Reddit mentions of A Companion to Marx's Capital

yes, but who built the machines? this is why marx says that capitalists fetishize technological innovation.

yes, the idea is that labor is the only commodity available in the market which produces surplus value. Value, in marx, is defined as 'socially necessary labor time.' one should never lose sight of this definition and confuse value with either the money form of capital or which capital sui generis.

also, let us look at the reason why machines do not produce (absolute) surplus value, but only relative surplus value. machines, again, are commodities and as such are available to the market (or at least portions of it). Let us assume a certain business invests in a $25,000 machine which will eliminate several jobs, saving the company $50,000 a year. wow, thats really great, now the company can be more competitive with their pricing or, at the very least, will have a greater surplus this year. but what happens when this company's competitors start investing in these similar machines, and start undercutting our hypothetical company's profit margin. well now we see that the surplus value that the machine created was really only relative to that singular company. over time, as the machine or technological solution (or new organizational structure, or new process, or new space....) becomes the norm of the industry, the surplus value diminishes and it becomes an assumed cost of doing business.

marx again is making a class or macro-economic argument here: he does not care too much about singular capitalists making larger profits (he does in the sense that they are useful for his data on capitalists society), he is concerned with how a class of persons is able to exploit another class. within the capitalist class, yes, some are able to gain a better competitive advantage over other capitalists by being the first to utilize the latest technological achievement; however, that advantage will either spread to the entire industry as a commonplace necessity, or the company will begin to monopolize the industry.

labor as a surplus value producing commodity is useful for the entire capital class over the working class. it is the law of economics in general that labor must produce and it is the only thing capable of turning raw (or semi-raw) materials into use values. it is the law of capitalism that to produce a profit one must hire workers at a salary less than the sum of your revenue.

i would suggest reading some david harvey. he is a contemporary and really does a fantastic job at explaining marxism for the 21st century. i suggest either a companion to marx's capital vol i or the enigma of capital. the former address your question specifically in chapter 6 'relative surplus value'.

let me know if any of this is unclear or if you would like to discuss further. cheers and happy new year comrade.

> I'd recommend getting a reader or companion version [like this](A Companion to Marx's Capital https://www.amazon.com/dp/1844673596/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_oBK9yb5GJRRTE).

Fuck that. How is this hack still being recommended? He says that there are three types of value. You only need to read the first fucking chapter of Capital to know that this is bullshit.

Harvey's book on Capital is pretty good as well. Having read both simultaneously, I kind of wish I'd just read Harvey on Marx instead of reading Marx himself.

There are a couple of good textbooks I am aware of:

The links to Gouverneur's textbook are here

You may also want to check out Wolff's own textbook authored with Stephen Resnick, entitled Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical. (If you want to have a look through it I'm pretty sure the pdf is on Scribd.com) Apparently he is a publishing an updated edition sometime this year, but I am yet to see any details of that happening.

Also, you've probably heard this many times before, but if you want to get into Marxian economics, I highly suggest you start out by purchasing a copy of Vol. 1 of Capital and going through it alongside David Harvey's lecture series which is also invaluable (everyone on /r/socialism probably knows Harvey but i'm not sure if they're all aware of his lectures). ALSO You would probably like to grab A Companion to Marx's Capital - It's probably the most recent and thorough introduction to capital you could ask for and goes great with the lectures if you want more detail.

While I'm on a role here, you would probably benefit from reading The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism, Harvey has a great interpretation of the "GFC" and goes through a great overview of how capital works.

Other than that I highly suggest you watch Kapitalism101's bibliography videos here. I've found his knowledge and extensive bibliography of recommendations of Marxian economics books extremely invaluable.

I read the whole volumes raw for the first time, then read them again with David Harvey's A Companion to Marx's Capital. Capital can be read easily by some people and harder by others, there's nothing really wrong with going on the internet/reading alternative guides if you can't understand the material.

No, but I think all politics junkies regardless of ideology should be very familiar with his arguments.

I'm honestly a little intimated when it comes to reading "Das Kapital" directly. I plan on reading these two books and follow the accompanying course by Prof. David Harvey.

A Companion to Marx's Capital Volume 1

> Based on his recent lectures, this current volume aims to bring this depth of learning to a broader audience, guiding first-time readers through a fascinating and deeply rewarding text. A Companion to Marx’s Capital offers fresh, original and sometimes critical interpretations of a book that changed the course of history and, as Harvey intimates, may do so again.

A Companion to Marx's Capital Volume 2

> Based on his recent lectures, and following the success of his companion to the first volume of Capital, Harvey turns his attention to Volume 2, aiming to bring his depth of learning to a broader audience, guiding first-time readers through a fascinating and hitherto neglected text. Whereas Volume 1 focuses on production, Volume 2 looks at how the circuits of capital, the buying and selling of goods, realize value.

> This is a must-read for everyone concerned to acquire a fuller understanding of Marx’s political economy.



The course:
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

There are a couple of 'strands' of Marx's thought which you might investigate. I can't comment too much on shorter introductions to the philosophical side, as I'm more familiar with (and interested in, for the moment) works the economic side. For this, I can recommend the following:

• A Short History of Socialist Economic Thought by Gerd Hardack, Dieter Karras, Ben Fine. It's all in the title :)
  
• David Harvey's excellent A Companion to Marx's Capital. This certainly isn't a short book, but Harvey is a terrific writer, and so the time flies. I would also point to and highly recommend the series of lectures on which this book is based. Of course, the lectures are hardly an exercise in brevity, but they are very good and worthwhile.
  
• Ernest Mandel's An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory is good. Read it online here. Any Mandel is very good. He is an incredible clear author, and he really knows Marxist thought inside out. For instance, I would also recommend Ernest Mandel's introduction to the Penguin edition of Capital (the introduction is a bit shorter than the whole book of Mandels that I've mentioned above) very nicely summarises the context of his economic thought, and gives an overview thereof.
  
• Yannis Varoufakis (the former finance minister of Greece) wrote a fantastic, more general introduction to economics and economic theory called Foundations of Economics: A beginner’s companion. While Varoufakis deals with economics as a whole, and discusses, for instance, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, this serves to very well position Marx within the economic milieu of his time. This is a recurring theme for a reason: to understand Marx, I believe that it's imperative to understand what drove Marx to ruthlessly critique capitalism.
  
• Finally, I'm not trying to be glib or conceited by suggesting The Marx-Engles Reader (2nd ed.), edited by Robert C. Tucker. This is the book that I used to start studying seriously the thought of Marx and Engels, after reading Singer's introduction. I recommend the book because it has (again) a wonderful introduction, the works that are presented are quite short, and each work has a solid introduction. This is a very good volume for seeing the trajectory and evolution of Marx and Engels's economic thought without having to dive into the larger works. The book even has a very heavily reduced version of Capital vol. I. This book also deals with the philosophy of Marx more heavily than the other works I've recommended here, as it contains a number of earlier philosophical works (including the Grundisse, which is practically the philosophical sister to Capital).
  
  I hope these will be useful, even if they aren't necessarily the aspect of Marx that you are most interested in.
  
  Edit: I should state that I am a philosopher of language, and so one doesn't need any especial economics expertise to dive into the texts that I've recommended! I certainly knew very little about the field before I read these texts.

Well there's this book http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Marxs-Capital-David-Harvey/dp/1844673596

You can also look up things that feature the TSSI and MELT.

This MMT guy talks about it http://heteconomist.com/category/economics/

You should listen to David Harvey while reading capital.

The Communist Manifesto can be found free on the internet,
and http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Marxs-Capital-David-Harvey/dp/1844673596/ref=tmm_pap_title_0 this is a fundamental companion to the Das Capital, which is one of the most scathing critiques labeled against Capitalism and how it functions. I have read it multiple times, once with Das Capital itself. It is very well written.

I would suggest purchasing
"A Companion to Marx's Capital" by Professor David Harvey,

You can buy it from Amazon used for 14$ or see if your library has it- it helped me understand the book so much better

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1844673596/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_KIV.Bb88JDNK6

Mehring is a publishing company for cheap that offers Marxist and other Socialist books. I'd recommend any book (or books) from their Socialist Starter Bundle or their Marxist Theory bundle.

Interesting non-Marx essays to read are George Orwell's The Lion and the Unicorn and Einstein's Why Socialism?

If you do dig into Capital (I whole heartedly recommend it, but it is heavy reading) I'd bring along David Harvey's A Companion to Marx's Capital to help explain some of the more abstract parts, it helped for me.

David Harvey's notes on capital are really helpful and provide references to relevant texts by Marx and other theorists for understanding Capital. When I last checked, Harvey's notes were available for Capital vols. 1 and 2. The lectures are available via podcast (I like listening while I'm on the move) or they can be viewed on YouTube. These are free lectures so can't do much better for understanding Capital apart from the lack of interaction.

A copy of the book based on the lectures is also helpful. And there are also various sources other than Amazon for this (and other books)...

Besides Harvey, I find Prof. Ha-Joon Chang to be a great source of introductions to "other" schools of thought. The recent Economics User's Guide is a decent place to start for basic economics, but Bad Samaritans is great for challenging the hegemony of neoliberal approaches to developmental economics. These are both available in audiobook form so the information can be received as if by lecture.

> There are indeed fundamental philosophical and ideological differences between the far left and the far right - my point is that they are both similar in that the radicals on both sides care less about individual freedom and more about using any means necessary to achieve their goals and subjugate others to their thoughts. The goals are radically different: the techniques are not, nor is the lack of interest in discussion or questions. That is where they lose me.

But it's just not true that the far left is disinterested in discussion. The dialectic is a fundamental component of leftist thought. Marx, Bakunin, Prodhon, and Stirner- sort of the 'fathers' of modern leftist thought- were all young Hegelians, for whom the dialectic was an integral component of rational thought. In fact, if you look up 'dialectic' on wikipedia, and go to the section on modern philosophy, you'll find no more than two subsections, one about the hegelian dialectic, and another about the Marxist dialectic.

> Do you really believe that the radical left is any less interested in systematically oppressing others than the far right?

Yes.

> People like the Tea Party, PeTA, and others are more than willing to do whatever it takes to get the results they want, and they're not interested in a dialog, nor in thinking that maybe someone else's point of view can be valid.

PeTA is neither left nor right. They're a single issue organization who's issue is orthogonal to economic and political structure. Also, speaking anecdotally, I have spent quite a bit of time in far left circles, and I have only ever met one PeTA supporter. Most everyone else is extremely critical of PeTA. In fact, I have been routinely criticized for not being critical enough of PeTA. Keep in mind that I am a meat-eating egoist. PeTA seems more popular among liberals and social democrats than among radicals.

Actual radical leftist groups include Radical Science, Radical Statistics, the Center for a Stateless Society, The Industrial Workers of the World, The Socialist Worker, The CNT-FAI, and The Recovered Factories Movement.

> Yep, but as I've said often, ideologues care more about imposing their beliefs on others, and I hope you recognize that there are those on the left that are just as unreasonable as those on the right.

Once again, I am not arguing that it is impossible for a radically left group/person or group/person which appears to be radically left to be disinterested in good faith discussion or to be fundamentally oppressive, but that these are intrinsic qualities of the far right, where they are not intrinsic qualities of the far left.

> And is it any less oppressive to be told that you have to give up a large percentage of what you've earned to give to others so that there is a false economic equality?

I don't think you understand what the far left is even interested in. We're not interested in high taxes or creating a welfare state. The far left wants to dismantle or compete with the existing political and economic structure because we view it as a distortion of markets/exchange which allows for an idle class to exploit a large percentage of the value generated by the working.

> is there reading on socialism you'd recommend? I'm fascinated by the examples you cite and I'd like to learn more. Probably won't change my mind, but I am curious.

To understand the theory which underlies leftist thought, you'd be best off reading Marx' Capital. However, keep in mind that this is a very academic, 3 volume, 1500 page, behemoth of a book, which you might find difficult to digest. If you do decide to read it, it might be beneficial to read David Harvey's companion to Capital along with it, or to watch his lecture series. If you're lazy (and I don't blame you) you might want to just watch the lectures.

You might also check out An Anarchist FAQ, for a much more readable, though shallow, explanation of leftist thought. And the film I posted earlier, The Take, is an interesting look into what an anarchist strategy and an anarchist society might look like.

> Of course not - that's a ridiculous argument. However, people like Mr. Chomsky, who seem to think this country is intrinsically evil bother me. Are there things here that are wrong - without a doubt. And this country is far from its ideals (and seems to be getting further away every day). But there needs to be recognition of the good as well as the bad, and there are many on both sides that refuse to do that. And that, quite honestly, annoys me.

I'm curious, then, if you're critical of e.g., Harriet Beecher Stowe for the the same reason. After all, she wrote critiques of slavery, but never really wrote anything which focused on praising the upside of slavery and world she lived in. She's never written a novel about the wonders of the transcontinental railroad, nor the telegraph, nor just how cheap cotton was at the time.

>I'm working my way through it this summer when finals end.

I know it will make it take much longer to read but I can't recommend enough that you watch Harvey's lectures and maybe even get a companion to read with it. It allows for a much fuller, richer understanding of not just Capital but Marx in general.

Εδώ και εδώ (βρίσκεται και σε epub/pdf στο δίκτιο), γιατί η γλώσσα είναι λίγο δύσκολη. Καλό διάβασμα!

A friend told me about this a while back and said it was very helpful, I've been meaning to get around to it https://www.amazon.com/dp/1844673596/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_IMf6yb5Y7QKAN

I happen to be reading Professor David Harvey's A Companion to Marx's Capital as I go along. Would that be enough to cement my understanding or would you really recommend me to go through it a second time?