس هایِ دیگر کمک بگیرید
این کتاب بسیار تخصصی است و متأسفانه ترجمۀ بسیار ضعیفِ کتاب برایِ غیرقابلِ فهم شدنِ برخی از جملاتِ کتاب نیز، مزیدِ بر علت شده است
دوستانِ خردگرا، نمیشود منکر این بود که «مارکس» ظلم ستیز بوده و در راهِ آگاهیِ انسان ها تلاش فراوان نموده است، هر انسانِ خردمندی بیشترِ اقداماتِ «مارکس» را گرامی میدارد، ولی ممکن است در بینِ خردگرایان، در نوعِ پذیرفتنِ اندیشه هایِ «مارکس» اختلافِ سلیقه وجود داشته باشد... به هرحال هرکدام از ما از نظرات و نوعِ تفکرِ فیلسوفِ موردِ پسندمان استفاده کرده و از سخنانِ او بهره میبریم، به عنوانِ مثال، من دوستدارِ فلسفهٔ زنده یاد «برتراند راسل» و «آرتور شوپنهاور» هستم... ممکن است که از دوستانِ خردمند و اهلِ مطالعه، یکی علاقه مند به «نیچه» باشد و دیگری علاقه مند به «مارکس» باشد ... پس مطالعۀ کتبِ فلاسفه و اندیشمندانی که مخالفِ خرافات و موهومات بوده اند، بدون تردید برای شما زیانی نخواهد داشت
فلسفهٔ مورد پسندِ من با اندیشه های <مارکس> همسو و همجهت نمیباشد... او از آن دسته از روشنفکرانی بود که هدفش تغییر دادنِ این جهان بود، من شخصاً این روشِ «مارکس» را نمیپسندم... به عقیدهٔ من، به جایِ تغییرِ جهان، بهتر است جهان را بشناسیم... در این یک مورد شناخت بهتر از تغییر میباشد
البته ممکن است که برخی از دوستان با نظرِ من مخالف باشند و الگویِ تغییر جهان موردِ پسندشان باشد
پس دوستانِ گرامی، اختلاف در عقیده با یک روشنفکر و فیلسوف، دلیل نمیشود که ما آثار و نوشته هایش را نخوانیم... متأسفانه در ایران بسیاری از مردم و حتی تحصیل کرده ها با آنکه شناختی از <مارکس> و فلسفهٔ او ندارند، اصطلاحی در دهانشان افتاده که به هرکسی که با دین و مذهبشان مخالف باشد به او <مارکسیسم> میگویند در صورتی که هیچ ربطی به یکدیگر ندارند ... و دریغ از ذره ای تحقیق و مطالعه از سوی این مقلّدان!! فقط همچون طوطی حرف های یک سری بیخرد را تکرار میکنند...پس خواهشاً تحتِ تاثیرِ صحبت هایِ عده ای مذهبیِ خرافاتی و بهتر بگویم موجوداتِ «یک کتابی» یا "تک کتابی" قرار نگیرید، و خودتان کتبِ گوناگون را بخوانید و جویایِ راستی و درستی باشید و به نوشته ها و حرف های پوچ و بدون پایه و اساسِ موجوداتِ مذهبی، ذره ای توجه نکنید.. آنها افکارشان توسطِ دین، فاسد و کرم خورده شده است و اندکی فهم به شناختِ فلسفه و فلاسفهٔ نامی ندارند و نخواهند داشت

امیدوارم بهترین فلسفه را برایِ زندگی خودتان، در نظر گرفته و توجه زیادی به کرامتِ انسانی خودتان داشته باشید
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[Rowland Pasaribu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Karl Marx's Capital can be read as a work of economics, sociology and history. He addresses a myriad of topics, but is most generally trying to present a systematic account of the nature, development, and future of the capitalist system. There is a strong economic focus to this work, and Marx addresses the nature of commodities, wages and the worker-capitalist relationship, among other things. Much of this work tries to show the ways in which workers are exploited by the capitalist mode of production. He also provides a history of past exploitations. Marx argues that the capitalist system is ultimately unstable, because it cannot endlessly sustain profits. Thus, it provides a more technical background to some of his more generally accessible works, like The Communist Manifesto.

This study guide focuses on one component of Capital, Marx's schema of how the capitalist system functions. Marx argues that commodities have both a use-value and an exchange-value, and that their exchange-value is rooted in how much labor-power went into them. While traditionally people bought commodities in order to use them, capitalists use commodities differently. Their final goal is increased profit. Therefore, they put out money and buy commodities, in order to sell those commodities for a profit. The cycle then repeats itself. The reason why the capitalists are able to make a profit is that they only need to pay workers their value (how much it takes to keep them functional), but the workers produce more than that amount in a day. Thus, the workers are exploited. The capitalists are able to do this because they have more power, and control the means of production. Furthermore, the workers' character is negatively affected by the system. They don't own the products of their labor, and the repetitive work they have to do makes them little more than machines.

Marx presents several definitions that will be important throughout his work, so it is very important to be clear on their meanings. A use-value corresponds to the usefulness of an object, and is internal to that object. For example, a hammer is a use-value because of its contributions to building. Its use-value comes from its usefulness. In contrast, a hammer's exchange-value comes from its value relative to other objects. For example, a hammer might be worth two screwdrivers. An object doesn't have an exchange value in itself, but only in its relationship with other objects.

However, the fact that the hammer and screwdriver can be exchanged at all suggests that there must be something common between them, some means of comparison. Marx says that this is the object's value. Value means the amount of labor it takes to make the commodities. This labor theory of value is very important to Marx's theory. It implies that the price of commodities comes from how much labor was put into them. One implication of this is that objects with natural use-value, such as forests and other natural resources, do not have value because no labor went into them. One problematic question, then, is how such natural resources can have exchange-value (people do spend money on them) without benefiting from labor. It is also important to consider how Marx's conception of the roots of exchange value differs from modern economic theory. In modern theory, something's exchange value is rooted in people's subjective preferences. While the amount of labor required would be linked to the supply curve of a commodity, its exchange value is also determined by the demand curve. Marx focuses exclusively on labor.

This book also gives a general sense of Marx's approach in Capital.Here he dissects one aspect of the modern capitalist system and presents a schema for understanding why it functions as it does. Later Marx will analyze things like the role of money and the capitalist. While this book makes many historical and sociological arguments, it is largely a book of economic theory and its implications.

One thing to consider when thinking about Marx's characterization of capitalism is where this capitalistic ethic came from. Marx says that capitalists have an endless need for more money, and that the system of capitalism requires and perpetuates this attitude. Even if this is true, however, it does not explain how capitalism developed in the first place. What made people view M' as an end in itself? Where does this thirst for profit come from? Marx's description does not spend a lot of time explaining how people could have come to develop these ideas. This limitation is a potential theoretical difficulty.

Marx spends a lot of time discussing the ways in which capitalism is rooted in social institutions. Capitalism is not natural, but rather depends upon social structures, such as property laws. One social factor that is very important for Marx's theory is that the workers don't own the means of production. Because of this, they must sell their labor to others. It is precisely because workers do own their own labor that they are able to give up all claims to it, by selling it as property. As a result, they don't own the commodities they produce; somebody else owns their labor and the products of that labor. The result is that workers become alienated from their labor—they do not control or own what they create. In Marx's framework, labor-power is a commodity in the market. Its value is determined in the same way as for other commodities, and it is used by capitalists as another commodity in the production process.

Marx's labor theory of value becomes very important when looking at the commodity of labor-power. A hammer's value comes from the amount of labor put into it. What, then, is labor-power's value? Marx applies the definition of value—its value is the amount of labor needed to produce and sustain labor-power. Or more simply, it is the amount of labor needed to keep the laborer alive and functioning at his capacity. Let's say that a worker needs $100/week to survive and function. The value of his labor-power is, therefore, $100/week as well. A worker's "price" (his wage) must be at least $100/week in order for the worker to be paid at value. This concept will be very important in later chapters, when Marx will try to show that it is possible to exploit labor.

Marx's labor theory of value again makes an appearance, as he tries to explain a seeming paradox. A capitalist purchases all of the inputs needed to make a commodity (labor-power, raw materials, etc.) at their value. He also sells the end-product at its value. If this is the case, where does the surplus value come from? If there's no surplus value, then capitalism cannot exist, because there would be no profit. Marx's answer comes from the unique character of labor- power. Labor-power's use-value (what it can create) is not the same thing as its exchange-value (what is needed to sustain the worker). A worker sells himself at his value, but he produces more than this value. In this way, the capitalist gains surplus-value. This is significant, because it explains how exploitation can occur as the result of a series of freely made trades. The worker could complain that he is not being paid for the value of what he produces. However, the capitalist can reply that the worker is being paid his value. Once the worker is paid for a day's work, the capitalist has the right to use him for a day. Justice is part of the overall mode of production of the times, and as a result, this exchange can be considered "just."

Why do the workers put up with such exploitation? Couldn't they demand higher wages, that match the value their labor-power produces? Marx's answer is that the workers don't have the capacity to work without the capitalists; they require factories and other means of production. The workers are selling an abstract capacity to labor, and because of this, the capitalist is able to exploit them by only paying labor-power's value. Consider whether you think Marx's characterization of the labor market is fair. Does labor have the ability to fight exploitation and set wages closer to the value of what they produce? Think of this both historically and theoretically.

An important theme in Marx's work is class tension. According to Marx, all of history has been defined by class conflict. Modern times are no different in this regard, and are defined by tension between the capitalist and the worker. Marx describes one source of this tension in this chapter, as he mentions again the asymmetry between the use-value and exchange-value of labor-power (already discussed in Chapter 7). In this class conflict, the capitalists are the stronger class. This allows them to exert more force and define what workers will be paid. However, the fact that they are the stronger class does not simply give capitalists more bargaining power. Rather, social institutions such as property laws are defined to support the capitalists' needs. The mode of production reflects the economic system of capitalism. It will continue to do so, and continue to favor the capitalists, until it self-destructs.

It is important to realize that the capitalists cannot behave differently; there will always be tension between them and the workers. The very essence of a capitalist is his desire to gain surplus-value. The only way to do so is to exploit workers by failing to pay workers for the full value of what they produce. In order to survive, the capitalist must exploit. Thus, the tension between workers and capitalists is structural. The capitalist system requires exploitation. Measures to ease workers' hardships, such as a minimum wage or welfare are simply band-aids; they cannot change what a capitalist is.

[Sidharth Vardhan · Rating 4 out of 5]

To judge a book by the way it affected the world is a mistake, though a tempting mistake. If we are to do so, almost all religious books will get a one-star rating because of the violent actions of followers of the respective religion. I don't wish to be so cruel as to judge Marx, his 'Das Kapital' or socialism, on the basis of human rights violations in communist Russia and China.

..... But even if we are to give in to this temptation, we will find that Marx has a mostly positive impact. Before him, the world was driven by a blind capitalist force which burns down everything to profits - mostly based on the exploitation of workers who (often mere children) worked more than 16 hours at times. Some laws for the benefit of workers were already being made by the time Marx wrote the book, but I think it is mostly thanks to Marx that overexploitation of workers is no longer taken for granted in the west.

Socialism can't be any more blamed for the suffering of people in communist countries (blame stays for communism, the political system) just as democracies cannot be blamed for their poor and homeless (blame lies with badly created capitalism, the economic system). Dr. B. R. Ambendkar, the father of constitution of India, said that political equality (the aim of democracy) can't be of much value without social and economic equality (the aim of socialism). Just as the solution to all problems of democracy is more democracy, the solution to all problems of socialism is more socialism. Unfortunately, the two systems seem to resist each other. Socialism seems to prefer communism or dictatorship while democracy leans toward capitalist or mixed economic systems.

Anyway, to get back to the book, Marx does an amazing job of bringing out the ways in which the workers are getting violated when he goes to real-life examples. But his theory itself seemed to be as absurd as that of capitalist economist he argues against. At the end of the day, a capitalist does take risks, does bring assets together, does bear the loss if such loss were to come; and deserves what goes by name of profit.

The problem is not profits, the problem lies in two things. First, how the profits are made. By exploitation of workers. Where profits can only be made by undertaking workers, such business have no right to exist. This trashes the argument of those who are against the minimum wages because it would reduce the profitability of businesses. Where businesses are too big to die, it means the government (and indirect taxpayer who mostly workers) is paying for inefficiency of Management who will get big cheques for their badly done jobs. If capitalism means survival of fittest, those managers should lose their jobs first.

Another cruel way in which profits are made is by way of heavy discrimination in salaries of upper and lower levels of workers. The CEOs of big companies might give a better quality of work than average ground level worker but the difference between the two qualities doesn't excuse the difference in reimbursement (the two can often stand in a ration of 100:1). Now I know I know a capitalist would say that salaries are decided by laws of demand and supply. the But then the supply of highly qualified managers far more exceed the need for them (a handful needed in any organization) than ground-level level workers can exceed their demand. To create an artificial scarcity of supply you could make education expensive. But even though education keeps getting expensive, the supply of workers top-level jobs still vastly outnumber the demand for them. A highly paid manager has good reason to exploit workers under him to make profits for his bosses or he risks losing his job and the big package.

Last cruel way profits or high incomes are made is holding onto ridiculously big assets. In Middle-East, it is oil the wells; in the USA it is technology giants like Whatsapp, Facebook, and Google. One important difference is that later have at least use their minds to create something truly valuable rather just get lucky. They might just seem to deserve all the money but, beyond some limits, we no more own products of our own genius than ones we inherit from fathers. A genius like money we inherited from poor looks are the gifts of accident of luck. The government in name of people will take away the old treasures that might be found in your backyard after paying you a percentage. I don't see why products of intelligence shouldn't go the same way.

The second thing that I'd wrong with capitalism is laws of inheritance. It is not always about survival of fittest but just as much as survival of children and grandchildren of fittest. You can call capitalism a race but a race is equal only if we start at some point. A country truly dedicated to capitalism would not let too much of wealth get inherited by the children. Capitalist countries suffer from income gaps because they aren't being capitalist enough. The best version of capitalism (at least as Adam Smith, another misunderstood soul sees it) would have best of socialism embedded inside it. The government of a truly capitalist country would take actions against corporations that resist workers (peaceful) movements.


Anyway returning back to book, I don't agree with Marx's ideas that capitalist doesn't add value to goods. But I do agree though that profits, rents, interests beyond a certain limit (beyond what might be needed to maintain the assets they are connected to) are an unproductive transfer of money from poor to rich rather than actually earned incomes.

I do have an argument of my own to make. You might fix sums to be paid to different stakeholders (workers, capitalists, entrepreneurs, landlords, government, )from revenue of the business and you will have a surplus left in the end. Now according to capitalism, this surplus belongs to an entrepreneur who has taken the risk in running operations and so a fixed sum is not big enough payment for him. But these days, you can shrug that argument off, and say he got insurance at a fixed premium to ward off the risk. And even if he didn't, the argument still holds - if an insurance company can undertake risk for fixed sum why not let an entrepreneur or capitalist do the same?

However, the problem is who gets the surplus? Who ensures that the system runs smoothly? Because that party would have too much power not to abuse it. In capitalism, it lies with filthy rich capitalists while in socialism it is taken over by the government, and though the last do so in name of workers, the workers who are the bulk of population do not gain much in either case.

[Amirsaman · Rating 5 out of 5]

«بابام در عوضِ این‌که کتابِ 'سرمایه'ی کارل مارکس رو برام بفرسته، کتاب 'چگونه بدون تلاش کردن موفق شوید' رو واسم فرستاده! دیگه خودتون ببینید چه خریه!»

Throw Away Your Books, Rally in the Streets (1971)

[Shahab Samani · Rating 5 out of 5]

در این “مرور” بیشتر تلاش می‌کنم تا تجربه خودم را به عنوان یک کتاب‌خوان نیمه‌حرفه‌ای از خواندن کتاب "سرمایه" شرح دهم. در مورد این کتاب شرح و تفسیر و نقد از جانب اندیشمندان بزرگ بسیار است و این کار را برای کسی چون من بسیار سخت می‌کند. به همین خاطر ترجیح می‌دهم در مورد محتوای کتاب کمتر نظر بدهم. دوباره می‌گویم این مرور بیشتر به درد کتاب‌خوان‌های‌ نیمه‌حرفه‌ای می‌خورد، کسی که در فلسفه‌خوانی و یا سایر حوزه‌های علوم انسانی خود را صاحب‌نظر می‌داند، ممکن است این مرور را حتی شاید مبتذل بداند؛

خب برای خواندن کتاب (مخصوصا برای کلنجار رفتن با سه فصل نخست) باید کمی بیشتر از حد معمول حوصله و اراده داشته باشید. به نظر من کسی که می‌خواهد این کتاب را بخواند باید انگیزه‌ی بیشتری از "فقط کتاب خواندن" داشته باشد. سه فصل ابتدایی، در حالی که هنوز با ادبیات مارکس خو نگرفته‌اید می‌تواند به راحتی باعث شود کتاب را رها کنید. اما اگر از سه فصل اول عبور کردید، امکان این که کتاب را رها کنید کم‌تر می‌شود. علاوه بر این که با ادبیات کتاب آشنا شده‌اید، چارچوب مفهومی کتاب هم ساخته شده است و از این به بعد خواندن کتاب روان‌تر پیش خواهد رفت.

خواندن کتاب حداقل سه پیش‌نیاز دارد:

یک. کتاب "نقد پیش‌فرض‌های اصلی اقتصاد سیاسی کلاسیک" است. مارکس تلاش می‌کند انگاره‌های اصلی اقتصاددانان کلاسیک در مورد جامعه اتوپیایی آنها را نقد کند. مارکس حتی در خیلی از سطرهای کتاب می‌گوید "من فعلا به سراغ واقعیت واقعا موجود نمی‌روم (بنا به گفته هاروی، یکی از شارحان مارکس، "واقعیت واقعا موجود" بیشتر موضوع جلد دوم سرمایه است) و تنها پیش‌فرض‌ها و درک اقتصاددانان کلاسیک را از وضعیت اتوپیایی نقد می‌کنم." به همین علت اگر با اقتصاد سیاسی کلاسیک آشنایی داشته باشید بسیار به فهم بهتر کتاب کمک خواهد کرد. مشخصا آدام اسمیت، مالتوس، ریکاردو و جیمز استورات میل.

دو. اگر با تاریخ اروپا به طور ویژه اروپای قرون وسطی، مبانی فئودالیسم و الغای نظام سرف‌داری آشنایی (قطعا بیشتر از آشنایی ویکی‌پدیایی) داشته باشید، بسیار به درک مباحث کتاب کمک خواهد کرد.

سه. در مورد نسبت اندیشه هگل و مارکس هم بسیار گفته‌اند. آشنایی خواننده با هگل و روش دیالکتیکی او هم بسیار به درک عمیق روش مارکس در این کتاب کمک خواهد کرد. 

اما اگر خیلی هم به این پیش‌نیازها تسلط ندارید، باز هم خواندن کتاب خیلی خیلی بهتر و مفیدتر از نخواندن آن است. همچنین در طی زمانی که کتاب را می‌خوانید می‌توانید اطلاعات خود را در مورد سه پیش‌نیاز قبلی از منابع مختلف بالا ببرید.

من کتاب را همراه با "راهنمای سرمایه مارکس" نوشته‌ی دیوید هاروی و ترجمه عارف اقوامی مقدم خواندم. اگر خیلی درگیر "ترجمه‌ی خوب و بد" هستید، ترجمه کتاب هاروی می‌تواند به غایت آزارتان دهد. اما به نظر من کتاب هاروی بسیار به فهم بهتر کتاب کمک می‌کند. خب ویدئوی کلاس‌های هاروی روی یوتیوب هم هست.

اما دو نکته که دوست دارم اینجا ار آنها بگویم:

یک. مارکس فروپاشی سرمایه‌داری و ظهور جامعه‌ای بی‌طبقه را نوید می‌دهد. جامعه‌ای که در آن بهره‌کشی کارگران، استثمار، سرکوب و شکاف‌های طبقاتی از بین می‌رود. من هر چقدر که با روایت مارکس از سرمایه‌داری موافق باشم، با "امید او به آینده‌ای بی طبقه"  همراه نیستم. من تضادها و سیاهی‌های تاریخ را بخش ضروری زندگی انسانی می‌دانم و معتقدم تنها شکل تضادها است که در تکامل زندگی انسانی تغییر می‌کند. "جامعه‌ی بی طبقه" بیشتر امری اسطوره‌ای است که اگر چه خیالی است اما تخیلش لازم است. درکی از جامعه‌ی اسطوره‌ای و اتوپیایی است که کمک می‌کند فرم زندگی امروز خودمان را به عنوان "تنها فرم طبیعی و ضروری و راستین زندگی" ندانیم. تخیل است که ما را به "سمت چیزی بهتر" سوق می‌دهد، وسوسه‌مان می‌کند و رانه‌ای است تا "وضعیت موجود" را در هر شکل و فریبی که هست نقد کنیم و از آن فراتر برویم. حرکت به سمت "چیزی بهتر" که قطعا "چیزی بهتر" از آن نیز وجود دارد و این مسیر تاریخ باید باشد.

دو. کتاب می‌تواند شما را هم غمگین و هم خشمگین کند.  مخصوصا اگر کارگر و کارمند (چه به معنای کلاسیک و چه به معنای امروزی‌اش) باشید. جزئیات روایتی که مارکس از استثمار کار کارگران{و البته کارمندان} می‌گوید را می‌توانید در زندگی روزمره‌تان و محیط کار (خصوصا در این نظام سرمایه‌دارانه‌ی خشن و تعدیل‌نشده‌ی امروز ایران) لمس کنید. کتاب شما را به شدت به جو محیط کاری و آن چه واقعا در جریان است حساس می‌کند. تراکم حس غم و خشم در سینه‌ی آدمی، می‌تواند به کینه‌‌ی انقلابی ختم شود. بگذارید حداقل "تخیل" کنیم.

اردیبهشت ۹۹

[Owlseyes]

"In France and in England the bourgeoisie had conquered political power. Thenceforth, the class struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threatening forms."
Karl Marx, London,
January 24, 1873


(he meant "stimulate"...)

Marxism applied failed. Still, The Economist finds virtue in the ideology.
https://www.economist.com/news/books-...

I am glad there was one called Mises, to counter Marx: https://mises.org/wire/mises-myth-marx

And, Marx didn't use the word "capitalism"

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n07/james-m..."

But, communism failed.

PS a propos China's case: https://qz.com/1270109/chinas-communi...

PPS Still, some forget History: http://mnemosyne.ee/en/participation-...

UPDATE

Yes, there are those who still believe the marxist theory is one of "the most perceptive critiques"
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...

UPDATE

The cover and a cartoon inside the latest issue of "Philosophy Now" pleased me greatly.


Right, Marx needs to be questioned.

[Robert Mahon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Let's face it, Marx was more philosopher than economist. He spent a lifetime trying to justify a particular ideology/philosophy....based primarily on jealousy. He insists upon putting an intrinsic value of things (e.g., labor)....rather than the value which the market determines for them, based on their free marketable worth based on free exchange. In a fair and free market, labor is not "cheated". It is just like any other product, which is demanded and supplied. Keep in mind that much of what you see today is not true capitalism based on free choices and markets. It is something quite different.

[Meike]

English: Karl Marx's Capital
Those were the times, when we read the complete "Kapital" for the introductory seminar to Political Theory (and many other interesting books as well)...
Now re-read the chapter "Goods and Money" (hint: Commodity fetishism!) for a seminar on economy and literature.

[Iman Rouhipour · Rating 5 out of 5]

پایان سفری سه ماهه با مارکس در دل تاریخ تاریک سرمایه‌داری.
امیدوارم جلدهای دوم و سوم رو هم بخونم و بنویسم راجع بهش.

پ.ن : در خواندن سرمایه شک نکنید.

[BRANDON · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to know why Marx is considered to be a "Materialist" by some writers and thinkers, go no further. This is perhaps Marx most densely philosophical book. This is due to Marx breaking down (much like Adam Smith--even with the same language) the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism, how it works and what it does. It ultimately had to be finished by Marx sponsor Fred Engels (who was a Capitalist bastard) and you can't really tell the difference. Some think that Marx (who was basically journalist) could not have written this book. And Capitalists worship this book. Thank you Karl Marx for telling us how it all works.

For me (SPOILERS) the best part is this: reading about land, and matter and material and real estate and so on, then into the means of production, then into the next thing and the next, and then it comes: Suddenly you realize "OH, HUMAN BEINGS ARE THE RESOURCE AND COMMODITY BEING TALKED ABOUT!"

And from then on it's just scary. Especially Volume III where Engels, finishes up the work. This is definitely the book par excellence of Wall Street and is leather bound on a mahogany bookshelf in Gordon Gecko's office. This is no book on Communism. It's a beautiful song to Capitalism, how it came to be, piece by logical (almost scientific) piece. And for people who think people are just "resources" it's probably their Bible.

[Vik · Rating 5 out of 5]

A revolutionary engagement with means of production, surplus value, alienation of labor, and other capitalistic phenomena.

[Julian Worker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution.

A school of thought called Political Economy sought to understand the dynamics of capitalism and the division of labour along with crises in agriculture and the economies of countries.

The book was also stimulated by ideas generated by the French Revolution.

Marx drew on dialectical and materialist philosophy, combining them into dialectical materialism based on his own critique of the work of Hegel and Feuerbach.

Marx set out to write a book that would educate the working class about the capitalist system, but its influence was mainly because of secondhand interpretations of its core ideas. The first volume of the book did not sell well, largely because it was not disseminated amongst its target audience and because the academic world was hostile to his ideas. The low sales caused Marx to abandon work on completing the text, but he continued to study and write about economics for the rest of his life.

When Karl Marx died in 1883 the manuscripts for the second and third volumes were found. Friedrich Engels published Volume 2 in 1884 and it was a further ten years until Volume 3 was ready for publication.

Marx believed Capitalism would be short lived and that Socialism would follow. The book explores the social relationships within the system and explored these from the perspective of the working class.

There are a few terms coined by the book that need to be understood including Labour theory of value, law of value, law of the Tendential Fall in the Rate of Profit, and surplus value.

[Samichtime · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cool dude w/ a cool beard! 🤩
Engels on the other hand, wrote volumes 2 and 3, lesser in quality and much more boring! 🥱💤
Philosophy, history, economics. Similar to religious texts, there is both the introduction of the problem, followed by its solution.📚 The criticisms of colonialism, capitalism, industrialization, exploitation… equally relevant today, and it’s a disservice of my education to have not read this in economic studies, as the west seemingly understood this subject despite coming to a different side.
My great x4 grandfather grew up in the same town as Marx, donning an equally impressive beard. I don’t know if they crossed paths but it’s possible!

[Farzaneh Shafah · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب را با ترجمه ایرج اسکندری که ترجمه بدتری نسبت به نسخه نشر آگاه است خواندم. به همه قسمت هایش نرسیدم ولی در مجموع کمک بزرگی برایم بود... سرمايه نكارش دقيق و فني ماركس درباره مفاهيم كالا و مبادله و بازار و بول و كار و عناصر نظام سرمايه داري است كه از منطق خاص ماركس بيروي ميكند و در جارجوب نظام او معنا ميابد... خواندش را به كساني كه اندك اشتياقي به فهم اقتصاد دارند به شدت توصيه مي كنم...
«كالا به صورت طبيعي اش يعني انجنان كه طبيعتا و به خودي خود هست نه مبادله بذير است و نه معادل هر كالاي ديكر. تنها به عنوان ارزش مبادله اي است كه كالا ذات طبيعي خود را از دست مي دهد و با جيزي غير از خود مبادله مي شود.در ارزش مبادله اي بيوند اجتماعي بين اشخاص به رابطه اجتماعي بين اشيا تبديل مي شود و غناي شخصي هم به ثروت عيني»
از كتاب

[Samer Mansour]

رأس المال كتاب قيم جدا لكل من أراد أن يفهم حقيقة المقولة الماركسيةأن الرأسمالية تحفر قبرها بيديها!يبدأ بتحليل فلسفي عن السلعة التي تعتبر حجر الاساس في الراسمالية .. يحلل النقد وظهوره ووظيفته واختزاله للعمل المبذول في انتاج السلعة ..يتحدث عن السوق وآلياته ,, عن الامبريالية كمرحلة عليا من الرأسمالية

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Re-read this scientific masterpiece for my posterior university investigation.

I cannot believe how fresh it feels despite almost two centuries of difference.

Marx's magnum opus is full of insightful commentary, witty remarks and cultural signifiers that transcend the tides of time.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I should say that I did not read this unabridged, I kinda doubt that even Trotsky did.

[David Darson · Rating 1 out of 5]

The ineptness of a crazy, ranting madman is very apparent in this stupidity of propaganda publishing.

[Mark Ruiz · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wheres the queer rep?

[David Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

As many will note, Marxism in its most "Marxist" sense is basically an obsolete system. Das Kapital is very much a product of the nineteenth century, and a perceptive reader can easily find traces of modes of thought that are no longer of the moment. But socialism, more broadly, is very much a living thing, and it is just as readily apparent how important this critique of the corrosive effects of capitalism has been to socialism's development.

The edition I read presents the core of Marx's analysis and arguments while condensing it at the expense of sections the editor deems irrelevant to the present. Of course, what the "present" is to the editor is an important fact to consider: I can't seem to find the date of the introduction's original writing, but the events it references seem to place it in 1959 or 1960, which in terms of economic history is rapidly growing remote. In any event an abridgment is welcome, since the prose itself is quite difficult. Even so, with careful reading it is still very possible to follow the line of the argument.

Marx is known for a particular model of history, characterized as a series of eras defined by economic systems and characterized by the struggle between social classes. It is with this model that he not only explains how capitalism came to be (which, much as he clearly despises the system, is still in accordance with "natural laws" as he defines them), but also predicts how it will ultimately destroy itself. This model is, for me, one of Marxism's weakest points. Class struggle is a perfectly fine lens with which to view history, but it is not the only legitimate one, and predictions about the future based on a single ideological construct are hit or miss at best. With over a century between us, I think we can safely say things didn't turn out quite like Marx thought.

But after all that, I don't believe that capitalism has survived into the twenty first century because Marx was wrong about its true nature. If anything, Marx and his cohorts underestimated capitalism's ability and willingness to say and do anything to survive, making compromises and tactical retreats in order to retain a fundamental grip on society. One need only look at the financial crisis of 2008, the ongoing exploitation of poorer countries by corporations looking to score cheap labor, or the tremendous burdens of student loan debt or health care costs to see that capitalism remains fundamentally amoral and recklessly unconcerned with the welfare of society. And from where I'm standing, it's very hard to refute the moral implication of Marx's labor theory of value: that workers and not capitalists are entitled to the fruits of their work.

Das Kapital is a strenuous read and not entirely convincing on all points (particularly on the issue of history), but it puts the lie to capitalism, and in this century we need to hear that. Capitalism is not inevitable. It is not "human nature". It is an ideological justification for social inequality, and nothing more.

[Simon Berger · Rating 5 out of 5]

J’avais oublié de dire que j’ai fini ma deuxième lecture du Capital il y a quelques mois. Bien plus attentive que ma première (et plus complète, j’avais sauté plein de bouts), j’ai pu apprécier à quel point c’est un chef-d’œuvre de la théorie économique.

Le seul hic, c’est que c’est tellement un travail d’orfèvre, tellement minutieux et détaillé, qu’on en ressort finalement avec une quantité de sujets étudiés modérés — la valeur, l’argent, la manufacture et le machinisme, comment le contrat salarial devient exploitation systémique, les origines du capitalisme, essentiellement — et qu’il faut maintenant… lire les deux autres tomes!

[Daniele Palma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leggere "Il Capitale" oggi non è "anacronistico" nemmeno "parzialmente" come molte recenti pubblicazioni (anche tenendo presente che alcuni mesi fa ricorreva i 150 anni dalla nascita di Marx) vogliono evidenziare. Credo proprio l'opposto, questo testo è una genuina lettura dell'economia capitalistica fatta un secolo fa, senza distorsioni o preconcetti post "caduta del muro".
Leggere la ricerca di Marx, che non è mai estrema, non fa paura e nemmeno "mangia bambini", ci consente di apprezzare la professionalità, l'approfondimento della materia e lo studio quasi forsennato di un professore che dice la sua, analizza gli sviluppi economici del suo tempo e (credo di non esagerare) avendo dei lampi di genio nel prefigurare il futuro che quasi lasciano sconcertati per la precisione nel cogliere anche dettagli che erano solo allo stato embrionale ai suoi tempi.
La ricerca del significato del "valore" non è facile e si può prestare a facili e superficiali critiche. Marx affronta l'argomento con attenzione e meticolosità grazie ad un bagaglio culturale notevole che emerge in ogni riga del testo. Testo che aiuta molto a fare una fotografia del tempo passato leggendo però cose che esulano dalle solite "guerre" o campagne "napoleoniche" dei libri scolastici.
Ritengo ci voglia una base di studi economici abbastanza buona in particolare per muoversi con appena accennata dimestichezza lungo il secondo libro ma con un po' di tenacia si possono superare passaggi difficili. Ho trovato alcuni punti poco interessanti dove scrive in modo critico nei confronti dei suoi contemporanei (economisti) in quanto non conoscendoli si fa fatica a seguirne il discorso e la critica.
Il libro va letto tutto, non ci si può limitare al primo volume sebbene sia il più famoso. Oltrepassato lo scoglio del secondo volume il terzo risulta come il completamento di un ragionamento enorme.
Nel film di Paolo Villaggio "Fantozzi" si racconta che.... "e dopo tre mesi di letture maledette... Fantozzi vide la verità e si turbò leggermente o meglio si inc... come una bestia...."
non c'è da preoccuparsi... non andrete a tirare i sassi sulla vetrata della vostra fabbrica o ufficio... avrete avuto solo un ottima opportunità (un po' faticosa) di leggere un bel libro di storia economica vista con occhi diversi, critici ed attenti ma che vi daranno tanto. E' un bel librone, non c'è niente di sovversivo, è semplicemente un bel librone.

[Timo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don’t give up! I know the first time you read the book, the first hundred pages or so may seem difficult and maybe even boring, but it will be worth it!

Maybe read the book together with your friends, or talk with them after reading every few chapters, because talking about it will help you understand and appreciate the text enormously.

It could also help a lot to read some companion reading or listen to a companion podcast (there is, for example, the podcast Reading Capital from Noam Chomsky on Spotify and YouTube, or Capital by Karl Marx - A Moishe Postone Seminar on YouTube and on the Moishe Postone Legacy Project website) or to listen to/ to read some introductions in the work before starting with the book (if you speak German: There are good Marx introductions on the YouTube channel TheNokturnalTimes).

Do whatever helps you have fun while reading it, but don’t give up! As the reward, you will understand the most brilliant critique of capitalism that is ever written.

And even if you do not consider yourself a communist or not even a leftist, this is worth something, isn’t it?

[laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whatever your political stance it's impossible to deny the influence of Marx's works, this one in particular. It's a real wonder, how one persons ideology put into written word can shape the world even today. At the very least, you can appreciate it from that standpoint.

Truly though, the book is convincing and reading it with historical awareness can enable you to enlighten yourself further. It's a great read, and I look forward to reading his other works.

Christ, this review sounds pretentious.

[sologdin · Rating 3 out of 5]

bearded menace takes on entire capitalist-cosmetological world and appeared to be winning for a moment there.

[Carlston Floyd · Rating 1 out of 5]

A must read...but....God is this guy full of shit