Ok so I just bought this shit. It's fucking massive, but I want to read and understand it. How do I start?

Ok so I just bought this shit. It's fucking massive, but I want to read and understand it. How do I start?

>I want to read it
start it
>I want to understand it
finish it

/thread

you motherfuckers making these dumb threads are what killed this place.

By first reading Wealth of Nations, and Spirit of the Laws, and Areopagitica, and New Science, and Bastiat, and On the Republic/On the Laws, and In Defense of the Republic, and Les Caractères, and seeing as you are french: all the french 19th century liberals (such as Bastiat) such as Jean-baptise Say or Antoine Destutt de Tracy, and why not Rousseau and Hobbes.

...

>shitalian m*doid subhuman marxists in my Veeky Forums

Do you have a firm grasp of the jewish problem?

A decent history of economic thought should suffice. Ideally you'd have read Kant and Hegel but really, it's a lot of work just as a preparatory reading, I doubt you'll have the motivation. Capital was serialised in magazines intended for workers, it's not a work for specialists, you just have to struggle through.

...

>I want to read and understand it. How do I start?
hit the blunt cuh, it's gonna blow your mind

>thinks the jewish problem begins and ends with muh nahtzees
>doesn't realize jews have been causing problems and getting expelled since the beginning of recorded history

why does this wojak look like macarthur

>ideology
>proven wrong
Pick one

This is why this: is important. Marx is deified to this day by jews because he was speaking to his people and instructing them how to create a revolution against Europeans that was ultimately successful. He wasn't interested in being right, he was conveying information to his tribe.

Dunno if you are a itafag, but sweet jesus newtoncompton has always translation problems. Good luck anyway

lol

>seeing as you are french

user...

Is revolutionalise a word or have I just made it up?
I feel like it's on the cusp of our language but hasn't yet entered the lexicon.

> How do I start?
Watch some Rick and Morty because that filth of a book will drop your IQ by 50 points.

Anti-semitism is the ultimate ressentiment - there was a reason Nietzsche despised anti-semites. Their whole bullshit revolves around Jews being so incredibly intelligent and crafty that they can destroy the entire western civilization. What kind of a pathetic civilization is that, if it can fall apart from a group of intellectuals and philosophers! Are we that weak and powerless against this incredible masterrace? I don't know what kind of western tradition these people live in, but mine is persevering just fine.

Nietzsche referred to jews as the primary example and progenitors of ressentiment. Take your jewish bullshit to reddit, it doesn't fly around here, faggot.

...

Comprare edizione Newton Compton
Non comprare edizione UTET o Einaudi.
Non comprare edizione dei compagni della Editori Riuniti.
Non comprare edizione ridotta dei compagni Editori Riuniti con saggio introduttivo di Hobsbawm

Disgusting

Ti sei scordato le frecce.

Comincia facendoti una cultura, 'gnurant.

Why are you lying?

" 250. What Europe owes to the Jews?—Many things, good and bad, and above all one thing of the nature both of the best and the worst: the grand style in morality, the fearfulness and majesty of infinite demands, of infinite significations, the whole Romanticism and sublimity of moral questionableness—and consequently just the most attractive, ensnaring, and exquisite element in those iridescences and allurements to life, in the aftersheen of which the sky of our European culture, its evening sky, now glows—perhaps glows out. For this, we artists among the spectators and philosophers, are—grateful to the Jews.
251. It must be taken into the bargain, if various clouds and disturbances—in short, slight attacks of stupidity—pass over the spirit of a people that suffers and WANTS to suffer from national nervous fever and political ambition: for instance, among present-day Germans there is alternately the anti-French folly, the anti-Semitic folly, the anti-Polish folly, the Christian-romantic folly, the Wagnerian folly, the Teutonic folly, the Prussian folly (just look at those poor historians, the Sybels and Treitschkes, and their closely bandaged heads), and whatever else these little obscurations of the German spirit and conscience may be called. May it be forgiven me that I, too, when on a short daring sojourn on very infected ground, did not remain wholly exempt from the disease, but like every one else, began to entertain thoughts about matters which did not concern me—the first symptom of political infection. About the Jews, for instance, listen to the following:—I have never yet met a German who was favourably inclined to the Jews; and however decided the repudiation of actual anti-Semitism may be on the part of all prudent and political men, this prudence and policy is not perhaps directed against the nature of the sentiment itself, but only against its dangerous excess, and especially against the distasteful and infamous expression of this excess of sentiment;—on this point we must not deceive ourselves. That Germany has amply SUFFICIENT Jews, that the German stomach, the German blood, has difficulty (and will long have difficulty) in disposing only of this quantity of "Jew"—as the Italian, the Frenchman, and the Englishman have done by means of a stronger digestion:—that is the unmistakable declaration and language of a general instinct, to which one must listen and according to which one must act. "Let no more Jews come in! And shut the doors, especially towards the East (also towards Austria)!"—thus commands the instinct of a people whose nature is still feeble and uncertain, so that it could be easily wiped out, easily extinguished, by a stronger race. "

" The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favourable ones), by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices—owing above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before "modern ideas", they alter only, WHEN they do alter, in the same way that the Russian Empire makes its conquest—as an empire that has plenty of time and is not of yesterday—namely, according to the principle, "as slowly as possible"! A thinker who has the future of Europe at heart, will, in all his perspectives concerning the future, calculate upon the Jews, as he will calculate upon the Russians, as above all the surest and likeliest factors in the great play and battle of forces. That which is at present called a "nation" in Europe, and is really rather a RES FACTA than NATA (indeed, sometimes confusingly similar to a RES FICTA ET PICTA), is in every case something evolving, young, easily displaced, and not yet a race, much less such a race AERE PERENNUS, as the Jews are such "nations" should most carefully avoid all hot-headed rivalry and hostility! It is certain that the Jews, if they desired—or if they were driven to it, as the anti-Semites seem to wish—COULD now have the ascendancy, nay, literally the supremacy, over Europe, that they are NOT working and planning for that end is equally certain. Meanwhile, they rather wish and desire, even somewhat importunely, to be insorbed and absorbed by Europe, they long to be finally settled, authorized, and respected somewhere, and wish to put an end to the nomadic life, to the "wandering Jew",—and one should certainly take account of this impulse and tendency, and MAKE ADVANCES to it (it possibly betokens a mitigation of the Jewish instincts) for which purpose it would perhaps be useful and fair to banish the anti-Semitic bawlers out of the country. One should make advances with all prudence, and with selection, pretty much as the English nobility do It stands to reason that the more powerful and strongly marked types of new Germanism could enter into relation with the Jews with the least hesitation, for instance, the nobleman officer from the Prussian border it would be interesting in many ways to see whether the genius for money and patience (and especially some intellect and intellectuality—sadly lacking in the place referred to) could not in addition be annexed and trained to the hereditary art of commanding and obeying—for both of which the country in question has now a classic reputation. "

- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

You are a pleb who doesn't realize how easy Nietzsche is to selectively quote from since he was intentionally contradictory and ambiguous, and how I can pull contrary quotes from Genealogy that call the jews out for being subversive in nature and pushing slave morality on their hosts. Idiots like you need to stop pretending to understand Nietzsche and using him to justify semitic behavior. You only embarrass yourself though.

Start with the Wealth on Nations, it was a major influence on Marx (and economics in general).

But note that Marx stretches Smith's notion of labor as value. To Marx, the labor that goes into a certain product adds value to the product. To Smith, the labor that you are willing to put in to get a product tells us how much you value it. Both think of economic actors as rational agents looking for their own interest, but Marx strives for strict materialism while Smith brings intersubjectivity and ethics to the table.

After you finish Capital, there are several other Marxist authors and critics of Marxism you can look into, but before you choose where to go from there, you should read Marx and form some opinions on him yourself.

>Newton Compton
You fuk'd up.

It is logically consistent to both revere and revile power in action. Anyway you undermine yourelf by not doing what you say you could do. There is a reason Nietzsche did not engage in outright antisemitism which so many of his contemporaries would; he did not in fact wish to "settle the matter" on any question, instead he chose to problematize the dominant thinking and expose hypocrisy on all sides. In short, he was the honest man diogenes hoped to find.

>antisemitism
This term doesn't mean anything. Jews have been despised in and removed from everywhere they've ever been; the problem stems from their behavior, not that of anyone else. Nietzsche correctly diagnosed the root of that behavior but he has no final say in the matter and lived in a time when jews had only just been released from the stetl, i.e., before they began destroying Germany from within. You don't know what you're talking about and should depart for reddit until you're able to face up to the jewish problem. This place isn't for you.

Go back to your Stormfront education camp and stew in your feeble German ressentiment, retard.

Just stop and go back to your safe space.

>bought

It is OK, he used a labour time voucher.

>2018
>still bitching about Rick and Morty

I remember being told to read the final section on Primitive Accumulation first and then going back and starting from the beginning. I didn't do that when I read it. But perhaps you might try it and report back. Having done fairly extensive coverage of Marx at university when it finally came time to reading Capital it really wasn't that difficult. That said, many don't have that luxury.

In any case the two books pictured I find are pretty good at covering the major concepts within Marxian theory. Both of which are very short and to the point and would act as pretty good guides as you're going through. Ben Fine's Marx's Capital is probably available to download via PDF in a number of places. I'm not sure how available Heilbroner's Marxism For and Against is but I include him because he's not a Marxist but he treats Marx's theory fairly and critiques elements of it from a more mainstream economics position.

you start with Hegel so you start with Kant

How about we stop telling each other to go to various other places on the internet and debate this like adults?

You read the Gulag Archipelago and burn that monstrosity

Speaking of ruining Veeky Forums
What the fuck is with all the "i wanna be marxist/i bought kapital/how do i be marxist" threads?

>Marx strives for strict materialism while Smith brings intersubjectivity and ethics to the table.
>ethics
Care to expand on that? I would argue that Marxist ideology largely is the result of the application of ethics to economic/societal organization. Or perhaps I am coming on from more of a morality vs. ethics standpoint.

i actually laughed really hard

it's probably the intuition that something is wrong with current capitalism and peeps are desperate for answers/alternatives.

>literally expended $150 on this book
who ironic

who ironic indeed

XD

The stormfront autists on /pol/ have forced out any sort of meaningful political discussion beyond ironic nazis, actual nazis, and Alex Jones-tier conspiracy theorists.

Assuming you have a foundation of knowledge on economic theory but are venturing into classical Marxism, I would recommend first reading Marx's "Wage-Labour and Capital: Value, Price, and Profit." It's basically Capital-lite and will give you some fundamental knowledge with which to arm yourself when you tackle Capital. Also don't try to read all three volumes (or Kautsky's vol. 4 fanfiction) in one go. Stick to volume 1, it is far and away the most important.

Throw it in the trash.

Please, fools like you are the problem. You have the internet at your fingertips yet are still ignorant about the jewish problem, then you try to proclaim it's other who can't engage in meaningful political discussion? You have to be pretty retarded to follow the ideology of your enemy though, so it's not exactly an earth-shattering realization that any white guy who thinks he's a Marxist/communist has no clue what's going on in the world.

did you skip your brain force pills this morning

>this mises meme says it so it must be true!

Smith was an ethicist first, and economist second. His conception of capitalism is heavily informed by his Theory of Moral Sentiments. It was Marx who threw away all talk about morality and ethics and just looked at the development of capitalism historically - I have to assume people who call him a moralist aren't familiar with his serious works, i.e. not the Manifesto.
Granted, people have made somewhat convincing arguments thati implicit in Marx is a form of virtue ethics, and his disgust was primarily aimed at utilitarianism and deontology. I myself hold that there is a greater debt owed to Aristotle than is usually acknowledged (early Marx was clearly influenced by Aristotle). But in any case he didn't want to be seen as advocating an ethical theory, and his late works are a different beast.

Take it with you while you go to vote tomorrow

The classical theory of value developed by English economists is fundamentally incorrect. It resolves itself into an equation which tries to determine the interest rate at the same time it determines the price. i.e. at the heart of the LTV there is a petito principii: two unknowns are trying to be determined at the same time.

>commie is unable to greentext and write in English

Muh leftists are intelligent

...

let's face it, you're not going to.
consider making love to your gf,
communism sucks.

American here..had breakfast with grandad this morning. He claims that it has never been easier to succeed in life if you put any effort into it. There are literally road maps to the life you want if you only work at it. Basically capitalism is great .. 50's is severely overrated etc... Life may be a bit tougher for dullards who need cradle t 112-9029114-7642662o grave factory work but for the majority this is greatest time ever to be alive for anyone with any type of capability. Not arguing his point just a perspective from a guy who grew up in "greatest generation"

Complimenti futuro compagno.
Ricordati di votare domenica

...

imagine actually reading all this gay shit, lmfao

Most helpful secondary lit imo is Rubin’s Essays of the Labour Theory of Value and Brunhoff’s Marx on Money.

The first three chapters are conceptually the most difficult, and those books are good guides to help get through that part. Harvey’s guide isn’t actually that great because he has an idiosyncratic interpretation of value, one that a lot of marxologists this is incorrect, and the chapter in value is really the key to everything that comes after.

Ben Fine’s introduction I think is overall better.
The books ‘Marx’s Theory of Price’ and ‘Marx’s Theory of Money’ are deeper secondary sources which do more to compare and actually evaluate Marx’s thought on these questions. Diane Elson’s edited collection ‘Value’ is a deeper look at that topic. Steedman’s The Value Controversy and Kilman’s The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics are both major volumes for understanding the debates. Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics is an advanced secondary source.

The three volume series ‘The Constitution of Capital’, ‘The Circulation of Capital’ and ‘The Culimination of Capital’ are essay collections about the three volumes of Capital respectively.

The three most important works of interpretation resently are Kilman’s Reclaiming Marx’s Capital, which presents his Temporary Single System Interpretation; Heinrich’s An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Capital, which presents the ‘Neue Marx-Lektüre‘ Interpretation; and Mosley’s Money and Totality which presents the Macro-monetary reading of Capital.

Once you read that I’d recommend Anwar Shaikh’s Capitalism: Conflict, Competition, and Crisis, which tries to develop a heterodox economics from Marx by way of Kalecki, taking very seriously the work of people like Friedman, Arrow, and all the big micro guys.

>Harvey’s guide
You mean David Harvey's course?
Damn, I was planning to read along.

Lrnz falso pseudo

Reality says it so it must be true*

Use it as a fuel for your fireplace.

Yeah, the videos themselves are a bit better than the book, but the way he schematizes it is unorthodox to say the least.

The whole notion of value-form is extremely tricky, and there is genuine disagreement over how exactly it needs to be understood, but there are plenty of critiques around the Internet about Harvey on that.

Like, I like Harvey, I don’t throw him under the bus as much as many, but unfortunately I think Harvey’s book became overhyped as ‘the definitive guide’.

No he's referring to Harvey's book on Capital.
The course is fine, people ask basic bitch questions all the time. You should have the intellectual capacity to disagree with his interpretations as you're reading along.

Start on page fucking one, you retard.

If you're confused about stuff/terminology, just buy/pirate one of the many companion books, or just look shit up online.

>get capital
>eager to learn about capitalism and socialism and economic history
>begin reading it
>"whoa, this sure is dense"
>fifty pages in and the picture is becoming extremely detailed
>realize that you're still in the fundamental parts of the book
>gettingreallydiscouraged.jpg
>realize that you may have to go back in time to different economists preceding Marx
>realize that they too have extremely detailed and lengthy treatises which require long and serious reading y their own accord
>get sad about the neglect of all the other reading you wanted to accomplish, this was supposed to help supplement you're understanding of the 19th century-present picture you've been trying to build
>now reading old economic works with all of your free time
>(all you wanted to do was drop sick roasts and analyses like Chomsky)
>two years later and now you're finally ready to begin reading Marx
>you now recognize that any serious understanding of Marx and his Capital will require several years of dedicated and singular study
>Faulkner is getting dusty on the shelf
>Give up
>Read Jewish Question and shit post on Veeky Forums instead

Do "Wage Labour and Capital" first, it's about 55 pages and written for actual workers, not economists. THEN take the plunge into Capital V.1

I’m saying that if you are looking to it for a definitive explication of Marx’s work you are are going to be misled. I’m specifically saying that Harvey’s understanding of value is not inline with other scholars.

People can't agree about the most basic things about Plato or Aristotle. You'll never find a perfect interpretation of a major thinker, the point is to ease you through the work and get you thinking about it. Marx is extremely divisive.