It is possible to read capital and understand parts of it in the first pass, yes. Especially if read with a group, and/or with supplementary stuff. PSL’s Reading Capital with Comrades podcast was a great review every two chapters. I also recommend David Harvey’s lectures or supplements for deeper dives, after its had time to digest. David Harvey’s got some funny views on Marxism, but he digs into a lot of the footnotes and history which is where all the flavor is.
Reviewing Harvey’s material while criticizing his politics is a great practical application of Marx’s method of critique!
Not yet, I’m gearing up for a re-read though. I’ve heard mixed things about the new translation. Good to know Harvey’s got some lectures out on it though! I’d be interested to hear his takes about differences. I might check out his lectures on it as a pre-read, def a good call-out!
Do you have a copy of it yet? When are you planning on rereading it?
It isn’t actually Harvey that has lectures, but instead Paul North, the editor! That’s why I am curious about it, more than anything. I do have the book, but have not begun it and don’t plan on reading it until next year at the earliest (too many works ahead of it on my reading list for now).
Yeah makes sense. I’ve been absolutely crawling through Black Reconstruction, but its a work that lends itself to a slow burn. Too much IRL organizing, not enough time for reading! In my heart I’m just a book club left comm, which is why I gotta keep my ass in the struggle lol.
It’s become where most of my reading is articles and internal communiques/bulletins, ntm writing. It does make me miss when study was my highest priority. I’m sure you can relate! But practical work leads to practical study. I’m just a self educated worker, so I never learned to like “complete assignments”. Instead, a comrade says something that pisses me off and it sends me on a quest to prove them wrong. Currently doing a deep dive on Gramsci’s formulation of hegemony, and how it relates to academic formulations particularly in the field of international relations. But stuff like this pulls me away from cracking a 1000+ page doorstop and crushing it, like I used to.
Education and pedagogy is a full time job! On top of all the other work i find myself doing. Especially in our current sectarian phase where even the most clearheaded comrades are ideologically all over the place.
He’s talking about the manifesto, which was written so thay your average literate person could understand in the 19th century. Marx himself suggested that you don’t start capital from chapter one because its the most philosophical and complicated part of the book. He suggested people look at chapter three or something I can find my copy of capital with an intro from the 1890s where he said kinda sexistly that women shouldn’t start with the first chapter because of how heavily it leans on Hegelian philosophy.
one hour later and less than 5 paragraphs… only half read/understood. lol
It’s about ghosts or something, which is cool, I guess!
It takes you more than an hour to read five paragraphs?
is it possible to ready anything from capital and understand it the first pass? lol
It is possible to read capital and understand parts of it in the first pass, yes. Especially if read with a group, and/or with supplementary stuff. PSL’s Reading Capital with Comrades podcast was a great review every two chapters. I also recommend David Harvey’s lectures or supplements for deeper dives, after its had time to digest. David Harvey’s got some funny views on Marxism, but he digs into a lot of the footnotes and history which is where all the flavor is.
Reviewing Harvey’s material while criticizing his politics is a great practical application of Marx’s method of critique!
Have you checked out the new lectures going over the Reitter translation? Was considering following that for my next read of Capital.
Not yet, I’m gearing up for a re-read though. I’ve heard mixed things about the new translation. Good to know Harvey’s got some lectures out on it though! I’d be interested to hear his takes about differences. I might check out his lectures on it as a pre-read, def a good call-out!
Do you have a copy of it yet? When are you planning on rereading it?
It isn’t actually Harvey that has lectures, but instead Paul North, the editor! That’s why I am curious about it, more than anything. I do have the book, but have not begun it and don’t plan on reading it until next year at the earliest (too many works ahead of it on my reading list for now).
Yeah makes sense. I’ve been absolutely crawling through Black Reconstruction, but its a work that lends itself to a slow burn. Too much IRL organizing, not enough time for reading! In my heart I’m just a book club left comm, which is why I gotta keep my ass in the struggle lol.
It’s become where most of my reading is articles and internal communiques/bulletins, ntm writing. It does make me miss when study was my highest priority. I’m sure you can relate! But practical work leads to practical study. I’m just a self educated worker, so I never learned to like “complete assignments”. Instead, a comrade says something that pisses me off and it sends me on a quest to prove them wrong. Currently doing a deep dive on Gramsci’s formulation of hegemony, and how it relates to academic formulations particularly in the field of international relations. But stuff like this pulls me away from cracking a 1000+ page doorstop and crushing it, like I used to.
Education and pedagogy is a full time job! On top of all the other work i find myself doing. Especially in our current sectarian phase where even the most clearheaded comrades are ideologically all over the place.
Lol kind of a side quest comment
He’s talking about the manifesto, which was written so thay your average literate person could understand in the 19th century. Marx himself suggested that you don’t start capital from chapter one because its the most philosophical and complicated part of the book. He suggested people look at chapter three or something I can find my copy of capital with an intro from the 1890s where he said kinda sexistly that women shouldn’t start with the first chapter because of how heavily it leans on Hegelian philosophy.
“A linen coat costs what it does because women be shopping”