Hello so I'm trying to read through Das Kapital Volume 3 and I'm quite confused (I know David Harvey did a guide/help for understanding Volume 1 but I couldn't find anything similar or any guide to understanding Volume 3 so I'm a bit confused)
In Chapter 8, page 116, Marx says the following:
We have thus demonstrated that different lines of industry have different rates of profit, which correspond to differences in the organic composition of their capitals and, within indicated limits, also to their different periods of turnover; given the same time of turnover, the law (as a general tendency) that profits are related to one another as the magnitudes of the capitals, and that, consequently, capitals of equal magnitude yield equal profits in equal periods, applies only to capitals of the same organic composition, even with the same rate of surplus-value. These statements hold good on the assumption which has been the basis of all our analyses so far, namely that the commodities are sold at their values. There is no doubt, on the other hand, that aside from unessential, incidental and mutually compensating distinctions, differences in the average rate of profit in the various branches of industry do not exist in reality, and could not exist without abolishing the entire system of capitalist production. It would seem, therefore, that here the theory of value is incompatible with the actual process, incompatible with the real phenomena of production, and that for this reason any attempt to understand these phenomena should be given up.
I'm a bit confused at the last portion, it's taking me a while to get through Das Kapital so please correct me if I'm wrong because i'm so confused. Marx seems to say that capitals of equal amount, but of dissimilar organic composition, should exhibit different profits. But that reality shows us that it is governed by the law that capitals of equal amount, without regarding differences in organic composition, yield equal profits. I'm a bit confused with the end portion of the quote, why is he saying "any attempt to understand these phenomena should be given up," is he saying that the LTV is wrong? Surely not? I'm a bit confused at how this doesn't yield a contradiction, any help appreciated
So a little bit of useful-labor, can make something of much greater use-value than how much effort went into it. Extracting water isn't so hard, but has unlimited utility.
I also don't really get the relationship between Realtive Value and Equivalent Value, and how that can make something go up and down in value.
As the title says, I am rather flummoxed by this notion. He conceptually agrees with Marx’s assessments from what he’s read so far about how generally speaking capitalism functions by and large.
However, he is unapologetically reading Marx for the expressed purpose of becoming a better investor into stocks, financial assets and stuff. Not really to read theory to then apply praxis to help the cause, so much as enrich his wallet.
He’s particularly interested in Kapital volume 3, in the section regarding fictitious capital.
It can be a religious book (such as the Bible or Al-Qur'an), a philosophy one (such as Plato's Republic), a historical book about History itself lol, a scientific or mathematical book with the discoveries of that time (like Principia Mathematica or the Origin of Species)
Just so I can make a list of impactful historical books in chronological order and separated by genre. So to understand history better and how these books affected history
Sidenote: it can be a contemporary book that shows what those books are, but I'd rather read them over someone's interpretation
Reading Das Kapital volume 3. I don't understand the relationship between prices of production and surplus-value. In volume 1 we see workers expend x hours of unpaid, surplus labor; that yields x surplus-value. I understand that much. But in volume 3, while competition is what equalizes an average rate of production prices (correct me if I'm wrong), what is it that specifies any particular price of production? A capitalist has a cost price of y and then on what basis adds z price of production instead of q price of production? Thanks
I wanted to read The communist manifesto, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and The state and revolution. I've heard that Das kapital not only is extremely long (I'll read it, but right now I am too busy) but it is way more technical and "less philosophical" than the three mentioned above.
Is it necessary, as in I can't comprehend the 3 above without reading it, or I can easily read those 3 and after, during the 2022 summer, take my time to read Das Kapital?
Particularly I am interested in understanding historical materialism.
Hello comrades,
I will be doing an independent study with a professor of mine. We are trying to come up with the curriculum and I thought i'd get some input from you all. I've read through a lot of volume one already and watched a majority of the Harvey lectures and read some of The Limits of Capital - also watched an overwhelming amount of the Richard Wolff videos. So, I consider myself fairly familiar with the basic Marxian apparatus. I have a professor who studied Marx especially close in graduate school and I've been working with him for two semesters to produce work that has largely a Marxian influence. He's basically giving me free reign over the material we'll cover on the curriculum. As of now I'm considering Volume One of Kapital (we haven't decided how far we should read), David Harvey's companion to volume one and Althusser's For Marx. Any suggestions? Other than Marx, I'm mostly interested in linguistics, semiotics, semantics, etc... A lot of my thinking concerning language is influenced by Wittgenstein. Any suggestions on Marxists who take a linguistic approach? However, I don't want you all to get the wrong idea - any suggestions are welcome and not limited to linguistic theorists of Marx.
So, if any of you had to design a class on Marx - what texts and or exercises would you include?
Add optional body text
It is
I refuse to elaborate further
I have spent a lot of time reading Marx, including quite some time on Capital, but suddenly this simple question comes to my mind and I don't know how to answer it intuitively, even though I can tell that it should be easy and I'm just missing something dumb for sure.
Let's say you have a fixed population of wage-laborers producing commodities. The total value of those commodities should be the "socially necessary labor time" embedded in those commodities. Of course, over time, innovation in machinery might increase the general productivity, so that an individual commodity has a lower value. The overall value would thus be spread over a larger number of such commodity units, or over different new commodities that didn't exist before.
Does it mean that the total value produced doesn't change at all over time, since the total labor time remains the same? Or am I missing some basic detail for some reason?
I know that one should read it all, but I currently have not the time because I have other exams coming. I am a philosophy undergraduate, currently studying for MA.
I know the basics (maybe even more) of marxism and Marx philosophy as I red some works. At the moment I am studying about marxism influence in italian philosophy, that can be found in the works of Labriola, Croce and Gentile and I thought Das Kapital could help me understand better some points.
Thank you in advance.
Hello so I'm trying to read through Das Kapital Volume 3 and I'm quite confused (I know David Harvey did a guide/help for understanding Volume 1 but I couldn't find anything similar or any guide to understanding Volume 3 so I'm a bit confused)
In Chapter 8, page 116, Marx says the following:
We have thus demonstrated that different lines of industry have different rates of profit, which correspond to differences in the organic composition of their capitals and, within indicated limits, also to their different periods of turnover; given the same time of turnover, the law (as a general tendency) that profits are related to one another as the magnitudes of the capitals, and that, consequently, capitals of equal magnitude yield equal profits in equal periods, applies only to capitals of the same organic composition, even with the same rate of surplus-value. These statements hold good on the assumption which has been the basis of all our analyses so far, namely that the commodities are sold at their values. There is no doubt, on the other hand, that aside from unessential, incidental and mutually compensating distinctions, differences in the average rate of profit in the various branches of industry do not exist in reality, and could not exist without abolishing the entire system of capitalist production. It would seem, therefore, that here the theory of value is incompatible with the actual process, incompatible with the real phenomena of production, and that for this reason any attempt to understand these phenomena should be given up.
I'm a bit confused at the last portion, it's taking me a while to get through Das Kapital so please correct me if I'm wrong because i'm so confused. Marx seems to say that capitals of equal amount, but of dissimilar organic composition, should exhibit different profits. But that reality shows us that it is governed by the law that capitals of equal amount, without regarding differences in organic composition, yield equal profits. I'm a bit confused with the end portion of the quote, why is he saying "any attempt to understand these phenomena should be given up," is he saying that the LTV is wrong? Surely not? I'm a bit confused at how this doesn't yield a contradiction, any help appreciated
