What’s next, War and Peace?

What’s next, War and Peace? — I like sushi

You pick. I feel like I need a challenge. Haha.

Will you be doing any of the reading this time?

Will you be doing any of the reading this time? — fdrake

Yes, I will.

I've already read Capital twice, most recently last year, so I don't think I want to be part of a reading group, but I can chime in and offer my 2 cents

Ditto. It would be good to have this on the site, but only if you make an effort @Wallows. Otherwise, it's going in the bin until someone willing to do it properly starts it again.

I hope it's not all on me. I only understand Marx from an economic perspective and at that quite vague.

I know some concepts that I struggle with, even back in college. Namely, surplus value. Like, huuu?

That can only exist in an oligopoly of sorts, which I suppose Marx was criticizing by tongue in cheek.

And then there's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

It's one of the cornerstones of Marxist economics. Anyone want to talk about it?

@Banno can you help us out here?

Or @StreetlightX?

Or @fdrake?

My reading schedule is too full right now, especially to tackle something as big as Capital, unfortunately.

My reading schedule is too full right now, especially to tackle something as big as Capital, unfortunately. — StreetlightX

Make some time.

EDIT: You're the only guy who would seem to tunnel through the work.

I'm just interested in other things right now. Next year, perhaps.

I am planning on reading Mariana Mazzucato's The Value Of Everything sometime in the near future though, which is in a similar vein and that might interest you.

It's not a work I would enjoy analysing, nor do I have the necessary background.

I am planning on reading Mariana Mazzucato's The Value Of Everything sometime in the near future though, which is in a similar vein and that might interest you. — StreetlightX

You know... Given my growing distaste of economics, I might indulge in it. Creative destruction, shit like that makes me vomit.

It's not a work I would enjoy analysing, nor do I hae the necessary background. — Banno

I thought we were all Marxists around here? You only have your chains to lose.

Ok. In the near future I mean like maybe a month or two months away btw.

Apparently I'm somewhere to the left of Marx.

Ok. In the near future I mean like maybe a month or two months away btw. — StreetlightX

:clap:

It would be good to have this on the site, but only if you make an effort Wallows. Otherwise, it's going in the bin until someone willing to do it properly starts it again. — Baden

I think 'effort' is the key here.
Together with desire and courage to 'go for it' and not necessarily feeling the stress of 'doing it properly'.
Sometimes it takes a leap of faith to enter a heavy book and reading - or a degree of hope that it will be worthwhile. What is the motivation ? Are some parts of a book more relevant than others ?
I note @Wallows is exhorting others to do the heavy work again. One example:

My reading schedule is too full right now, especially to tackle something as big as Capital, unfortunately.
— StreetlightX

Make some time.
EDIT: You're the only guy who would seem to tunnel through the work. — Wallows

Always with the manipulation and flattery, and people fall for it.
This is quite pathetic. It's fine to garner support and advice as to how best to read a heavy.
However, if the desire is yours, then be brave for God's sake. Change the damned attitude.
Find your own way through, and then be up front and ready. What do you know about reading, about philosophy - as a journey of self discovery and growth ?

Here's something about acting. Not much difference.

Pacino is in the groove. “Sometimes I feel I know nothing about acting. Until you start. That’s what’s exciting for me. A new character. I often say: ‘Desire is more motivating than talent.’ I’ve seen people with great desire take it through. The truth is, it’s the same thing that is always was: you are feeling this new character, this new person, this new story.”  — Al Pacino

Perhaps it's time for TPF to give a little on the 'properly' criteria, whatever that means ?
To bear with people as they 'go through the bushes' so as they themselves can 'come out with something', as per Pacino.
'He says he is always on the lookout “to find something that you really connect to, you really want to do”.

Prepare yourself for a rollercoaster ride, not a woeful wallowing...
Others are wonderful resources of connections and even sometimes inspiration and illumination.
But to consider a book as something to be tunnelled through and there's only one guy to do it - well, already it sets a tone of dreary desperation and defeatism.

If you have a real desire to read a book, just start...with eyes and mind open.

I think 'effort' is the key here. — Amity

I couldn't disagree more. If the material is presented in a logically coherent manner and with some companion (I think, we can get over the fact that a companion is simply needed for Das Kapital, unless you have a deep understanding of economics).

Anyway, glad there's interest here. I plan on getting myself a version of Das Capital soon enough with a companion.

Try these:

I would also commit to "make some time" as DK has been on my todo list for some time.

:sparkle:

I’m having serious issues with this text. Up to now I’ve found an almost perverse disregard for ‘humans’ that parallels the kind of critique I see of Capitalism. If you approach the machinations of what Economics means (resource management) without putting serious effort into the ‘humanity’ of emotional exchanges and values then the critique is going to do little more than initiate a ‘remake’ of Capitalism (mark 2) or the deconstruction of Capitalism without a sensible/applicable alternative given that ‘human’ value in relation to ‘goods’ is merely reduced to ‘labour’. It’s almost scary how this text frames work for the sake of work as ‘useless’. The ‘value’ of items as absent of value because they aren’t exchanged? Wtf? Maybe this is too early and I am always on the attack when I read any text for the first time.

Anyway, given that there is ‘no value’ in items made if they’re not exchanged could anyone explain to me how this can be true given that I could produce one item and sell it and then produce several other items like it and keep them. How can the same item be both ‘useless’ and ‘useful’ if they’re qualitatively identical? What about gifts? The purpose of a gift is a signal of ‘appreciation’ and/or ‘expression’, so is this an ‘exchange’? Of course, yet it doesn’t seem to count in Marx’s account of ‘economics’. This makes no sense. If we’re going to frame ‘Economics’ solely as a ‘monetary’ exchange then what ever is proposed to benefit ‘society’ is going to hobble along like some cripple.

The basic outline in the initial sections does no more than play into mythos of ‘value’=‘money’. Am I the only one who finds this utterly ridiculous?

Also, I have a strong feeling the ‘use’ and ‘useless’ should read ‘use’ and ‘not used’? If not it’s just gibberish. Does anyone see what I’m getting at or am I simply repeating what is known already?

@fdrake has a really thorough and exhaustive thread about how the Value Theory or axiology of... well I didn't get that far yet into that thread.

Ok, I see you posted in that thread; but, he must have been too busy to respond to the same questions or similar in nature.

If you approach the machinations of what Economics means (resource management) without putting serious effort into the ‘humanity’ of emotional exchanges and values then the critique is going to do little more than initiate a ‘remake’ of Capitalism (mark 2) or the deconstruction of Capitalism without a sensible/applicable alternative given that ‘human’ value in relation to ‘goods’ is merely reduced to ‘labour’. — I like sushi

It seems you're talking about tastes and preferences here. Yeah, so Marx didn't really get into that due to his (accurate at the time) construction of market dynamics as simply fulfilling the wants (not needs) of the rich and wealthy lenders and industrialists.

It’s almost scary how this text frames work for the sake of work as ‘useless’. — I like sushi

Useless to the prole, yes. In terms of what? Well, here you have again a theory that really doesn't apply to present-day economic theory. Disenfranchisement, commodity fetishismism, and alienation are still present, particularly to nations where jobs have been exported, and neo-classical economic theory applied more-so than in liberal states. That is a thesis worthy goal to elucidate the appeal of neo-classical economic theory that applies in trade; but, rather not as much in domestic affairs, where laws and rules bind the employer to the employee. Of course, this doesn't apply to nations that have gone berserk and entrusted everything to the market.

The ‘value’ of items as absent of value because they aren’t exchanged? Wtf? Maybe this is too early and I am always on the attack when I read any text for the first time. — I like sushi

Yeah, I hope the above makes this question moot.

And, I'm still waiting for the go-ahead from @StreetlightX, perhaps after Prof. Pigliucci's visit.

Huh? I will not be reading Capital. I was talking about Mazzucato's book. Read whatever and whenever. I'll not be organizing anything.

Huh? I will not be reading Capital. I was talking about Mazzucato's book. Read whatever and whenever. I'll not be organizing anything. — StreetlightX

OK, thanks for pointing that out.
---
I suppose, when I get some things sorted out on my end, a month perhaps or sooner, I would be able to entertain the book.

Yeah, I hope the above makes this question moot. — Wallows

He basically says the work/labour put into production is ‘useless’ (of no ‘value’) if the product isn’t exchanged, by then it is no longer classed as a ‘product’ and becomes a ‘ware’/‘good’.

The ‘use value’ is classed as latent, which is latter referred to as ‘useless’ in terms of labour/work. Meaning if there is a ‘product’ then the ‘work’ is ‘useless’, yet if there is a ‘good’/‘ware’ (‘commodity’) then the work/labour is ‘useful’.

He doesn’t deny the ‘use value’ as changing yet sets the ‘labour’/‘work’ as absent of any economic value unless there is an exchange of ‘wares’/‘goods’ ... think about that for a minute in terms of human interactions - gifts, verbal exchanges and basic human companionship.

He doesn’t deny the ‘use value’ as changing yet sets the ‘labour’/‘work’ as absent of any economic value unless there is an exchange of ‘wares’/‘goods’ ... — I like sushi

Comparatively, no. However, if I value you as a person or have some kind of nepotistic tendency towards you, then yes, I will favor your labor over some random guy waiting in line to grab your job. The tendency for this state of affairs has decreased dramatically due to unemployment insurance, and a social safety net that simply didn't exist back then.

EDIT: Along with the very nature of our post-industrialist based economy.

I don’t think you quite understand what I’m trying to point out here. The whole picture being painted is one that disregards human life as part of economy. He clearly is happy to depart from basic human interactions and lay out ‘economics’ as purely being a monetary exchange scheme rather than possessing human ‘wants and needs’ (he says ‘wants and needs’ then parcels it off as ‘use value’). This progresses into ‘use value’ only being of any ‘value’ - in the marketplace - if there is an exchange based on ‘goods’. If you cook a meal for your family this is essentially framed as of no ‘Value’. Do you see how this can be construed as dehumanising?

Further still:

More complicated labor counts merely as potentiated or rather multiplied simple la- bor, so that a smaller amount of complicated labor is equal to a bigger amount of simple labor.

That this reduction is constantly being made is shown by experience.

A commodity may be the product of the most complicated labor, but its value equates it to the product of simple labor, therefore this value only represents a certain amount of simple labour.

The different proportions, in which differ- ent sorts of labor are reduced to simple la- bor as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers and, consequently, seems to be fixed by custom.

For simplicity’s sake we shall henceforth consider every kind of labor-power to be immediately simple labor- power; by this we do no more than save our- selves the trouble of making the reduction

Consider that this drastic oversimplification is made VERY early in this text setting up what is to come as purposefully ignoring an extremely important factor. I’m baffled! ‘save ourselves the trouble’ ... it’s a shocking oversimplification that is setting up a disastrous conclusion based on superficial analysis.

It is going to be hard ignoring this simplification as I read on, but I imagine many would quickly forget and then misapply this hypothetical scenario to reality (maybe he so himself?)

Note: Don’t get me wrong, there are some good point made and some nice questions and ideas to glean from what I’ve read ... still, I’m less than convinced that the English translation does this justice and/or that the manner this is written in is anything but confused/obtuse.