UPDATED REVIEW: October 10, 2022 (four stars)
David Harvey's Companion to Marx's Capital, Volume 1 is in fact a really good companion to Marx's first volume of Capital. Its strengths lies in the way it divides the discussion of the text as well as the contextualization of the passages and the application of these passages to the contemporary world.
Harvey is not beyond disagreeing with Marx's analysis, and yet he often defends Marx, emphasizing two points. One of those points is that much of Marx's discussion of capitalism in the first volume relies on an idealized model of the production process, where everything else is running smoothly, namely capital circulation and realization. Marx frequently reminds readers of as much himself. Therefore, in passages where he seems "wrong," it must be remembered that all other things being equal, a smooth circulation process, smooth capital-realization, such-and-such would be the result.
Second, when Marx is off in predicting trends, Harvey wants to emphasize Marx's limitations given the time of the writing. Marx's text was produced when industrial capitalism was on the rise. Indeed, it looked as though industrialization through ever more refined machine technologies was going to become the predominant form of capitalism. In fact, it did.
And yet the fact can't be overlooked that in the 1970s, with the decline of manufacturing, with the drying up of several world markets, capital needed to find new means of circulation, which really meant injecting life into the old means, and this was mainly through finance capitalism, where compounded interest on debts and credits became the main source of growth.
If there is any shortcoming to Harvey's work, I would say that it is his tendency to belabor certain obvious points and give short shrift to more complicated concepts that really need clear explication. Also it would be nice if Harvey were to just give the summary of each chapter, give hints to wear he sees the error, and then return in a wrap-up with what he sees as right and wrong. Sometimes the chapters read as muddling or first-draftish, chapters which I wish would have been better revised and outlined on subsequent drafts.
These criticisms aside, you won't be sorry you read this text alongside Capital, Volume 1. But after you read it, you can probably dispense with it on the next go-round and just read Capital yourself. I think David Harvey would be very proud if he accomplished that result.
ORIGINAL REVIEW: August 4, 2016 (five stars)
Before digging into David Harvey's Companion to Marx's Capital, I wondered what insight Marx might have into the functioning of the economy. I was pleasantly surprised to discover, at least on Harvey's account, what a seminal and important work Marx's Capital is, up there with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. And in many respects, Marx's work complements Smith's work, Marx having read Smith extensively. According to Harvey, the basic idea behind Marx's Capital, Volume I is that capitalist economies, either left to their own devices or regulated, are subject to a host of instabilities that make crises more or less inevitable.
Before getting into that claim, it's helpful to know what a capitalist economy is. When you do, it is more understandable why the crises occur. Also, it becomes evident that what people tend to think a capitalist economy is is not what it is.
Perhaps naively, I had the view that a capitalist economy was an economy that used some surrogate form of value, in our time paper money and debit/credit cards, to allow the exchange of goods and services. But in fact, that's not enough to call an economy capitalist. A capitalist economy is more about a particular way in which this money to goods process is oriented.
So here it is. The goal of the capitalist economy is to grow the amount of the initial investment into some business or work into more money. You can think about it this way, by way of comparison to probably how you and I think of money. You, I, and other ordinary people have a product (our labor) and we're willing to trade this labor for money so that we can buy goods and services for survival or leisure. So the orientation of the money process for us is Product to Money to Product (our work converted to money by our employers in order to obtain other products). But a business owner's orientation and the orientation of an entire capitalist economy is different. The money process is oriented like this: Money to Product to (more) Money. For the ownership, workers' labor and the product that comes from the labor of the workers is just the means to an end to produce more money.
But here's the problem. A fundamental law of capitalist economies is that the initial money invested must always grow. So every year, or in most cases every quarter, there must be more money flowing through the business than there was previously. But in actuality, growth isn't infinite. For an owner, after the market is glutted with his or her product, when everything is at overcapacity, there have to be new creative ways to make money. And all of those are used all the time.
Here are some of those creative ways. One creative way to allow for artificial growth is to cut workers' salaries or to lay them off. You do that, you don't have to pay them, and then your company makes more money. Another is that if you're an owner of a business and you have to compete with others who produce similar products, then you reduce your prices of your products to have a competitive advantage. But at some point, you just can't get the prices any lower and make a profit. So you produce the product at lower than the price that you can make money at, and then you borrow from big banks huge sums of money to offset the loss in the weakening of your product until you find some new way to increase your profits again, innovate your product, produce other products, and so on.
Most of the large companies have in fact glutted the market with their products and are underselling their products and not making a profit. But they declare the amount of money borrowed as profit. This is all artificial growth. Eventually, there's distrust in the market and then the owner has to pay back the loans but can't. Then a financial collapse occurs. And if enough companies are all operating in this way, then there could be a national or international crisis. (Look for another one soon.)
This is Harvey's explanation of the relevance of Capital, Volume I. It shows that when a capitalist economy is running according to the basic law of growing money, since it can't actually grow indefinitely, it creates artificial means to do so. Then when the economy collapses, we all suffer. And in our own time, our governments subsidize the failure of these major companies and we have to pay for that failure in taxes. Strange setup.