Hop in, comrades, we are reading Capital Volumes I-III this year, and we will every year until Communism is achieved. (Volume IV, often published under the title Theories of Surplus Value, will not be included, but comrades are welcome to set up other bookclubs.) This works out to about 6½ pages a day for a year, 46 pages a week.

I'll post the readings at the start of each week and @mention anybody interested. Let me know if you want to be added or removed.

Congratulations to those who've made it this far! We are almost finished the first three chapters, which are said to be the hardest. If you made it through with us now, it's extremely likely that you'll stick the rest out. Let's keep it up! Proud of y'all!

Week 3, Jan 15-21, we are reading Volume 1, Chapter 3 Section 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5.

Discuss the week's reading in the comments.

Use any translation/edition you like. Marxists.org has the Moore and Aveling translation in various file formats including epub and PDF: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Ben Fowkes translation, PDF: https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=AA342398FDEC44DFA0E732357783FD48

(Unsure about the quality of the Reitter translation, I'd love to see some input on it as it's the newest one)

AernaLingus says: I noticed that the linked copy of the Fowkes translation doesn't have bookmarks, so I took the liberty of adding them myself. You can either download my version with the bookmarks added or if you're a bit paranoid (can't blame ya) and don't mind some light command line work you can use the same simple script that I did with my formatted plaintext bookmarks to take the PDF from libgen and add the bookmarks yourself. Also, please let me know if you spot any errors with the bookmarks so I can fix them!


Resources

(These are not expected reading, these are here to help you if you so choose)


2024 Archived Discussions

If you want to dig back into older discussions, this is an excellent way to do so.

Archives: Week 1 – Week 2 – Week 3 – Week 4 – Week 5 – Week 6 – Week 7 – Week 8 – Week 9 – Week 10 – Week 11 – Week 12 – Week 13 – Week 14 – Week 15 – Week 16 – Week 17 – Week 18 – Week 19 – Week 20 – Week 21 – Week 22 – Week 23 – Week 24 – Week 25 – Week 26 – Week 27 – Week 28 – Week 29 – Week 30 – Week 31 – Week 32 – Week 33 – Week 34 – Week 35 – Week 36 – Week 37 – Week 38 – Week 39 – Week 40 – Week 41 – Week 42 – Week 43 – Week 44 – Week 45 – Week 46 – Week 47 – Week 48 – Week 49 – Week 50 – Week 51 – Week 52


2025 Archived Discussions

Just joining us? You can use the archives below to help you reading up to where the group is. There is another reading group on a different schedule at https://lemmygrad.ml/c/genzhou (federated at !genzhou@lemmygrad.ml ) (Note: Seems to be on hiatus for now) which may fit your schedule better. The idea is for the bookclub to repeat annually, so there's always next year.

Week 1 – Week 2

all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    As I read the first part of this chapter (about gold and formation of money) I was thinking in my head about how fiat currency is basically not different than debased gold. The later part of the chapter talked about how money becomes a credit system (which leads to potential boom and bust systems). Anyway, I'm feeling that after reading capital, you can probably just toss Modern Monetary theory into the garbage (I noticed others said similar things reading chapter 2).

    I found the idea that things that don't have "value" (because they're not produced by labour -- like titles, or land) can acquire prices to be very intriguing (and unexpected). The history of "money names" (e.g. pound sterling [silver]) becoming totally divorced from their modern quantities due to debasement.

    I had to reread what he said about money serving too roles -- measure of price and standard of value. Read that over half a dozen times, but it makes sense to me now. I paid attention when Marx said that the "use-value" of gold (as money) becomes equal to it's exchange value (gold can of course, be used for other things, but one thing it is used for, is exchange). This is a dialectical unity.

    Just a whole lot in this chapter that was interesting. For example, that the quantity of gold in circulation would be tied to the speed of transactions and the amount of commodities


    and not the reverse (e.g. gold being added won't increase the amount of commodities nor speed up transactions).

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Great points. I can't wait to see how the argumentation of land and other things with no labor value becomes capital or tools of capital accumulation.

    I also found the points he makes about temporality, speed and time very interesting, because to my understanding one of the common critiques of Marx (and later Lenin) is a supposed lack of attention to temporality. It's however very clearly built into the analysis from early on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    you can probably just toss Modern Monetary theory into the garbage

    I don't know much about MMT, but I would pump the brakes a little bit. I don't think chapter 3 of Capital says everything there is to say about money as it exists today. Marx does a good job showing the essence of money and how money is indispensable within capitalist society. Yet this analysis doesn't constrain money from developing into an ever more complex and obfuscating form, partly detaching from value and taking on a life of its own. Capitalism did not emerge from thin air but out of older forms of society. The money form which we see today has a sort of genetic heritage which can be traced back precisely to precapitalist forms of money. Modern money is a bastardized form of primitive money which capitalism has reappropriated for its own purposes.

    Money could, through the course of historical development, acquire new functions which adhere themselves, like parasites, to the relatively simple form of money laid out in Capital. This is probably what you mean by saying fiat money is like when a money commodity debases itself; the next logical question, then, is precisely how this debased form of money works, all the while understanding that money also must satisfy its functions as measure of value, as store of value, as medium of exchange, and as means of payment.

    In this way there could be things to learn from heterodox theories like MMT. To what extent can fiat money diverge from real production before the law of value asserts itself and forces a monetary crisis? Why does fiat money arise in the first place? Does fiat money help capitalism, or accelerate its demise? It seems to me that, regardless of whether mass-printed money actually adds value in circulation, it might not really matter as long as people treat it as though it is rooted in real commodities. This would mean that a government could actually print new currency and stimulate the economy as though it had actually created new value. This would heighten the likelihood and severity of a monetary crisis, but can that be deferred arbitrarily far in the future with clever policy?

    There's a lot I don't know about this topic. I believe Michael Hudson is a proponent of MMT — though not necessarily in all its variations — and I believe he has a pretty strong grasp of Marx, having read all volumes of Capital including "volume 4" Theories of Surplus Value.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I just found out about this D:

    Thank you for all the links and resources! I will definitely try to catch up (or at least join the other group with the different schedule)

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Do you want me to add you to the reading list? It's not too late to catch up! And for clarity, most of these resources are from last year's group which was run by Vampire@hexbear.net, not me, haha. The other reading group has been on hiatus for a while and I am not sure when they plan on continuing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (10 children)

    How is everyone doing with their reading?

    I felt like this weeks material was fairly straightforward to understand and that we are still in the stages of "setting the argument and the reasonings behind it", if that makes sense.

    Clearly we are advancing to the critique more already as well. But still feels like Marx is laying a foundation for what is to follow.

    I am finding the discussions of the previous year fruitfull, but also wonder if they are why these ongoing threads are at least so far relatively silent?

    Some of the commenting is also dauntingly sophisticated and I hope we can also casually chat about how a weeks material felt or just come in and state that it's done. Might be just me, but I wanted to voice this anyway.

    So yeah, looking forward to next week. How goes it comrades? heart-sickle

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Finished Chapter 3 so far, and it's dense! But 4 and 5 seem easier. Regarding fewer people commenting, I hope that picks back up, but I do think it has to do with last year capturing more people. We will see if others spring back up, but I've loved the much higher level discussion too!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I love the higher level stuff as well, gives you a lot to chew on. But just wanted to also make sure that I or others don't feel like they need to come in with a full analysis of the weekly reading in order to comment.

    Oh and loved the part about Moneybags this week. It is very entertaining that Marx has created this actual character in the book whose capitalist adventures we get to follow:

    "Our friend, Moneybags, who as yet is only an embryo capitalist, must buy his commodities at their value, must sell them at their value, and yet at the end of the process must withdraw more value from circulation than he threw into it at starting. His development into a full-grown capitalist must take place, both within the sphere of circulation and without it. These are the conditions of the problem."

    It's like: SO IT BEGINS!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    just wanted to also make sure that I or others don't feel like they need to come in with a full analysis of the weekly reading in order to comment.

    Thanks for saying that, as this is exactly what I was feeling haha. I guess I'll start posting my silly observations and doubts, maybe other people are having the same experience as me but feel kind of intimidated to post them (I do)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Nice to hear, I relate to feeling intimidated so it's nice to hear you say this. I also felt this to be important to voice, because a deeper analysis takes time and spoons that not all can have, at least not weekly.

    It's great to just hear others are also doing the reading and that we are reading this together. Care-Comrade

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes I already found the notes to be tricty this week as it is evolving more into argumentation. So I didn't post them this week.

    I suppose I am still waiting for some sort of lighbulb moments that do come when I am doing the reading, but then don't feel so important later on. I don't want to make many assumptions yet either, because it seems to still be in the build up-phase.

    I had many thoughts about the petro dollar and the chapters this week for example that I can't quite articulate yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Some of the commenting is also dauntingly sophisticated and I hope we can also casually chat about how a weeks material felt or just come in and state that it's done. Might be just me, but I wanted to voice this anyway.

    Yea, I might have come in too hot with the esoteric debates in the previous threads. I’m gonna try to keep closer to what’s strictly in the weekly reading. I very much also want to just discuss the reading casually; it doesn’t need to be high stakes.

    I think this week’s reading is tough, so I wouldn’t be surprised if others are struggling and that is slowing some progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Never stop because I and I assume others are here partially for the esoteric debates and broader understanding. It typically helps understanding a lot more then just trying to apply this alone too, but not often is it easy to build or comment on if new to Capital or book clubs (I am personally a book club first timer). Which is imo fine too.

    Just making sure the casual is also ok, but not looking to discourage deep discussion either.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A bit behind still due to work and studying, but I hope to catch up soon!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    My opinion is that fiat money can and does do its own thing, but within certain bounds that are enforced by the law of value. Money, even by fiat, must in the last resort always point to actual value, a real commodity with embodied labor. Otherwise it cannot function as a store of value and the economy collapses. However, there is a non-trivial span of time in which this detachment can exist before a crisis. So in this span of time, the ruling class gets to set in motion more capital than really exists as money. Money becomes more and more credit money, ie expected future money. Money in hand right now is therefore temporally linked to future production and earns its character of “burning a hole in one’s pocket.” Modern monetary policy exists in that squishy, speculative space of expected future value production. Therefore money (and the economy as a whole) must always grow exponentially lest a crisis occur.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • ok, sorry, I'm lagging a bit on chapter 3 (now in chapter 4), but the way Marx talks about hoarders I think sets up the basis not only for his formation of capitalist crises but also the theme for Michael Hudson and David Harvey's fixation of debt throughout the years. (I can see why now)

  • source
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
    [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago

    Just finished! Marx tipped into the M-C-M' circuit like he seemed to be leading to! It's more interesting to me to see Marx's approach in elaborating on and "discovering" alongside us concepts we generally know and understand from other Marxists elaborating on and simplifying Marx's work, and the value gained from reading Marx himself in his masterwork allows us to truly comprehend much more to "simple" systems like the M-C-M' circuit through first introducing us to M-C, C-M, and C-M-C, then turning them on their heads. Really loving this reading so far!

  • source