Hop in, comrades, we are reading Capital Volumes I-III this year, and we will every year until Communism is achieved. (Volume IV, often published under the title Theories of Surplus Value, will not be included, but comrades are welcome to set up other bookclubs.) This works out to about 6½ pages a day for a year, 46 pages a week.
I’ll post the readings at the start of each week and @mention anybody interested. Let me know if you want to be added or removed.
Week 1, January 4 - January 11, Volume 1 Chapter 1 ‘The Commodity’
This is the very first bookclub post, so get to know each other, ask questions about the basic premise, just keep mostly on-topic. This didn’t start on January 1st because I want it to start and end on the weekend. @'ing everyone mid-Thursday probably wouldn’t have gotten very many readers.
Discuss the week’s reading in the comments.
Use any translation/edition you like. Marxists.org has the Moore and Aveling translation in various file formats including epub and PDF.
AernaLingus says: I noticed that the linked copy of the Fowkes translation doesn’t have bookmarks, so I took the liberty of adding them myself. You can either download my version with the bookmarks added or if you’re a bit paranoid (can’t blame ya) and don’t mind some light command line work you can use the same simple script that I did with my formatted plaintext bookmarks to take the PDF from libgen and add the bookmarks yourself. Also, please let me know if you spot any errors with the bookmarks so I can fix them!
Resources
(These are not expected reading, these are here to help you if you so choose)
-
Harvey’s guide to reading it: https://www.davidharvey.org/media/Intro_A_Companion_to_Marxs_Capital.pdf
-
Harvey’s lectures: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWvnUfModHP9Ci8M1g39l4AZgK6YLCXd0
-
A University of Warwick guide to reading it: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/postgraduate/masters/modules/worldlitworldsystems/hotr.marxs_capital.untilp72.pdf
-
Reading Capital with Comrades: A Liberation School podcast series - https://www.liberationschool.org/reading-capital-with-comrades-podcast/
2024 Archived Discussions
If you want to dig back into older discussions, this is an excellent way to do so.
Archives:
Week 1 – Week 2 – Week 3 – Week 4 – Week 5 – Week 6 – Week 7 – Week 8 – Week 9 – Week 10 – Week 11 – Week 12 – Week 13 – Week 14 – Week 15 – Week 16 – Week 17 – Week 18 – Week 19 – Week 20 – Week 21 – Week 22 – Week 23 – Week 24 – Week 25 – Week 26 – Week 27 – Week 28 – Week 29 – Week 30 – Week 31 – Week 32 – Week 33 – Week 34 – Week 35 – Week 36 – Week 37 – Week 38 – Week 39 – Week 40 – Week 41 – Week 42 – Week 43 – Week 44 – Week 45 – Week 46 – Week 47 – Week 48 – Week 49 – Week 50 – Week 51 – Week 52
2025 Archived Discussions
If you want to dig back into older discussions, this is an excellent way to do so.
Week 1 – Week 2 – Week 3 – Week 4 – Week 5 – Week 6 – Week 7 – Week 8 – Week 9 – Week 10 – Week 11 – Week 12 – Week 13 – Week 14 – Week 15 – Week 16 – Week 17 – Week 18 – Week 19 – Week 20 – Week 21 – Week 22 – Week 23 – Week 24 – Week 25 – Week 26 – Week 27 – Week 28 – Week 29 – Week 30 – Week 31 – Week 32 – Week 33 – Week 34 – Week 35 – Week 36 – Week 37 – Week 38 – Week 39 – Week 40 – Week 41 – Week 42 – Week 43 – Week 44 – Week 45
2026 Archived Discussions
Just joining us? You can use the archives below to help you reading up to where the group is. There is another reading group on a different schedule at https://lemmygrad.ml/c/genzhou (federated at !genzhou@lemmygrad.ml ) (Note: Seems to be on hiatus for now) which may fit your schedule better. The idea is for the bookclub to repeat annually, so there’s always next year.
N/A
I wanna be added
Maybe I’ll actually try this this year.
Did Aveling/Engels translate all 3 volumes? I’d really like to read his translations since it seems like they use less obscurantist language than the Penguin Books versions I have.
The first English translation of Volume 1 was published in 1887 by Edward Aveling and Samuel Moore. The first English translations of Volumes 2 and 3 were published in 1907 and 1909, respectively, by Ernest Untermann, several years after Aveling died in 1898.
For this reading, I’m trying to really diagram out the categories as they are developed, to check if I really understand it. So I tried to implement the categories as data types in Haskell-ish pseudocode, but unfortunately this proved to be more tricky than I thought. Has anyone tried doing something like this, i.e. mathematically formalizing Marxian categories into something like a type system?
I found this really interesting thread on
/r/SocialistProgrammers, which seems to discuss something similar. However, I’m not trying to capture the full dynamism of Hegelian logic. I just want to take a snapshot of Marx’s categories at different points in the book for diagramming purposes, to show how the categories are connected. I imagine it could be visualized some way for pedagogical purposes.i don’t have anything to add rn but have you started doing this? or rather, did you manage to work out a way of doing this that proved useful &c?
I didn’t make much progress after this post, and I started to think that it would be too complicated. For example, I got into the section of Ch 1 about the simple commodity form and the development of the money commodity. Trying to formalize this would be quite tricky because I don’t even know how one would go about making types for this:
- In an exchange relation of commodity A with commodity B, the relative form of A is pure value, while the equivalent form of B is the physical embodiment of abstract human labor.
- The expanded form of commodity A with all such commodities B means that the physical body which represents abstract human labor (equivalent form) takes on as many different forms as there are commodities B.
- Flip the directions: Represent all commodities A using the same equivalent form commodity B, so that a single commodity B becomes the physical embodiment of abstract human labor in the exchange with all such A.
- The money commodity is the commodity B which is used in practice, e.g. gold or silver.
I think it would need some kind of “Exchange” type which includes a Relative field (type Commodity) and an Equivalent field (type Commodity). There could be some function ConvertToEquivalent which takes the “internal” value of labor-time in the Relative commodity, and returns a new commodity with the same internal labor-time expressed as a different commodity (the Equivalent). This would be steps 1 and 2.
To develop step 3, add a function ExchangeValue which simply takes 2 commodities and divides their internal value (units of labor-time) and returns a unitless ratio.
The part I have not figured out is how to really express the concept of socially necessary labor-time. Intuitively, this should be some kind of function which takes information external to the commodity, maybe some kind of lookup table for the SNLT of all commodities at a given snapshot in time. But I wonder if there is some more elegant way to calculate this lookup table using purely the information in the type system, rather than just axiomatically assuming it?
This is where I start to feel out of my depth, but it does help me try to clarify it for myself!
maybe i’ll come back to this in a few days and feel totally stupid but is socially-necessary labor time not already embodied in the exchange-value of a commodity? in other words, the amount of abstract human labor represented as exchange-value can only ever be the amount of labor that is on average necessary to make the use-value contained in the commodity (absent confounding factors ofc)
You’re absolutely right, yes I think with all things held constant (intensity of labor, technology, stable environment, etc) then the socially-necessary labor time should be constant. I was thinking it’d be cool if, in this code implementation, the SNLT could be calculated for a given commodity using its entire supply chain. So each commodity keeps track of its inputs and the labor added when converting the inputs into the commodity. The SNLT for a commodity would be calculated recursively by summing the added labor plus the SNLT of all of its inputs.
Commodity: 1 apple pie
- Added Labor = 30 min
- Inputs = {1 apple, 100g sugar, 250g flour, 5g cinnamon, 20g butter}
- SNLT = 30 min + SNLT(Inputs)
Commodity: 100g sugar
- Added Labor = 5 minutes (idk made up)
- Inputs = {some fraction of a combine harvester, water, things needed to process sugar…}
- SNLT = 5 minutes + SNLT(Inputs)
Commodity: 250g flour
- Added Labor = 1 minute (at industrial scale)
- Inputs = {some fraction of a flour mill, seeds, pesticide, …}
- SNLT = 1 minute + SNLT(Inputs)
and so on. As I write this, I’m realizing this would lead to some chicken-and-egg problems, similar to how the process of making yogurt involves taking some yogurt, adding milk and heat to get more yogurt. I’ll have to think about this.[1]
But with this model, it would be possible to interrogate the data and maybe build some graphs.
But I’m not just interested to build graphs, I was also hoping it’d help me better understand what is “simple average labor.” Marx says that human labor in all its particular kinds is abstracted into abstract labor of an average intensity and skill. Are we able to more precisely define what that means? I feel like a formalization could help give precision on things like that. For example, can “skill” be quantified? Could we tell if the average skill increases or decreases over time? That could have relevance in later chapters when Marx talks about de-skilling, maybe this would be a neat connection.
edit: I think this can be solved if I don’t calculate SNLT recursively like this. If all the inputs can be assumed paid with money, the universal equivalent, which is also a form of value. The inputs are from a previous production process, and the labor time of the inputs is “forwarded” as dead labor to the next production process. Looks like I need to refresh myself on Kliman and also Chapter 8 of volume 1. ↩︎
Along the way, I learned about this mathematician William Lawvere who tried to formalize Hegel’s unity of opposites in the language of category theory:
Lawvere was a committed Marxist–Leninist throughout his life. He saw his political commitments as deeply connected to his scientific and philosophical work. In 1971, his dismissal from Dalhousie University was a result of his vocal opposition to the Vietnam War and the Canadian government’s use of the War Measures Act.
Lawvere often infused his mathematical writing with philosophical and political concepts. In his 1970 paper “Quantifiers and Sheaves,” he connects the mathematical concept of adjoint functors to the dialectical principle of the unity of opposites and cites Mao Zedong’s essay “On Contradiction”, as well as Vladimir Lenin’s theory of knowledge.
See also: nLab: Hegel’s Logic as Modal Type Theory
reporting for dutykarl marx debunked the “marginal revolution” on literally the first page of capital
What is the marginal revolution?
after marxism became popular, the theory of “marginal utility” was popularized as a response to the labor theory of value. basically, it’s the “observation” that after a certain amount of a given commodity, it’s of diminishing use-value to an individual consumer.
the common example people give is water. an individual may be willing to pay a premium for the first few liters of water, which they need to live. they’ll pay a little less for the next few liters of water, which they need to take a bath. they won’t pay anything for any more water, because they don’t need it for anything. therefore, exchange-value is subjective and there’s no law that governs what the exchange-value of a commodity is.
of course, an observant reader might notice that the “subjective/marginal theory of value” is no theory of value at all. it explicitly refuses to engage with the question of why a commodity might have a value equal to x other commodity or a price of y money. instead, it says we can’t answer it so don’t even try. naturally, we already had a pretty good way to answer that question before marginal theory even existed.
tldr: the “marginal revolution” was the popularization among bourgeois economists of the never-before realized idea that overproduction exists. they love it because it happened sometime between 1860 and 1890 and therefore DESTROYED marx
and the water-diamond thing a few paragraphs later. it’s wild how many of these economists’ “thought experiments” were destroyed by a guy who was already dead when they happened
Is it the talking point of how a glass of water is more valuable than a diamond in the middle of the desert so the whole theory of use-value and value is wrong?
Can you add me again when reading volume 3? That’s the one I missed last year
Should be September when Vol 3 starts up. Do you have a way to set yourself a reminder?
Yes, no problem
noooo I’m already behind
not sure I’ll manage to finish chapter 1 in time, but hopefully I’ll be caught up through chapter 2 by the end of next week’s thread. I guess ideally I’d be done with chapter 3 in time for week 3’s thread, but that seems like wishful thinking (I do hope to eventually be ready with a comment by the beginning of each week). Also chapter 1 is gonna be the longest slog both because I’ve heard it’s difficult and because I’m reading all the (checks) four separate forewords/prefaces/introductions that are in my edition (I’m using the new Reitter translation). So if I can power through this, I can go the distance!
edit: locked in today and powered through all the prefaces, so I can tackle Chapter 1 tomorrow! Much excite
I’m behind too
I have no idea where the week went but fuck it I will figure it out somehow.You got this! It’s no big deal if you’re a bit behind at the start, anyhow—it is a year-long reading group, after all, so you’ve got plenty of time to catch up. The first few chapters are supposed to be the toughest, so don’t let that discourage you—just try to read a bit every day, and you’ll get there! I’ve been doing a half hour here, a half hour there, and I think I should finish chapter one in the next day or two. As soon as I can feel my eyes start to glaze over and notice I’m re-reading the same paragraph over and over, I know it’s time to take a break and do something else for a bit.
Good luck everyone this year! The first 3 chapters of Volume 1 are the toughest to get through, but once you’re through those it’s pretty smooth sailing from there!
And thanks for hosting it this year, @oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net!
I wish there was a better tool for these clubs. Lemmy doesn’t have a proper Watch feature for new comments, so it is not motivating to add a comment on day 6 of a thread, because no one will see it, let alone commenting on a past week’s thread.
Thanks oscardejarjayes for hosting this year!
Yeah, Lemmy isn’t built for bookclubs. We could have a custom sorting algorithm to cater to bookclubs or something, and some kind of watch feature would be nice, but I think Lemmy is just not a very good place to hold bookclubs. In-person is book club king, and everything else is just a pale immitation. If we want to go one step further, moving off-platform might be a good decision. We might have to write it ourselves, but a Hexbear linked Bookclub virtual meeting space is very interesting.
You’re welcome, I’m always happy to serve my community! Cowbee’s my Lemmy hero, so I love to follow in his footsteps, and help out continuing his work.
Cowbee’s my Lemmy hero, so I love to follow in his footsteps, and help out continuing his work.
You’re way too kind, comrade. Vampire led the 2024 reading group, so 2025 isn’t even original. Like you, I’m just trying to pay all the numerous people who helped me forward, and atone for my years of liberalism. shudders
I agree that the Lemmy format isn’t great for longer book clubs, it works great with single articles or short books but Capital is a commitment. One thing I saw used by other book clubs is asking a question per week, and trying to get people to answer that. It ups engagement and fosters further discussion. Just an idea! And thanks again, comrade!
@marxisthayaca@hexbear.net did a book club for a few years using an off-site resource.
It was perusall https://hexbear.net/post/108398
I’ve definitely had that thought too. Last year I fell behind. And I debated on posting comments on older threads where nobody would revisit them
Please do! That’s why we link them!
Will anyone else be using the Paul Reitter translation? I picked up a copy last year and have been looking for a reason to read it
I read Fowkes last year, considering reading along with Reitter this year.
together we can achieve the possible!
Hey everyone, Capital bookclub is starting from the top again! If any friends missed the last one, bring 'em on over here. Just participate anywhere in the current 2026 thread, whichever thread that might be, to be added to the notification list. DM or reply to this comment asking to be removed if you wish to be removed.
Notification List
@FromPieces@lemmygrad.ml @roux@hexbear.net @0__0@hexbear.net @bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml @pierre_delecto@hexbear.net @StillNoLeftLeft@hexbear.net @RedWizard@hexbear.net @o_d@lemmygrad.ml @quarrk@hexbear.net @real@hexbear.net @Sasuke@hexbear.net @ComradeSpahija@hexbear.net @NinjaGinga@hexbear.net @SabbaticGoat@hexbear.net @woodenghost@hexbear.net @Parsani@hexbear.net @radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net @pr0kch0p@hexbear.net @NedIsakoff@hexbear.net @LibsEatPoop@hexbear.net @LisaTrevor@hexbear.net @AernaLingus@hexbear.net @devils_dust@hexbear.net @burntpopcorn@hexbear.net @ExtimateCookie@hexbear.net @oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net @CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml @blackbread@lemmygrad.ml @imogen_underscore@hexbear.net @khizuo@hexbear.net @glimmer_twin@hexbear.net @Sebrof@hexbear.net @CommieTurtle@lemmy.ml @CARCOSA@hexbear.net @jacab@hexbear.net []
Add me too please. Thanks!
Added!
Can you add me to the list?
Sure thing!
List add plz. 2026 is the year I finally tackle capital
List add
Done!
plz
A little bit of politeness goes a long way
2026 is the year I finally tackle capital
You better believe I’ll be holding you to your word on that over the course of this year.
Personally, it took my quite a few years of reading through Das Kapital to actually finish all three volumes. My copy of the first volume is super worn down, from all the times I’ve started off trying to go through Capital, but had to give up after only finishing the first volume. It’s a little ironic, since the first volume is generally considered the driest and most boring, while the series gets progressively better until the peak of volume 3.
I’ll join! :)
add me to the list please! been looking at my copy of capital intimidating me from the shelf for far too long haha
add me please <3
Still here
When he says it isnt the exchange of commodities that regulated the magnitude of their value but its actually the magnitude of their value that regulates their exchange does he mean that the commodity’s value isnt dependent on what it can be exchanged for, that it’s value comes from the labor that went into it, which is somewhat recognized in what it can be exchanged for?
@Cowbee@hexbear.net hi
I havent given up yetYep, you’ve basically got it! He’s tackling those that think prices are invented in our heads.
(PSA: the reading group on Lemmygrad is not on hiatus, we’ve just moved to /c/theory@lemmygrad.ml)
There’s a spectre haunting this dead thread, and it’s me
In 2. The dual character of the labor embodied in commodies, when he says that a coat that took half the time to make as another coat has the same quality of useful labor as the coat that took longer, does the quality of useful labor mean like tailoring here?
