I like 'The German Ideology'.
Reading Marx
Just dive into whatever interests you. If you want to seriously understand it, you'll have to read other works of his, and then go back to whatever you started with, and so on. That is true of any starting point with Marx. I used to try to figure out the best order to proceed but honestly I think it makes little difference. Don't start off with the Grundrisse though. You'll turn into a lunatic who reads way too much into it unless you're already familiar with Marx's other economic writings. That's my one suggestion. (And obviously don't read Vol. 2 of Capital before Vol. 1, and not Vol. 3 before Vol. 1, etc.)
http://libcom.org/library/value-price-and-profit-karl-marx
Incidentally, I just finished reading Karl Marx: A Life by Francis Wheen. Not to much of an analysis of Marx's work, but damn entertaining in terms of quirky Marx trivia. For example, did you know that Marx and Engles cemented their friendship with a TEN DAY drinking bout or that Marx's fourth son was named after Guy Fawkes? It also contains an actually record of a chess game Marx played (and lost).
Kris,
dive into Capital, vol. 1. You don't need prior knowledge of economics, nor do you need familiarity with Marx's other writings. If you need a supplementary text, the best thing I know of in English is Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value, but I would really recommend leaving that until after you've worked your way through volume one.
If you really feel like you need a short introductory text, then Freddy Perlman's Reproduction of Daily Life is a decent start, and I think might be available on this website.
The Communist Manifesto (especially the first bits) gives a very short introduction to Marx's general approach to history. The German Ideology is a more in depth attack on this question. Don't try the full version though unless you want in depth critiques of practically every single German philosopher of Marx's day. The "student" editions contain the most important stuff.
As far as economics is concerned, I'd generally agree with Mikus' comments. The only thing I'd say is that if Capital intimidates you start with some of his shorter pamphlets such as Wage Labour and Capital or Value, Price and Profit. Mikus most salient comment is this: "If you want to seriously understand it, you'll have to read other works of his, and then go back to whatever you started with, and so on." I've read most of the principle works several times and they get better every time.
I'd start with Capital Vol 1, if you don't have a problem with the first chapter just go on from there. Though as others have said, it helps to have a supplementary text and to understand a bit of why (and when) he wrote what he did. The first part of Shorthall's The Incomplete Marx is pretty good on that IMO. It is also in the library here on libcom.
Quote:
If you really feel like you need a short introductory text, then Freddy Perlman's Reproduction of Daily Life is a decent start, and I think might be available on this website.
http://libcom.org/library/fredy-perlman-the-reproduction-of-daily-life-treason-pamphlet
http://libcom.org/library/commodity-fetishism-fredy-perlman
http://libcom.org/library/fetish-speaks-marxperlman
The Communist Manifesto is "used" by leninists and opportunists to justify themselves... It's a "must read", but first take a loot at the 1872 preface ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1872 )
It's a 1848 text, so it's immature...and Engels recognize it in that preface.
Then read The Civil War in France, especially this chapter: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm
You'll notice that there's a huge difference between the later Marx and the "state marxists" as we've seen them in the 2nd/3rd international.
Marx is closer to anarchism, also if identitarians will never admit it.
Befor starting with the Capital, read this short Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm
A very important political work is the Critique of the Gotha Programme: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm
it's clarifying on many things... useful to critique the "left" and many "communist" parties.
The last text i suggest is Daniel Guerin on libcom: http://libcom.org/library/libertarian-marxism
First of all, I think you will not be able to understand Marx only by reading for yourself. You should discuss with other workers and comrades whatever you read. Through discussion, you would be able to understand in depth. Our experience(few workers) showed that the best way to read Marx is to start his work chronically. capital should be at the end of your list. But if you read other philosophical and political works, you can start with Capital.
Capital is not so difficult to understand especially if you are an industrial worker. It takes time and concentration.
And I have to disagree with those who say to start with his early works. (Although this depends on what they are referring to.) Don't start with something like the Economic Philosophical Manuscripts. Nor the notes on James Mill. Nor his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. You will be 100% lost. Maybe the German Ideology would be a good start, and that's a youthful work but after Marx had already dropped the philosophical lingo, and thus easier to understand. I don't think Capital is a bad idea at all, although you may have to just read quickly through the first few chapters as it will take you a few times to understand it well. A lot of people quit after the first 3 chapters (if they even make it that far), so if you are on the verge of quitting then just skip it and go back to it. It is important stuff but you can understand a lot of Capital without it.
And actually perhaps before Capital I'd say check out Wage-Labor and Capital, and Value, Price and Profit (sometimes called Wages, Price and Profit), which are both very good introductory texts to Marx's economic thought. But be warned that some of his ideas changed between both of those and Capital, so don't take either of those as Marx's final word on economics.
Mikus:
Quote:
Do you think you could beat him?
I couldn't say from just that one, short game. He clearly knew what he was doing, though. According to Wilhelm Liebknecht, Marx would "fly into a rage" when he lost a chess game, so even if I was capable of winning I might want to weigh my options. 
dave c wrote:
Mikus:Quote:
Do you think you could beat him?I couldn't say from just that one, short game. He clearly knew what he was doing, though. According to Wilhelm Liebknecht, Marx would "fly into a rage" when he lost a chess game, so even if I was capable of winning I might want to weigh my options.
From what I understand, Marx was a shit chess player. He lacked subtlety and long-term strategy, but according to those who played him, what he lacked in those departments he attempted to make up for in attack. Also, if he lost (at least in his younger days), he would stay up all night drinking and plotting how to beat his opponent and then challenge them to epic chess battles.
mikus wrote:
And I have to disagree with those who say to start with his early works. (Although this depends on what they are referring to.) Don't start with something like the Economic Philosophical Manuscripts. Nor the notes on James Mill. Nor his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. You will be 100% lost. Maybe the German Ideology would be a good start, and that's a youthful work but after Marx had already dropped the philosophical lingo, and thus easier to understand. I don't think Capital is a bad idea at all, although you may have to just read quickly through the first few chapters as it will take you a few times to understand it well. A lot of people quit after the first 3 chapters (if they even make it that far), so if you are on the verge of quitting then just skip it and go back to it. It is important stuff but you can understand a lot of Capital without it.And actually perhaps before Capital I'd say check out Wage-Labor and Capital, and Value, Price and Profit (sometimes called Wages, Price and Profit), which are both very good introductory texts to Marx's economic thought. But be warned that some of his ideas changed between both of those and Capital, so don't take either of those as Marx's final word on economics.
bollox that's exactly where you should start, if you don't start from the early work you won't see the development of his thoughts on alienation, reification and species being, call them philosophical lingo all you want but these ideas are assumed and run through Marx's later work.
The german Ideology is actually something I wouldn't start with because marx has a tendency towards a crude forces of production determinism in it. it's his early work that makes clear the object/subject dialectic that runs through all his work.
ncwob:
Quote:
From what I understand, Marx was a shit chess player. He lacked subtlety and long-term strategy, but according to those who played him, what he lacked in those departments he attempted to make up for in attack. Also, if he lost (at least in his younger days), he would stay up all night drinking and plotting how to beat his opponent and then challenge them to epic chess battles.
To be fair, there is good reason to believe he was a weak chess player based on Liebknecht's remembrances (Wheen 122-123). But I was thinking specifically of the recorded game, taking it as the most solid basis for evaluating Marx's abilities. What I ignored is the possibility that this game is falsely attributed to Marx. An International Master and chess journalist has brought this up:
Quote:
Wasn't it just too good for Marx? Liebknecht had written that Marx was an excellent draught player, but weak at chess. How then could Marx be so well versed in the theory of the Muzio Gambit? (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans46.txt)
Quote:
To be fair, there is good reason to believe he was a weak chess player based on Liebknecht's remembrances (Wheen 122-123). But I was thinking specifically of the recorded game, taking it as the most solid basis for evaluating Marx's abilities.
Just out of curiosity, are you just a really good chess player that can see a list of moves and envision the game in your head, or did you re-create the game at home? That would make you the ultimate Marx nerd.. I'd be impressed, never the less tho.
PS Kris, sorry we took over your Marx thread to discuss his chess playing abilities.
revol68 wrote:
mikus wrote:
And I have to disagree with those who say to start with his early works. (Although this depends on what they are referring to.) Don't start with something like the Economic Philosophical Manuscripts. Nor the notes on James Mill. Nor his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. You will be 100% lost. Maybe the German Ideology would be a good start, and that's a youthful work but after Marx had already dropped the philosophical lingo, and thus easier to understand. I don't think Capital is a bad idea at all, although you may have to just read quickly through the first few chapters as it will take you a few times to understand it well. A lot of people quit after the first 3 chapters (if they even make it that far), so if you are on the verge of quitting then just skip it and go back to it. It is important stuff but you can understand a lot of Capital without it.And actually perhaps before Capital I'd say check out Wage-Labor and Capital, and Value, Price and Profit (sometimes called Wages, Price and Profit), which are both very good introductory texts to Marx's economic thought. But be warned that some of his ideas changed between both of those and Capital, so don't take either of those as Marx's final word on economics.
bollox that's exactly where you should start, if you don't start from the early work you won't see the development of his thoughts on alienation, reification and species being, call them philosophical lingo all you want but these ideas are assumed and run through Marx's later work.
So what they run through his later work? They're there and perfectly clear and understandable in his later work. In his earlier work not so much. I'm not dismissing his earlier work but it won't be clear what Marx is trying to do until you read his later work. The fact that you have so many bizarre idealist readings of Marx is testament to the fact that people don't understand Capital worth a shit and read their own thing into Marx's early writings. Someone who has never read Marx before will be nothing but confused when reading his early writings.
revol wrote:
The german Ideology is actually something I wouldn't start with because marx has a tendency towards a crude forces of production determinism in it. it's his early work that makes clear the object/subject dialectic that runs through all his work.
I disagree with your reading of the GI but that is probably the common reading of it. I don't think early Marx makes much sense without knowledge of Feuerbach (moreso than Hegel even), so a casual reader of the GI will not know what Marx is on about in the first section.
Ahem my idealist reading of Marx?? 
Personally I've far more experiance of people who've only read his later stuff (or dismiss out of hand his early writings) advancing really crude objectivist readings. Like I said the whole subject/object dialectic, alienation and commodity fetishism are all detectable in his early work, sure commodity fetishism is Feurbach's man/god reversal in materialist garb.
Also I don't know how you could interpret large parts of The German Ideology in anything but a crude forces of production way, sure there are tensions and contradictions in it but overall it is pretty objectivist, right down to his understanding of ideology.
ncwob wrote:
Quote:
To be fair, there is good reason to believe he was a weak chess player based on Liebknecht's remembrances (Wheen 122-123). But I was thinking specifically of the recorded game, taking it as the most solid basis for evaluating Marx's abilities.Just out of curiosity, are you just a really good chess player that can see a list of moves and envision the game in your head, or did you re-create the game at home? That would make you the ultimate Marx nerd.. I'd be impressed, never the less tho.
I can vouch for the fact that Dave C is a very impressive chess player.
mikus wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Ahem my idealist reading of Marx??No, "you" as in "one." I.e. many idealist readings of Marx exist. I don't know what goes on in your fetal alcohol syndrome brain.
see mutha fuckas this is why us celts are right to pluralise you into youse.
p.s. i downloaded The Shooter on your recommendation and it's pretty shit.
I actually first came across the game here:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1278768&kpage=1
This website allows you to play through the game on your computer. So I was already familiar with it. I only read the Wheen book later. But no, I didn't analyze the game without looking at it.
revol68 wrote:
mikus wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Ahem my idealist reading of Marx??No, "you" as in "one." I.e. many idealist readings of Marx exist. I don't know what goes on in your fetal alcohol syndrome brain.
see mutha fuckas this is why us celts are right to pluralise you into youse.
p.s. i downloaded The Shooter on your recommendation and it's pretty shit.
We've already established that you suffer from FAS and I thus see no need to justify that movie to you.
dave c wrote:
I actually first came across the game here:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1278768&kpage=1This website allows you to play through the game on your computer. So I was already familiar with it. I only read the Wheen book later. But no, I didn't analyze the game without looking at it.
You can't read a game of chess? I'm disappointed in you. Hasn't Edward Lasker taught you anything?
hey,
I'm wondering if any of you have suggestions on which of Marx's works should I start reading from scratch and further continue.
Also, I have not been able to trace this answer: does reading, for example, Capital require knowledge of economic theory... or is it possible to get through with a philosophical/social theory background?
Thanks for the help.