/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16199284]

Unironically is Das Kapital a good or interesting read if you’re interested in philosophy and study of political economy in general or is it an awful slog and/or meme

[Anonymous No.16199301]

It's predictions have been proven to be false various times in History, so...

[Anonymous No.16199320]

>>16199301
What does that have anything to do with OP?

[Anonymous No.16199339]

>>16199284
it's probably one of the more engaging works in that field, marx was a pretty good writer who knew how to structure his stuff well and keep it interesting. the beginning might seem like a slog but it will make sense later
>>16199301
examples?

[Anonymous No.16199342]

>>16199320
Everything in the book has proven to be false. So why should OP bother reading it? Is that clear enough for you bb?

[Anonymous No.16199351]

>>16199284
Memes didn't existed back then

[Anonymous No.16199354]

>>16199284
Just read it instead of asking

[Anonymous No.16199363]

>>16199342
The book is literally more relevant now than it was then. Stop being a pseud and at least check the wikipedia page

[Anonymous No.16199374]

>>16199284
It's not good philosophy. As an econ book, it's fine, although Ricardo is better if you want to hear the original arguments for Marx's economics, and there have been a significant number of books since which have argued neo-Ricardian economics in a more digestible way.
Basically, Marx's book is a slog which works more as a synthesis of a bunch of other schools of thought (classical economics, hegelianism, etc.) than as a good standalone book.

[Anonymous No.16199399]

>>16199284
I just finished making this list. Enjoy.

[Anonymous No.16199412]

Give Capital a try for a couple hours and see what you make of it. Contrary to memes, the great majority of people will be filtered by it and not be able to find their footing without help. It's not that it's deliberately impenetrable, it's that it's a work of political economy from 150 years ago.

If you want, try listening to the David Harvey lectures on Youtube. The same content is also in book form if you prefer. Harvey isn't a magisterial interpreter of Marx but he will get you through Capital and he has helped countless people do so.

However, if you are a complete newbie to reading Marx I strongly recommend that you read Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism instead, or at least read it first. There are three volumes but the first covers Marx and Engels. The first 90 or so pages are a slog because they explain the Platonist and Christian background of Hegel, who had a huge influence on Marx, but it's all downhill from there so just do your best.

Whether you're a Marxist or not, by the end of that book you will have a very good idea of what Marx was trying to do with Capital (and his earlier writings) and you will probably have a lot of respect for him and be fascinated by the project. After reading Kolakowski I was so excited by Marx that I decided to read through him chronologically and I'm not even a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.16199418]

>>16199399
>Starts with theses on Feuerbach, but not Feuerbach

[Anonymous No.16199431]

>>16199284
No need to be daunted by the length. It's a breezy read. Nowhere near as turgid as other economic doorstops.

[Anonymous No.16199438]

>>16199284
It´s a heavy dense tome, people often need auxillary material (e.g. Companion from D. Harvey) to even understand. Its not a fun, brainless reading. Even the literary references that Marx added to lighen up the read, will likely be obscure to modern reader.

Unless you are willing to spend large amount of time and effort, dont bother. If you do bother, you will end up with of political economy that is ignored by western academia and you will be able to dunk at any Marxist/anti-Marxist online with your superiour knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16199441]

>>16199342
filtered

[Anonymous No.16199482]

>>16199418
Not necessary, sure you could read Feuerbach to get a fuller understanding but the Theses on Feuerbach is literally just 3 pages. It was never published during Marx his lifetime and are just basic notes for The German Ideology which he was writting.
Here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.pdf

[Anonymous No.16200140]

>>16199354
Everything that is to know about Marx has already been said. I don't know why he should read the book.

[Anonymous No.16200159]

>>16199284
No, Marx was a dummy and his life's work is crap.

[Anonymous No.16200184]

>>16199301
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.16200230]

You'll see some people see it's quite engaging, and others say it is a slog to get through. I suppose it depends on what you think of Marx's writing.

I read the Fowkes translation (penguin edition) and more or less enjoyed it- Marx likes to dip into little moments of gothic imagery or humor that are fun, imo I have heard that the Moore translation is better from some people, but I cant speak to that.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the work is doing very different sorts of thing in different parts. You have the famous commodity value calculations early on that can get a little bogged down with math and calculations, you have the more metaphysical section on commodity fetishism, in the chapter on machines Marx relays accounts of steelworks and factories almost like a journalist, and the chapters on primitive accumulation read more like a history. All this is to say that you may not like one section of the book, but really enjoy another. I actually read several separate selections from around Capital before I decided to commit to the whole thing. You might find this approach useful.

[Anonymous No.16200260]

>>16200230
Oh- and the sheer scope of the work means that anyone who says it has been completely discounted is being dishonest or not really reckoning with the entire work. Even if, say, Marx's analysis of commodities is incomplete or wrong that doesn't mean some of the other passages don't contain useful analysis or research.

[Anonymous No.16200287]

>>16199284
Marx is a great writer- great philosophy aside, there’s a joke on basically every page. So even if you have political commitments to a rival economic system, he’s a good read. Any retard who tells you *not* to read Marx is just revealing their shallowness of intellect. Very quickly you’ll understand that the room temperature IQ take of “his predictions didn’t happen” make no sense in the context of Capital.

[Anonymous No.16200490]

>>16200140
? you're dumb

[Anonymous No.16200540]

Don't bother unless you wanna flex on the marxist larpers that haven't even read Marx, which are easily 95% of all you encounter, and I'm counting in that 5% the ones that had only read the first volume.

Marx is a VERY bad writer, he repeats himself constantly, has this shitty post-Kant literary style that nearly all germans in his period had and his works are plagued with moral shit that's not related to the "scientific" part of it (700 pages on how some kids need to walk 15 miles per day to work aren't really needed in an economics books about how capital works). It shares mainly the same problems of the Wealth of Nations and its 300 pages on how silver bullion changes prices/valour/whatever, the important theoretical stuff can be found elsewhere and you don't really want to know Marx opinion's on how the gold standard will remain and other stuff that nearly all marxists have abandoned now.

Also, materialism relies on circular reasoning and all post-Kant materialists are just fooling themselves.

[Anonymous No.16200581]

>>16200540
>you don't really want to know Marx opinion's on how the gold standard will remain and other stuff that nearly all marxists have abandoned now.
lol, I like Marx's writing but this has some truth to it

[Anonymous No.16200929]

Its a fucking snoozefest, I'd read it in bites and maybe watch a few lessons on it.

[Anonymous No.16200989]

>>16199284
Read On Contradiction by Mao first.

[Anonymous No.16201014]

>>16199301
What is it a crystal ball or something?

[Anonymous No.16201197]

>>16200540
>the "scientific" part
why the square quotes. which criteria of a scientific theory does Marx's theory of value fail to meet?

[Anonymous No.16201324]

I read this, I expected it to be pop trash but it actually explains the fundamental economic concepts of Marx in a clear way. It focuses more on economic ideas than political or philosophical ones.

[Anonymous No.16201825]

>>16199399
I appreciate the inclusion of Hilferding

[Anonymous No.16201833]

Marxism does not work.

Communism does not work.

Socialism does not work.

[Anonymous No.16201855]

>>16201014
Is this the new deflection or something? You people want my country do dismantle its economic structure to suit this faggot is it too much to ask for some accuracy?

[Anonymous No.16202377]

>>16199284
Would read if I have done an understanding of basic economics. I would treat it as an additional reading.

[Anonymous No.16202486]

>>16199301

[Anonymous No.16202608]

>>16199374
you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about lol. but you sure are trying to sound like you do. i'm curious how you think anything in capital draws from hegel.

[Anonymous No.16202614]

>>16200140
Read it or I will kill you

[Anonymous No.16202615]

>>16199399
>by NEET FEET
Faggot.

[Anonymous No.16202699]

today i will remind them

[Anonymous No.16202728]

>>16199284
Skip the first three chapters, of volume 1, read them after the last chapter of volume 1. They'll make more sense.

Capital is useful if you want to kill your foremen. It is a grounding text for Marxist political economy, though you could probably substitute some of the later exegeses if you just want to get on with it (ie: Mandel etc.). Volume 2 and 3 are normally considered a bit more sloggy. Volume 4 is rarely read except by experts.

[Anonymous No.16202742]

>>16202728
tryhard pseud
just read it

[Anonymous No.16202758]

>>16201855
yes its exploitative

[Anonymous No.16202778]

>>16201197
Its failure to work in the real world despite multiple attempts by various nations. who give up after a years because they can't afford to perpetually genocide their populations after they run out of minorities to scapegoat

[Anonymous No.16202779]

>>16199284
Some parts are a slog--just like any book--but if you're genuinely interested in those subjects you should find it interesting.

[Anonymous No.16202785]

>>16201833
the Zapatista seem to be doing well for themselves

[Anonymous No.16202800]

>>16202778
it's not a prescriptive theory. it doesn't get "tried."

[Anonymous No.16202805]

>>16202778
filtered

[Anonymous No.16202807]

>>16202800
>real communism has never been tried before
Wow usually you gotta goad it out of commies for a little bit before they drop this one, but you went straight for the last line of defense. Thanks for being concise.

[Anonymous No.16202809]

>>16199412
That neoplatonist part felt very forced I remember, like he really went out of his way to make some connection between Plotinus and Marx clear

[Anonymous No.16202822]

>>16202807
I didn't say real communism has never been tried before. I said Marx's theory of value isn't a prescriptive theory and thus doesn't get "tried"

[Anonymous No.16202824]

>>16202807
uberfiltered

[Anonymous No.16202836]

>>16199399
Manifesto is worthless tripe.
Anti-Duhring is idealist tripe.
II Rubin is beautiful.
>>16199412
>Kolakowski
Is slightly dishonest, fails in his accounts of non Leninist trends particularly leftcom stuff, and has no good material after 1950.
>>16201197
>square quotes
You meant scare quotes.

Try Feyerabend on what science is. I'm a marxist by the way.

[Anonymous No.16202919]

>>16201197
Didn't say it wasn't scientific although I don't consider it to be, was trying to highlight how you got the theory stuff which is the scientific/important stuff and then Marx starts to focus on how bad of a state are someone's hands.

Also, don't know why everyone gets triggered so hard by calling something non-scientific, in the XIX century "Germany" scientific meant systematic and surely not what it does now. Try to follow this anon's advice >>16202836 and read Feyerabend or even why Popper decided on his falsifiability method, unless you got some a priori notions (non-matter related basically) on what "science" is then it's free range for everyone so who really cares.

[Gustav Klimt No.16203111]

Listen

[Anonymous No.16203128]

>>16203111
I have two horror scenarios for you.

1) AI becomes a Meduka Meguka fan.
2) AI becomes *really into* philosophy of science, and not-popperianism, but Kuhn and Lakatos.

[Anonymous No.16203132]

>>16199301
Keep getting filtered, pseud.

[Anonymous No.16203396]

>>16201324
Great. Better than nothing. Now you are ready to read the real deal. And don't forget, there are 4 (3+1 (theories on surplus value)) volumes in Das Kapital.

[Anonymous No.16203401]

>>16201833
Capitalism...

[Anonymous No.16203429]

>>16203401
Don't reply to trolls.

[Anonymous No.16203432]

>>16202807
holy shit, what a retard. such a shame people like you exist

[Anonymous No.16203472]

Read an economic textbook on the basics of capitlism before you should read Marx. At least then, you can truly figure out yourself if it’s just economic drivel. It’s easy to be coerced into Marxist or capitalist ideal if you’re strictly biased with your reading source.

[Anonymous No.16203502]

>>16203472
>suggests marginalism
Stop leaking cum from your arsehole comrade.

Do you even know the basis of marginalism in the failure of bourgeois political economy and the failure of bourgeois utilitarian moral philosophy? No? So why choose the marginalist *assumption*. Economics is based on a field specifying assumption. This is an excellent basis to procede upon if your purpose is the murder of billions of lifetimes by forced wage slavery, but it is poor if your choice is to accurately represent the world, or moreover, to critique its basis.

Seriously cunt, drink your own fucking shit and die.

[Anonymous No.16203565]

>>16203502
Hey anon, are you ok?

[Anonymous No.16203588]

>>16203565
No, someone uncritically recommended marginalism as superior to the tradition of political economy without explaining the limitations of the marginalist assumption, so therefore, of course, I am not alright.

[Anonymous No.16203673]

>>16203588
Don't know, anon, but to me he just seemed to suggest that you shouldn't rely on a specific framework of thought that, as all others, asserts its primacy, just because it seems to be more or less in agreement with your current biases. That you should expand your horizons as people say.

Like, you know, the whole "start with the greeks" helps a lot with this, you can read about all the assumptions and thus frameworks that philosophers take for granted and then decide which are the most agreeable for you.

[Anonymous No.16203701]

>>16203673
"economics" isn't a neutral category, any more than shitposting suicidal boy molesting ex soldiers are. This isn't lick and suck down a glory hole mate. This is who kills whome. Dike isn't for sucking. Goodness is the category of whether they die before sucking your sweat.

Take your bourgeois liberal equivalencey fallacy and shove it where plato lionised socrates.

[Anonymous No.16203736]

>>16203701
Whatever anon, have a good day

[Anonymous No.16205019]

I'm currently reading and haven't finished yet, but personally, if you read it as continental philosophy (rather than political science or economics), it's an astonishing work of literature. Tremendous emotive force and really quite inspiring. Use a good reading guide to get through the first few chapters (establishes his theory of value and sets up the dialectical foundations from which the rest of the book follows) and then sail through the rest. It's best if you have an idea of Hegel and what he stood for (maybe start with the Routledge guide).

I don't really understand why people don't try to read it, other than because it's difficult or because of a knee-jerk dislike of the politics itself. There's so much being said here and it's got to be the most influential text in modern history.

[Anonymous No.16205507]

>>16203429
Usually, i don't, except for very low effort but still effective posts, which was the case for my post.

[Anonymous No.16205571]

>>16202608
Not the guy you replied to, but isn't the entire theory of the verelendung, which sprouts a revolution in turn and makes humanity better off a form of Hegel's view of history as a dialectical process?

However I do agree with you that that is probably one of the only things in the Capital inspired by Hegel, the rest of the book is mostly just Ricardian economics with a modified labor value theory.