Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume II. Book One: The Process of Circulation of Capital. Edited by Friedrich Source: First English edition of ;. URL of this E-Book: musicmarkup.info URL of original Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. 3 Vols, by Karl . There was above all the English edition of the first volume of this work, for. Facsimile PDF, MB, This is a facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of .. The first English translation of the first volume of Capital was edited by.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Science & Research|
|ePub File Size:||28.38 MB|
|PDF File Size:||9.59 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume I. Book One: The Process of First published: in German in , English edition first published in ;. This is a free version of Capital by Karl Marx for download below in PDF. It is not just the book Volume I, that are found on other websites, nor. scanned in the English translation from the Vintage edition, and then I made alterations to these translations as they seemed necessary while working myself .
We are making it available here on the occasions of the th anniversary of Capital. It is reproduced here by permission. Isaac Deutscher is the author of distinguished biographies of Stalin and Trotsky, and at the time of his death at the age of 60 last August he was working on a biography of Lenin. To us the Marxist forecast of the collapse of capitalism was not an apocalyptic vision related only remotely to the realities of our daily life. The old social order was crumbling before our very eyes.
I found these convincing enough, and I felt that they equipped me quite adequately for further literary and philosophical work and for political struggle. Sometimes his dialectical subtleties seemed to me a trifle over-elaborate in an old-fashioned manner, and I wondered just how relevant they were.
His exposition seemed to me too slow and leisurely for someone like myself, impatient to understand the world and to change it quickly.
I was relieved to hear that Ignacy Daszynski, our famous Member of Parliament, a pioneer of socialism, an orator on whose lips hung the parliaments of Vienna and Warsaw, admitted that he too found Das Kapital too hard a nut. I have not read Kelles-Krauz either; but the clever Jew, Herman Diamond, our financial expert, has read Kelles-Krauz, and has told me all about it.
Meanwhile I had committed myself politically: I had joined the outlawed Communist Party. In these circumstances I could not even dream of tackling Das Kapital seriously. The time for that came a few years later, in , when I was expelled from the party as spokesman of an anti-Stalinist opposition. I felt the need to re-examine my own political thinking and the principles of communism and Marxism. I decided to take nothing for granted.
Could Stalinist policy and practices be justified in terms of Marxism? These were the questions that troubled me. I was determined to scrutinize this whole intellectual structure coolly and skeptically, keeping my eyes open to its possible flaws and cracks. The esprit de contradiction got hold of me; at moments I was almost bent on proving Marx wrong.
In the next three or four years I read and re-read the great work in its entirety five or six times. I also plunged into the vast economic literature to which Marx referred; studied his bourgeois, academic, and social democratic critics; and acquainted myself with the varying interpretations and developments of Das Kapital offered by Kautsky, Lenin, Hilferding, Luxemburg, Bukharin, and others.
I had left my starting point, poetry and aesthetics, far behind, and invested all my intellectual passions in monetary doctrines, the trade cycle, land rent, capital concentration in agriculture, the falling profit rate, the impoverishment of the working class, and other aspects of the dismal science.
From explorations of Ricardo, Sismondi, Sombart, Bohm-Bawerk, and the early Keynes, I returned again and again to Das Kapital and was ever afresh captivated by the richness of its theoretical and historical texture and the crystal clarity of the analysis. The toil of the uphill climb was transformed into sheer excitement. No other work has ever impressed me with a comparable force.
But what about those flaws for which I had been on the look-out? Try as I did, I could not detect them. Every time I re-read the opus, I found it more rigorously argued and more convincing than I had thought it to be. I saw where, in the opening chapter, one might dissent from Marx and follow the theorists of marginal utility.
And once I had accepted his premises, I could not help following him all the way through to his conclusions. Yet no one underlines this more emphatically than Marx himself, and no one has elucidated the structural complexities of our society with anything approaching his historical realism. It is true that he dealt with laissez-faire and not with later quasi-monopolistic forms of capitalist organization.
This, I reflected, did not render his analysis obsolete, for he shows precisely how the monopolistic forms grow out of laissez-faire; and he reveals, as no one else does, the organic connection between these phases of economic development.
Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx include a Russian translation by the revolutionary socialist Mikhail Bakunin — Eventually, Marx's work was translated into all major languages. The definitive critical edition of Marx's works, known as MEGA II Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe , includes Das Kapital in German only the first volume is in French and shows all the versions and alterations made to the text as well as a very extensive apparatus of footnotes and cross-references.
Reviews[ edit ] In , the historian Gareth Stedman Jones wrote in the Books and Arts section of the scientific journal Nature :  What is extraordinary about Das Kapital is that it offers a still-unrivalled picture of the dynamism of capitalism and its transformation of societies on a global scale. It firmly embedded concepts such as commodity and capital in the lexicon. And it highlights some of the vulnerabilities of capitalism, including its unsettling disruption of states and political systems.
In doing so, he inaugurated a debate about how best to reform or transform politics and social relations, which has gone on ever since.
Positive reception also cited the soundness of the methodology used in producing the book, which is called immanent critique. This approach, which starts from simple category and gradually unfolds into complex categories, employed "internal" criticism that finds contradiction within and between categories while discovering aspects of reality that the categories cannot explain.
For instance, there are theorists who claimed that this text was unable to reconcile capitalist exploitation with prices dependent upon subjective wants in exchange relations.
There are also those who argued that Marx's so-called immiseration thesis is presumed to mean that the proletariat is absolutely immiserated. Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie. I teach economics in a college setting.
Therefore, I offer the works of Karl Marx free for download and suspend my preconceived notions. While Adam Smith believed capitalism was motivated by enlighten self-interest, people create value to satiated demand. When people pursue enlightened self interest society as a whole benefit in ways that could never be imagined or engineered. Marx has a different view.
The owner of production could claim surplus value because of legal protection. The ruling regime granted the capitalist property rights. If we understand what Marx believed was wrong with capitalism we can create a better capitalism model. Marx articulated. Marx believed a capitalist ideology was created because society is brainwashed to attribute value judgments on things that do not matter.
He makes some points relevant to his time and important to continue to improve our time. Some ideas he had was free education, free libraries, public transportation and roads, progressive income tax. These ideas have all come to fruition and as capitalism evolves in our mixed economy more of his ideas are ironically become manifest though capitalism. Marx is a conflict theory because one group of society in not in competition but conflict and oppression with another group in society.
It sociology is one model that is not common. More common is cooperation, competition or isolation. Class conflict was the basis of his theory. He did not envision the totalitarian oppression of Communism, which to the Soviets was seen as a transitional state towards the path to Utopia. He wanted to create an equal society in terms of economics opportunity to actualize their lives through intellectual endeavors.
In the context of his time, Marx was writing about, a transition from feudalism to industrialization. During feudalism, people had rights to have their own animals and farm in the commons.
However, with the passage of the Enclosure acts in the 18th century in England, land ownership and use became restrictive and migration to the cities limited workers to factory work for making a means of employment. In the factories, factory workers were employed at substance wages and children were use as cheap labor. The classes were the factory owners or the Bourgeoisie and the workers or the proletariat.
The capitalist system is based on a system that encourages inequality. Through education of the proletariat and eventual revolution that would over thought the system, a new system where all people were treated equal. Further the capital and businesses were community owned, this system was called communism.
It was the abolition of private property. Marx used Hegelian logic, dialectical materialism in his theory. In another twist of irony, in one sense Marx was the first hyper consumer, as all that exists in the world was material, rather than spiritual transcendence and meaning.
Therefore, his system of happiness util maximization was based on satiation through material equality and intellectual pursuits, not a soulful transcendence. Nothing is more useful than water: A diamond , on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it — Adam Smith.
Value is not determined by labor input or any objective measure but by supply and demand, it is subjective, whatever value people ascribe value to it.
You are not as indentured to your job and your career as you think. These are seen as the two social values that are parlayed to create a society that is just.
Justice as the ultimate good. They have to be balanced with both equality and freedom which are limited goods. You do not want the freedom to yell fire in a crowded movie if it was not true, or allow children to smoke.