Capital: Volumes One and Two
- Downloads：4617
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-03-29 13:17:35
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Karl Marx
- ISBN：1840226994
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Few writers have had a more demonstrable impact on the development of the modern world than has Karl Marx （1818-1883）。 Born in Trier into a middle-class Jewish family in 1818， by the time of his death in London in 1883， Marx claimed a growing international reputation。
Of central importance then and later was his book Das Kapital， or， as it is known to English readers， simply Capital。 Volume One of Capital was published in Paris in 1867。 This was the only volume published during Marx's lifetime and the only to have come directly from his pen。 Volume Two， published in 1884， was based on notes Marx left， but written by his friend and collaborator， Friedrich Engels （1820-1895）。
Readers from the nineteenth century to the present have been captivated by the unmistakable power and urgency of this classic of world literature。 Marx's critique of the capitalist system is rife with big themes: his theory of 'surplus value'， his discussion of the exploitation of the working class， and his forecast of class conflict on a grand scale。 Marx wrote with purpose。 As he famously put it， 'Philosophers have previously tried to explain the world， our task is to change it。'
Of central importance then and later was his book Das Kapital， or， as it is known to English readers， simply Capital。 Volume One of Capital was published in Paris in 1867。 This was the only volume published during Marx's lifetime and the only to have come directly from his pen。 Volume Two， published in 1884， was based on notes Marx left， but written by his friend and collaborator， Friedrich Engels （1820-1895）。
Readers from the nineteenth century to the present have been captivated by the unmistakable power and urgency of this classic of world literature。 Marx's critique of the capitalist system is rife with big themes: his theory of 'surplus value'， his discussion of the exploitation of the working class， and his forecast of class conflict on a grand scale。 Marx wrote with purpose。 As he famously put it， 'Philosophers have previously tried to explain the world， our task is to change it。'
Reviews
Lukas Slavik
，
It’s a book of many though and influenced the world heavily。。 but it’s too long， too detailed and too academic to be fun to read。 I preferred Adam Smith’s wealth of nations that is often mentioned。 Also it is difficult to judge it when one can now easily argue， that capitalism did much more for working class than communism。。 i am not only referring to the collapse of soviet block， also if I had to， i would prefer to work in a factory in Detroit rather than Shenzhen， rather in Western Europe than It’s a book of many though and influenced the world heavily。。 but it’s too long， too detailed and too academic to be fun to read。 I preferred Adam Smith’s wealth of nations that is often mentioned。 Also it is difficult to judge it when one can now easily argue， that capitalism did much more for working class than communism。。 i am not only referring to the collapse of soviet block， also if I had to， i would prefer to work in a factory in Detroit rather than Shenzhen， rather in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe。。 。。。more
James Steele
，
（review of Volume one。 Trimmed to fit Goodreads' character limit。 Full review is on my blog: https://daydreamingintext。blogspot。co。。。）Previous writers of political economy （Adam Smith， John Stuart Mill， etc。） described the benefits of the factory system of manufacture over the old system of master craftsmen and their apprentices: the factory will crank out lots and lots of products that can be sold on the international market。 Karl Marx was perhaps the first person to point out that， yeah， that’ （review of Volume one。 Trimmed to fit Goodreads' character limit。 Full review is on my blog: https://daydreamingintext。blogspot。co。。。）Previous writers of political economy （Adam Smith， John Stuart Mill， etc。） described the benefits of the factory system of manufacture over the old system of master craftsmen and their apprentices: the factory will crank out lots and lots of products that can be sold on the international market。 Karl Marx was perhaps the first person to point out that， yeah， that’s well and good， but look at what it’s doing to the people who have to work in such factories。Marx published this book in 1867， and the factories Marx saw in Europe and the UK looked like this: Factory-owners pleading with parliament not to restrict the workday to 10 hours， as anything less than 12 hours a day would mean the business could never turn a profit; business-owners balking at the idea of not being allowed to hire children for 12 hours a day because grown men simply cost too much for such work; entire communities living in poverty while they toiled for 12—14 hours a day at machines that cranked out goods faster and faster; people exposed to toxic chemicals and too sick to work by age 30; generation after generation being raised in factory work， never having time to learn to read or write， never able to learn a skill apart from a single task on the assembly line; thousands of people thrown out of work on a factory-owner’s whim when the market for their product is saturated， only to be recalled to work when demand rises again; entire countrysides both colonial and domestic converted from self-sufficient farmers and master craftspeople into impoverished workers for this factory system in the never-ending quest to reduce costs and make more profit。This was the world Marx saw。 Society itself being converted seemingly by force through this juggernaut of a manufacturing system。 He cites numerous government reports and newspaper articles， none of which would have been widely read at the time， to understand what was happening to the people。 The mass poverty and crime in the UK and Europe did not simply happen on its own。Under the previous economic system， Marx writes in the early chapters， each household produced some sort of good。 Wool， wine， meat， bread， each household labored to produce something， and then they took those goods to market， and each party agreed what quantity of something was equal for this other quantity of something else。 Households exchanged equal values of different goods， and thus society functioned with each person working for their own benefit。People mastered a craft and sold their skills and talents on their own terms。 Masters of professions had apprentices， but the size of these establishments was limited either by law or by the size of the town。 Apprentices moved on to work for other places， or moved to other towns and cities to found their own workshops， hiring only enough people needed to produce enough to pay for the establishment itself， the master laboring alongside the apprentices。And then， Marx writes， this model of production began to grow in scale。 With enough employees， it was possible to produce enough to sell for profit great enough for the master to live off of without having to do any of the actual work himself。Marx proposes that it is impossible to get rich simply by marking up goods and reselling them， as everyone else is doing the same thing so any profit gained in sale will be lost when making a purchase。 True profit comes only at the production phase， by underpaying the people who produce those goods。 The profit motive， Marx writes， is the underlying cause of problems in society， disrupting the concept of economy as fair treatment between persons。Little more than a master craftsman’s workshop scaled up， enough employees could now be employed so the shopmaster can live off his apprentices’ work。 This couldn’t happen without machinery connected to a reliable power source nobody else had access to （meaning not a natural river， or wind）。 The steam engine made it possible to automate so many systems that had once been in the hands of individual craftspeople， and by collecting all these different skilled crafts together in one place （either deliberately or by necessity to meet demand for a particular product）， it became possible for the tools to be held in common within the workshop。 This streamlines the process and by default makes the good cheaper。Marx writes that the method takes away from individual people their skilled crafts and converts them into mindless tasks on an assembly line。 It strips entire professions of their worth and makes them cogs in a machine。 When scaled up to the size of cities and even nations， it takes entire communities of skilled professions and converts them into ignorant wage-laborers who now depend on the factory-owner for their livelihoods。Small workshops owned by masters of crafts cannot compete on the market with cheap factory goods。 Those fall to the factory system， and in this manner the factory method of production strips entire regions of identity and skilled workers and changes them into beggars who now must work for the factory-owner 12 hours a day for a wage。In every case， the factory-owner underpays the worker。 It is the only way to produce these goods and have any profit at all， given the cost of the machines and the cost of materials。 Marx even goes as far as to say the whole purpose of the machines is to force the laborer to toil longer and longer， because the longer a worker operates at the machine， the more he produces for the factory-owner rather than for his own benefit。Marx does not mince words regarding what he sees the factory-owner doing， and some chapters are so direct it’s a wonder they didn’t make it into the Communist Manifesto verbatim。 Marx argues that the whole point of economics is for people to exchange equal values of different goods。 To do something for the sake of profit is to defy the very concept of economics。Marx writes in chapter 23 that during the American Civil War cotton factories in Britain suffered， and the mass of unemployed people called out to be allowed to migrate to somewhere there was more work。 The factory-owners pleaded with Parliament not to allow them to leave， for the factory-owners might need them; instead let the government support the unemployed until the market recovers。 That is exactly what happened。The people have little choice in the matter， as they own no land， and now the factory has become generational in the absence of the skilled crafts the factory has converted into assembly line work。 Children grow up in the system， so this is what they learn， and they have no education beyond it because they do not have time to learn anything else。 It has produced entire communities of uneducated， uncultured “savages。”Marx writes this is the inevitable result of letting businessmen take away the tools that allowed a nation’s citizens to lead independent lives as masters of individual crafts， stick those tools on a machine， and then make these once skilled craftspeople use those tools in some repetitive task for a daily wage that is calculated to be barely adequate to afford food and shelter。Sure， the State benefits by having mass quantities of goods to sell internationally， but this is what it’s doing to the people。 Poverty is the result of this very system of production—the workers aren’t squandering their money; their bosses must underpay them for the products they produce to be profitable at all。 This explains why every factory in Europe and in the UK operated this way—why there simply were no better places for employees to go—why factories didn’t seem to be raising wages in order to keep the best workers。 Marx explains the quest for profit means employees must be kept poor and dependent on wage labor in order for the system to work。Previous writers of economic theory actually wrote that any loss in wages an employee might suffer is earned as a return on investment by way of the vast quantities of goods produced which benefits society as a whole， but Marx writes that it is not progress when all the gains go to the top and the employees see only poverty as a result。 （In a later chapter， he points out the price of bread and other basics has increased as consolidation of production takes place。） Marx draws many parallels between this relationship， codified by economics， and feudalism， codified by law: they have produced a population of serfs bound to the land and the people who own it。Marx cites previous writers who acknowledged the class of men who live off the work of others and if not for these impoverished masses the rich man would have to work for himself， therefore poverty is not a problem to be solved， and the people should be kept poor and busy to keep them out of trouble and so the rich man can devote his time to other things。 These aren’t Marx’s words; other people before Marx wrote these things。Marx may have been the first to declare these observations are laws regarding how this system of production operates。 It’s the same system seen the world over， but scaled up beyond its local limits。 Indeed， Marx asserts the whole point of machines and factories is to drive more and more people into poverty so they become part of the factory system and dependent on a wage。 The more people the factory pushes out of self-sufficient professions within local communities， the more profit the factory-owner can extract from them。 Oh yeah， this ruffled feathers then， and it still does now。Das Kapital is the scholarly condemnation of this system—the logic proof that the very system itself has to cause suffering and misery among the workers because if profit is the goal， it is the only way the businessowner can behave to achieve it。 It does no good to try to regulate it because the owners have to work within this system so they will always default to squeezing the workers harder and harder。 The results are all around you。The Communist Manifesto is the digest intended for the non-academic。 But it’s only by reading Capital that I come to appreciate exactly what Marx favored workers return to—what Marx was trying to inform people they had lost and needed to take back。 I think Marx very much wanted production to return to the prior system， where masters of crafts hired apprentices at small workshops， and each person learned a craft or a trade and became a master in turn。Failing that， then Marx wanted people to know this system of production need not be in the hands of greedy owners for the purpose of extracting profits; rather the machines could be used to shorten the working day， to reduce the labor each person needed to exert in order to make these products。 Marx showed it was possible， and that only a certain portion of the working day need be required to produce the goods。 Everything else was purely for the benefit of the owner’s luxurious lifestyle and the expansion of the factory system itself （read: the expansion of profit）。Even previous writers of political economy suggested it should be happening—that as technology got better， people should be working less and less。 Marx showed that in the hands of these factory-owners， the exact opposite was happening because the machines were not intended to reduce the burden of labor on mankind， but to force people to labor harder and harder so the people at the top can make more and more money， and this quest for profit is the reason business expands and poverty follows in its wake。 It is the only way the system can work so long as profit is the goal。The final chapters close the loop by taking us back to the origins of this factory system， before the era of manufacturing， and its underlying goal: the deliberate creation of a mass of desperate people who need to work for a wage to survive。 He touches on how peasants were legally entitled to live on feudal lands。 People had enough land to grow their own food and produce some goods for sale on the market， and have enough money to buy what they themselves could not produce。 Gradually Lords and landlords forced people off their land and consolidated it for their own purposes （usually to produce wool or some other cash crop）， now hiring the people to work it for a wage and charging them rent to live there。Marx shows that the factory system of production cannot work if the people have their own tools， their own land， and their own crops to make their own goods for sale at the markets。 Taking these things away from people was the first step to forcing them to work for a wage， and its history is one of bloodshed and theft， not to mention cooperation by the State。Things certainly weren’t rosy and happy prior to the factory。 Marx mentions this method of profiting off the work of others has been happening for thousands of years， and even when workshops were small， some masters treated their apprentices like slave labor。 The difference is scale， and how this factory system has transformed what used to be Europe’s skilled， independent professionals into serfs。Marx shows that even in the 1800s， the poor were working harder than ever， and the factory system itself was designed to push them into poverty as a result—the people once had land and were masters of their own professions， but all of that has been taken away from them to force them to work in factories for someone else’s profit。 That’s Capital in a nutshell。Marx presents this as more than just a consequence of the quest for profit。 It’s also the cause。 Without poverty， the people would have no incentive to work。 If the people possessed their own land and tools， they would never work for someone else， and the economy would have very little to trade on the world market， since each person would only produce enough for their own needs。 Self-sufficiency is the enemy not just of the factory， but of profit itself。In chapter 25， section 5， Marx cites official statistics to show the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer as the factories operate and expand year after year; that the factories were not raising all boats but were in fact pushing more and more people deeper into poverty while lifting the rich up。 Das Kapital connects the dots and dares to present evidence that this is deliberate。Marx despised the idea that thousands of people should be forced to toil so one person did not have to。 After reading his descriptions of the factory system in the 1800s and what it did to people， especially children （sooo much child labor described in the early chapters）， I have a hard time imagining how anyone would be in favor of it， and yet it is still happening today。Maybe someday I’ll tackle the other two volumes， but this is the one Marx published in his lifetime， so for quite some time， this was Das Kapital， and it said all that needed to be said。 。。。more
Andreas
，
When reading something political， the rating that you end up giving is probably going to reflect the political views， so it's obvious I agree with Marx a lot。 Although I prefer Kropotkin。 The main reason for the lower rating isn't based on political opinion though: Marx really struggled with his opening to the point that most people recommend skipping the first chapter until you've read a couple of the chapters to clarify his position， which I agree with。 Then again， the rest of the book is exce When reading something political， the rating that you end up giving is probably going to reflect the political views， so it's obvious I agree with Marx a lot。 Although I prefer Kropotkin。 The main reason for the lower rating isn't based on political opinion though: Marx really struggled with his opening to the point that most people recommend skipping the first chapter until you've read a couple of the chapters to clarify his position， which I agree with。 Then again， the rest of the book is excellent at explaining how economics oppress the working class。 I highly recommend it to my fellow socialists。 。。。more
Tihomir Babić
，
Capital by Karl Marx， or its first two volumes， is absolutely brilliant！ Yes， it's a difficult read。 However， unlike many， I'm not willing to blame （only） Marx's style for that。 In the introduction to this edition， Isaiah Berlin is quoted as saying， 'Marx is not the clearest of writers。' I was often thinking about this quote when I had to read several sentences multiple times to understand what Marx read， sometimes re-reading the whole paragraphs several times until I understood it。 However， one Capital by Karl Marx， or its first two volumes， is absolutely brilliant！ Yes， it's a difficult read。 However， unlike many， I'm not willing to blame （only） Marx's style for that。 In the introduction to this edition， Isaiah Berlin is quoted as saying， 'Marx is not the clearest of writers。' I was often thinking about this quote when I had to read several sentences multiple times to understand what Marx read， sometimes re-reading the whole paragraphs several times until I understood it。 However， one shouldn't forget that the full title is "Capital。 A Critique of Political Economy"。 I get the impression that many people start reading Capital expecting to find several aphorisms Marx's thought has been reduced to。 You won't get that。 Also， don't expect it to be some self-help book or communist user manual on how to start a revolution。 This is Marx's critique of the 'vulgar economists' showing complete ineptitude to understand and explain capitalism。 And he mainly succeeds in that。 So what makes this book difficult to read is not （only） Marx's style。 It could easily be: English being my second language， archaic way of laying out thoughts which has nothing to do with the particular style but with the time when it was written， and Marx' extensive knowledge of the political economy thoughts that preceded him。However， giving yourself time to immerse yourself in Marx's explanations is really rewarding。 I can't count times when I struggled with some paragraphs， re-read them， almost giving up， then finally understanding the point， and feeling like it blew my mind。 At the same time， Capital is straightforward to read。 What makes it seem difficult is Marx's attempt to explain his thoughts scientifically。 Still， when you adapt to this microscopic point-of-view that tries to go into most minute and specific details， it becomes easy to follow。 It's like Marx considered his readers extremely stupid （couldn't blame him）， so he decided to draw， sometimes even literally， every detail of the capitalist mechanism。 But when the reader is somewhat familiar with the concepts Marx is trying to explain， they can jump to conclusions before Marx actually completes all the steps in coming to the same conclusion。 That's when you usually get lost and learn you should not rush it， and dedicate yourself to understanding each sentence， re-read it， re-think it， and let Marx lead you without assuming anything。 One wouldn't expect it， but I had a really good laugh reading Capital。 Marx can get very cynical， sarcastic， and condescending when arguing with other political economists。 Those arguments are brilliantly written， with wit， humor， and rage at the obvious logical fallacies of many economists that are celebrated as great thinkers even today。 It's not only the humor but the ease with which he proves them to be wrong。 Regarding the topic， I would say that Marx brilliantly tackles it。 It's gratifying to read how he scientifically explains the nature of capitalism， its' fallacies， and mechanisms。 I could say that by reading Capital， you'll learn nothing and everything at the same time。 Nothing， because you won't learn anything new about capitalism what you （probably） didn't already know by using observing it by yourself and using common sense。 You'll learn everything because， unlike using common sense， which usually allows you to see WHAT happens， reading Capital will open doors in finding answers WHY something happens。 。。。more
Awaldemar
，
This book is so boring it's better to just allow communism to rise than to actually read it。 This book is so boring it's better to just allow communism to rise than to actually read it。 。。。more
Radu
，
I read this book with the intent of giving it a fair hearing， but I ended up coming to the conclusion that it was easily one of the worst books I've ever read。Hegel's philosophical influence in Marx's writings are easy to spot though it is clear to see in retrospect that Marx's idea of applying Hegelian dialectics to economics was an interesting idea at first but effectively like trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole when put into practice。History proved in dramatically bloody fashion I read this book with the intent of giving it a fair hearing， but I ended up coming to the conclusion that it was easily one of the worst books I've ever read。Hegel's philosophical influence in Marx's writings are easy to spot though it is clear to see in retrospect that Marx's idea of applying Hegelian dialectics to economics was an interesting idea at first but effectively like trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole when put into practice。History proved in dramatically bloody fashion the inherent flaws of the Marxist Labour Theory of Value （for which Marx provided minimal guidance in） and the dangerous inefficiencies present in a completely centralised economy that treats workers as economic units for the state。Marx's incendiary diatribes throughout the treatise take on an almost comically exaggerated tone at times， perhaps due to the original impact poorly translating into English or at the idea of them even being intended as an insult to begin with （eg: referring to capitalists as "uncircumcised Jews。"）The only insight that stood the test of time from Das Kapital was the fact that capitalism has a monotonic nature to it， is constantly on the rise， and has as much power to cripple society if poorly practised。。。 or elevate it into an entire new epoch。Besides this insight， Das Kapital is an extremely messy read and one best reserved for someone with time and patience。 。。。more
Gastjäle
，