What Was The Purpose(s) Of Marx's Capital?

If somebody is going to be "against capitalism", they should try to have an idea of what capitalism is.

Most leftists, even most self-proclaimed "anarchists" and "communists", have a very poor understanding what capitalism even is. The term is just thrown around a lot as an expression of moral outrage, rather like "oppression" or "privilege".

So you have to read a dusty old book before you can join team anarchy? I wonder how that's working out.

Marx's ambitions in writing capital: to make money off book sales

You don't "have" to do anything.

Just don't expect to be taken too seriously by non-political people if you can't even explain to them what it is you claim to be against.

All of the above and then some. To me Marx is someone who took certain ideas in philosophy at his time (coming from philosophy himself) and plunged them into the actual everyday life to see what ideas were most relevant, most recognizable, which infers that its the actual material/social conditions and relations that give philosophy any meaning at all. CAPITAL is his best attempt to describe the world we actually live in to produce a different kind of understanding which is directly in conflict to what bourgeois ideas tell us. This understanding is literally a means of re-educating oneself of their surroundings socially and personally, showing you step-by-step that the money system, which pretends to be an exchange of equals, has a thing in it called labor, which is what we're paid to do, which cannot be a fair exchange. There is a flaw in the system about evaluating what is socially necessary work for the society to work - it can't evaluate it properly and it will always lead to crises, wars, starvation, etc., and also an attack on the personal relations between human beings in the forms of alienation, exploitation, disenfranchisement, etc, because:

I think anyone who's worked for a living has some basic understanding of capitalism. The benefit of theory (and Capital in particular) is that it articulates the functioning of that system and provide the terminology to discuss it in a concise yet encompassing way.

But I don't think we spur our co-workers to action (keeping in mind the relationship between action and conciousness) by being able to deeply explain what we're against or what we'd like to achieve in the future. That sounds like doing politics and that's not what most workers immediately respond to.

Rather, we can quite easily speak to the experiences of workmates by relating problems at work (or with their landlord or benefits office). I mean, you don't have to know the word alienation to know that work sucks. Nor does one need to understand Marx's labor theory of value to understand that the boss makes money off our backs.

I sort of worked out for myself (from somewhere i was working) a lot of what Marx was trying to communicate about machines before i read them, so i think a lot of it is quite intuitive its just its written in intellectual german with hegelian words that most languages don't even have equivalents for.

That said, its got the commodity fetishism passages, which is some of the most brilliant political theory ever written, along with marx's earlier theories of species-essence alienation.

For me at least the above two theories are far more compelling core arguments about capitalism, than talking about the bourgeoisie, as i feel a lot of people i come into contact with wouldn't take the idea of the 'ruling class' seriously, and I generally feel uncomfortable with it if treated immaturely as it can quickly reach the level of an ersatz anti-semitism.

i say this whilst still agreeing with the need for material class struggle and that ultimately it is the only social force that can abolish capitalism, i just don't particularly think it always works as an ideology in certain conditions. (ie. the ideology might hold in really socialised factory complex type environments, but not in atomised service sector industries).

Anyway, this post is a bit of a derail, but still interesting i hope

Do you really think this? Maybe you should explicate what you mean by "basic understanding", because I've been in plenty of workplaces where capitalism -- and I don't just mean the term, I mean the system of relations itself -- is not a concept for most people.

Also, since you're from the UK, for all I know the traditional existence of something like a "working class culture" or consciousness that coincides with what sociologists would consider the "working class" might contribute to an "us vs. them" mentality that in some sense functions as a sort of undeveloped anti-capitalism, but in the United States, where the legacy as a colonial-settler state has led most workers (white and "of color") to regard themselves as independent small proprietors, nothing like that really exists. At best, it existed in pockets of traditional "blue collar" communities in the vanishing rust-belt. It's probably why ideologies like free-market libertarianism have such a strong pull. The apocryphal quote form John Steinbeck about most Americans regarding themselves as temporarily aggrieved millionaires definitely has some truth content.

Germany is another ideological kettle of fish from both the UK and USA, but I've also never encountered anything like an intuitive understanding of capitalism, not even a crude or regressive anti-capitalism, in most workplaces I've worked at. The few instances of it were from other people who consciously considered themselves leftists of one kind or another.

For the record, just to be clear, I don't think revolutions are made by people who read Capital. In the grand scheme of things, I think reading Capital is probably inconsequential for the long-term prospects of any revolution anywhere.

However, I think self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" or "communists" or "anarchists" should feel a sense of responsibility for being able to explain what exactly it is they oppose. Otherwise, how do you know you oppose it?

I reckon he wrote it to impress the ladies.

For me its because so much stuff out there in the humanities and social sciences seems to assume a basic understanding of the concepts articulated in capital. So for me, reading capital serves as a good foundation to understanding the terms of debates that circulates.

I've learned tons about the basic problems of capitalism in various jobs ive worked in, but i definately think reading capital has made me be able to articulate the problems better via the thorough analysis it provides.

It's hardly rocket science, is it? I could understand what you're saying if this was 1910 and revolutionaries still had owt to do with the wider working class, but they don't, and spontaneous disaffection isn't going to cancelled because no one knows what use value is about. Like Chilli and Harrison, I understood Marxian concepts while at work/out of it clearer than from any passages of text and loads of people I've met at work have gotten what's going on.

Spontaneous disaffection isn't an understanding of capitalism. Neo-Nazis are spontaneously disaffected too, but the answers they give to that spontaneous disaffection are rather horrible.

If that's really the case, if you really spontaneously understood Marxian concepts just from working, then I tip my hat to you, because you are a very sharp person. I don't even think I even conceived of those concepts before encountering them in Marx's work. I might have felt a vague "spontaneous disaffection", and an outrage at the various injustices in society, but it's not until actually reading Marx that I encountered a precise explanation of what the system is, and how it functions.

I think he wrote Capital with the creation of a new tier of petit-bourgeois well paid intellectuals in mind

Intellectual-baiting from a guy who lists Deleuze, Stuart Hall, Bourdieu, and Foucault as his favorite thinkers! Now I've seen everything! :-0

Don't forget Marx. Marx is on there . Alas, that was troll bait. Sorry about that.

Right you are, because I was meaning THE REVOLUTION will more likely be a spontaneous disaffection than the traditional build up Marx would have thought of.

And what D said. I realised something was up when I had to turn up on time to a job I hated, put through the till more than I made all day in one go and had my boss knocking on the door of the toilet.

If it was just a case of people understanding capitalism, that'd suggest you could argue your way towards communism.

What Angelus said.

Or as Marx put it:

The work I am presently concerned with is a Critique of Economic Categories or, if you like, a critical exposé of the system of the bourgeois economy. It is at once an exposé and, by the same token, a critique of the system.

Marx did expect/hope that his critique would be read by workers though:

"I applaud your idea of publishing the translation of “Das Kapital” as a serial. In this form the book will be more accessible to the working class, a consideration which to me outweighs everything else."

For the record, I am American.

Anyway and speaking very broadly, workers' understanding of capitalism is incredibly contradictory and uneven. There is often a huge gap between what workers say and how they act at/feel about work (and this applies not only outside of periods of struggle, but during upsurges as well).

But fundamentally everyone has problems at work and I don't give a shit whether you vote Republican or want to start your own business one day, on some level anyone who has a grievance at work understands it's because of the bottom line. They may not understand it systematically or may think it's a problem with a particular manager or company but the kernal of that understanding is always there.

In any case, I don't think we develop co-workers' 'insights' by presenting this amazing critique of capitalism. Rather, through struggle and a long, developing series of conversations and experiences we can help our co-workers to see things in a more comprehensive and systematic way.

What 44 and George Stapleton and some of what Angus said. Actually, I think to overthrow capitalism and emancipate the labor process, you really do need to read Capital, and the Economic Manuscripts.

Let's recall, Marx wrote Capital because nobody had yet written a systematic critique of capital which showed that the elements that made capital capital, its "determinate being," were in fact the elements of its negation.

Let's also recall that Marx wrote it to systematize how the elements of negation would propel not just the downfall of capital, but a social revolution-- the emancipation of labor.

Let's recall, he wrote it for the same reason anyone writes anything, because she or he wants to, needs to, has something to say.

Let's recall finally, why anybody would ever climb Mt. Everest-- because it's there.

If that's the case then revolution is a serious long shot. Capital is and would be a very difficult read for most people. I've tried to read it and in all honestly fail to understand most of it, it's filled with complex language and IMO complex theories.

I've still managed to realize capitalism is shit though as have loads of others.

Quite frankly I personally don't even think all of Marx's ideas (at least the ones I think I get) need even to be true for a revolutionary class struggle perspective to be a valid one. Sometimes talk of Marx/marxism amongst communists just comes across as religious like worship and really dogmatic

I agree with those who described first coming to communist type revelations in the workplace. I certainly didn't enter the workforce a Marxist or a communist; but my poor understanding of both Marx and communism in general lead me to do a lot more reading. On a personal level, Capital or any other work by Marx or other communists, is empowering on the individual level. Understanding how capitalism works (and becoming interested in its abolition) gives you some element of power over a part of your life that is otherwise out of your control. Work is alienating; it's separated from our personal lives, it's separated from who we think we are. The best comparison for it is sort of like people who have hypochondriac tendencies. By having a laymen but thorough understanding of medicine makes illness less intimidating or frightening. It's a matter of excercizing control via understanding over something you don't have real power over.

I dunno, that's my take on it.

Well, I don't think reading Capital in itself is an important activity (except to the few people who enjoy reading and re-reading that kind of stuff). What I think is important for communists is to have a really good understanding of capitalism and of the kinds of ideas that are used to defend it (even by workers). Now, I don't think Marx had some magical ability to explain these things in a perfect way that would make Capital indispensable forever. It's just that I haven't come across a text that would provide a more complete basis for such an understanding. Which kind of sucks, because not only it's not an easy read given its age and style (very unattractive to a lot of interested people, too), it's also incomplete, really convoluted at many places, and also because, as far as ideology is concerned, it does not provide that many arguments against the ideas that are used to justify capitalism today. What I've recently learned to enjoy is to try to think of new ways of presenting Marx's arguments in more modern terms. Maybe I'm too keen on the propaganda/education thing, but I really think we need to think of new, attractive ways of spreading our ideas.

That's the ticket, I bet no one would argue that it's possible to overthrow capitalism without making arguments against it and I don't know how you can make an argument against capital being a historically specific, defined, moment rather than the "natural condition" of human beings without reading Marx.

So yeah, Marx wrote it for just that reason-- to identify capitalism as a historically specific and limited organization of society. And to make his arguments in more modern terms, we have to know exactly what his arguments are, and if they are/were correct.

Might be of help to know which ones don't you thing need to be "valid." As for the religious dogma bit.. I'm sure there's tons of that among Marxists. There doesn't happen to be a single ounce of religious dogma, however, in Capital

Labour theory of value, dialectics and the inevitable end of capitalism come to mind (although I find Marx difficult so my understanding of these may well be wrong)

Its a bit of a difficult one where the question of religiosity comes into play when it comes to marx. When looking at other religions there are plenty of dogmas within a set of ideas that we would describe under the heading religious that do not necessarilly have to be religious in and of themselves. Take for instance, karma - there are plenty of people who believe in that, but do not hold other beliefs with it that would create an overarching framework that purports to have the power to answer every question under the sun and in that case imo would reek of religiousity.

I think its when a set of ideas that cohere ala the coherance theory of truth, are applied to everything in existence and give definitive answers to questions of purpose then i think religiousness come into play. When applied to Marx,I think when Marxes ideas start to be applied into other areas that are not in the domain of political economy, like for instance the natural world (and i am not referring to humans relationship with it) then i think Marxism for the people that make that application begin to approach religiousity.

Anyway sorry for the derail there.

In Capital, Marx explains the relation between the way things appear on the surface of economic life and what they really are. “All science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided.” In practice, if everything is perceived in the wrong way, it is also dealt with in the wrong way.

For example: Wages – money paid for work – appears to be the price of labor, but disguises the real relationship.

Workers may know they are exploited, but they think of exploitation as: we are paid too little and suffer bad working conditions. If someone tells workers they are exploited, they say: of course, that's why we need a union; to make it fair. They don't see the real exploitation between capital and labor. That’s why it’s pointless to say to workers: you have to exert more pressure. They already do this. Their mistake is that they conceive the relation between labor and capital as a fight over distribution. They also don’t need to be told that they are extorted by the company – they will answer, if so, we will use our power too. And it’s useless to say: there's an antagonism between capital and labor. They will say: of course, that's why we have to fight for better terms.

Marx explains that the surface form of the wage conceals that the workers’ source of income is not theirs. A worker says: Work is how I make my living. Marx would say: its not true that work is your means. What you need – the means to work – you don't have: it is owned by somebody else. The ownership of the means of production separates you from the proceeds of production. Whenever work is paid for, the proceeds of work go to the one who pays. The proceeds of work are not wages, but a product that is not yours. The truth is that wage payments are a means to deprive you of the result of your work. You are paid to be at the disposal of somebody else. If the wage is what you get for your work, then its not the result of your work – the result of your work is always a product and not a payment. The truth is that wages are paid only in order to separate you from the product. Work is only a source of income for capital, not for you.

Unions see the relation between wages and the work effort as a question of the balance of power between capital and unions. In reality, the economic relation is one between property and those without property. This is what puts the capitalists in the better position, gives them so much power. This is power in the sense of a principle and not something that is fought over.

In other words, the relation between capital and labor is not a reciprocal relation. One party (the workers) is only the means of the other party; it is degraded to the tool of the other party; it is paid only and unless the other party (the capitalists) is ensured of its profit. When workers regard their usefulness to the other party as their means, that’s a trap – one Marx wanted workers to avoid.

Clearly then you reject, pretty much in its entirety, Marx's critique of capital. No labor theory of value? No surplus value. No dialectic? No existence of capital and wage-labor in the organization of each other-- no identity in opposition, no existence of capital as a social organization of labor.

Fair enough. Don't know where that leaves you regarding the limits to capital, and the basis for its overthrow.

I may be inviting some deep-felt disagreement here, but my own conviction is that Capital is not Marx's best work. To be sure, it sets out a brilliant and penetrating analysis of the entire economic 'base' on which capitalism rests, its internal contradictions, etc. Even Bakunin was so impressed by it that he translated it into Russian.

Nevertheless, I have two basic reservations about the work as a whole: (1) its narrow focus on production, labour, value etc. as the motivating power of capitalist social relations and social structures; and (2) the dubious anthropology on which many of its conclusions rest (I'm referring particularly to the distinction between a "realm of necessity" and "realm of freedom" in vol. 3).

Regarding (1), Capital follows the basic framework of the base/superstructure theory formulated in The German Ideology, i.e., that the social and cultural structure of a given society is entirely determined by the economic 'base' on which it rests. This is true enough in many contexts; just look, e.g., at the history of Athens, especially around the time of Solon's reforms.

Moreover, I think it would be foolish to deny the fact that so much of contemporary life is structured around social forms and rationalities that have their inherent meaning in the reduction of life to the universal exchange relation.

On the other hand, the theory is economically reductionist and actually undialectical. It ignores other important developments in civil society, for example cultural traditions, military castes, the distribution of political power, geography, etc., and the complementarity between such developments and the economic framework of a society. To give but one example, the cultural tradition of the paterfamilias in Ancient Rome prefigured a very definite type of economic relation, and a very definite type of relation between man and woman (as Engels well understood). Thus to examine narrowly the historical development of labour, the labour theory of value, etc., is to look at merely one moment or side of the dialectic, and to ignore its other dimensions.

In Marx's defense, however, he did intend to write volumes on the State and society. A pity that he died before he could begin them, as I think that at least potentially they could have helped to broaden the very narrow focus of his Capital.

What I'm trying to say, in summary, is that the exploitation of the working class is but one moment in the overall dialectic of social development. Clearly, hierarchy, the effects of hierarchy on culture, social relations, gender relations, etc.... are all important developments which are largely excluded in a purely economistic analysis.

Regarding (2), Marx and even Engels founded their theory on a very crude idea that human beings constituted domination and hierarchy through "wrestling" with a recalcitrant nature; that because nature was at first a realm of "scarcity" ("necessity" in Marx's language--vol. 3), dehumanisation, factory discipline, etc. was historically "necessary" in order to produce a realm of "freedom." This fatalistic portrait tends to legitimate the principles of centralised authority and hierarchy when it comes to work and dubiously equate them with "freedom," in a manner similar to Hegel's attempted justifications in the Philosophy of History for the suffering and barbarism in history, given that, e.g., God had ordained it, it was a necessary "precondition" of freedom, etc. Actually, if you read an essay by Engels called "On Authority," this is even more explicit and, in my view, actually quite reprehensible. I have not the time nor space to go into further depth about this here, but I think it does raise a number of important problems. Not least among these problems is the assumption that capitalism was somehow "necessary" in the dialectic of human development, rather than a distorted and false caricature of human reason and freedom which is, quite possibly now, leading us as a species right over the cliff of an ecological collapse. This is linked to Marx's inherent fatalism re. the "inevitability" of capitalism emerging out of feudalism, etc...which to me is just based on an uncritical Hegelian metaphysics. The reality is that there were many anarchistic and socialistic movements even under Feudalism, and because of their failures--and the failure of the more radical tendencies of the French Revolution--we have had to endure all of the horrors and barbarities of capitalism. This is by no means "productive" or "necessary" but actually deeply tragic.

In short: material developments and the contradictions of history were such that the world didn't necessarily "need" capitalism. It was just as much circumstance and contingency in history (just look at e.g. the Russian Revolution) that have allowed capitalism to endure.

So, as I said at the beginning, I don't actually think Capital is Marx's greatest work. It is, to be sure, a brilliant text within its narrow scope and discipline, i.e., as a critique of bourgeois political economy, but it is nothing more than that. I think that the 1844 manuscripts actually present a much more radical and sweeping critique of capitalist social relations given how they alter, e.g., human psychology, consciousness, nature, culture, etc.

If someone unacquainted with theory expressed an interest in Marx, I would probably at first direct them to the 1844 manuscripts, and also to Engels' Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy and the latter's work on the conditions of the working class in England. These three are excellent introductory texts and are not encumbered by the monotonous passages and length that are encountered in Capital. And as far as a criticism of capitalism on ethical grounds is concerned, they are indispensable.

In passing, I think that Kropotkin's Mutual Aid and Bookchin's Ecology of Freedom are equally necessary reading, and offer some important counterbalancing to Marx's dubious anthropological assumptions, reductionism, etc.

Marx's theory was groundbreaking, and still remains so today. And every theorist to some degree simplifies and reduces the complexity of historical development so as to make explanation and understanding possible. Still, this does not necessarily justify many of the problems with Marx's theory.