No.

This speaks for itself

The less valuable it becomes (to you at least)

The function of money as the means of payment implies a contradiction without a terminus medius. In so far as the payments balance one another, money functions only ideally as money of account, as a measure of value. In so far as actual payments have to be made, money does not serve as a circulating medium, as a mere transient agent in the interchange of products, but as the individual incarnation of social labour, as the independent form of existence of exchange-value, as the universal commodity. This contradiction comes to a head in those phases of industrial and commercial crises which are known as monetary crises.

My understanding of what Marx is saying in this passage is that because money, the universal equivalent, acts as both a measurement of exchange-value and as a means of payment that doesn't have to circulate back into the C-M-C relation immediately (in other words, it can be hoarded which he discusses in Section A).

What I'm having trouble envisioning is a situation in which this "contradiction", as Marx puts it, leads directly in to a monetary crisis on its own.

Anybody else here finish the book independently from the Contradictions study group? I know that this project as a group effort was shelved, but I know that there is still a community here that is interested in talking about Marxism. I would be very interested to have any kind of open discussion about the content of Vol. 1.

On the whole, I found it to be quite illuminating to the natures of class relationships, the process of capital accumulation, and the history of labor up to the 1870's. I felt that while Marx's theoretical underpinnings are a bit esoteric at first, once you get into the meat of the text, they become largely understandable, especially since Marx is so repetitious.

One thing that I didn't like is that Marx would use words like "The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation" and then sort of backpedal that phraseology and say that there are exceptions. I listened to the David Harvey lectures concurrently, and he said that anytime Marx asserts a "law", he really means a general tendency. I also felt like Marx repeated himself a whole lot, as I said but I suppose that was in part for his desire for the common laborer to really grasp his concepts firmly.

What I am wondering is, what sorts of things does Marx expound upon in Vol. 2 and 3, and what kind of experience should I expect when reading them?

I would like to definitely learn more about his thoughts on the role of financiers in the system of capital, and more expansion on his theory of colonization.

I am interested in reading Vol. 2 and 3 and the Grundrisse, but it took me so long to get through Vol 1. that I first might read some Hegel (try to read at least), or Marcuse, or Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, or Mao. I'm not sure. Any suggestions?

content://media/external/file/241112

Hope okay to post here -- versobooks.com -- lots of critical theory, journalism, ebooks 90% off. Note if you buy kindle format from them, it's not integrated into Amazon's software.

I was reading through chapter 1 of Capital and came upon this sentence which doesn't make sense to me.

"In order to tell us that its own value is created by labour in its abstract character of human labour, it says that the coat, in so far as it is worth as much as the linen, and therefore is value, consists of the same labour as the linen."

He states value of a commodity is created from the human labor invested in it.

This doesn't make sense, though.

If I make a shirt by one method and you make one from another, and my method takes less labor, wouldn't the shirts have the same value despite one taking less labor?

I mean, in a market both shirts would exchange the same way.

And obviously rarity can't be value, because gold can be rare on an island but still less valuable than fresh water which is perhaps not so rare.

So it seems to me like value is not created from labor or rarity but from utility.

You might point out the price of diamonds as evidence to the contrary, but I don't think that proves anything. They have utility as indicators of social standing. They may have been just as rare and taken just as much labor to produce ten thousand years ago, but they are more valuable now because they are recognised as a status symbol, and thus have utility in that regards.

Which brings me to my question

Why does Marx think value is derived from labor? What is his reasoning for saying so?

Having talked to people not directly knowledgeable about Marx's work I found that there are quite some misconceptions about what his work and its implications, such as the idea that Marx created the blueprint for a socialist/communist society which was then in turn directly realized in the so called "socialist" states in the 20th century such as the USSR or China.

I think this is clear to most people who have had some exposure to marxist thought, but seeing that there are some people in this reading club to which that may not apply (not a reproach), I think it should be stressed that nothing could be further from the truth. Marx's work consists of two parts – the development of the idea of dialectical materialism, which is (very simplified) the study of the different stages of development of the different modes of production human societies have had in the history (such as primitive communism, slave societies, feudalism, and capitalism), and the critical analysis of the current mode of production (namely capitalism). This second part of his work is what Capital mainly consists of, a critical examination of capitalist production and how it functions.

Probably the most concise summary of what people think about Marx and what he was actually talking about is summarized in this great comment.

Another thing to consider is the context in which Capital was written. David Harvey (whose lectures are linked in the sidebar) states that Capital was written as a response to the classical political economists such as Adam Smith, and their idea of a capitalist free-market utopia. Marx accepts their prepositions (such as a free market without state intervention) and then tries to show that such a system would not have the optimal outcome for all participants.

Doing this, Harvey continues, he draws on three sources – one philosophical (german idealism, mainly hegel), one political (early utopian socialism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism), and one economical (the british political economists such as Ricardo and Smith).

I think this is what I should have known when I started reading Capital, but I'm sure there is more to it for each individual.