Talk:Das Kapital, Volume I

General Suggestions

I just wanted to make a general suggestion for anyone who is interested in contributing to this article that we should adapt a more consistent use of "labor" or "labour" throughout the article. Same applies to the references although this is more difficult because there are different versions of the book. --Henrik.petaisto (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's fine to continue to use the U.S. spelling of "labor" in the article even though the British spelling "labour" appears in quotes from the text. This is consistent with Wikipedia editorial practices. (Marxclass (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Will also be changing the spelling of his name to a more Americanised version, ie "Carl"? I believe that the article should follow the lead of the text and continue to use the spelling "labour". 58.179.14.143 (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

this article won't take into consideration that Das Kapital first appeared as a GERMAN work. By presenting its compendium in English, including terms and their definitions, the work is in fact altered, unless it is explained when and where the originals appeared, when the translations appeared and who authored them; also, which translation the compendium is founded upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.182.144 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The spelling variation should be consistent with the variety of English the work was translated into: see Wikipedia:MOS#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic Lenny (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Part One Discussion

This is Sarah French. I just added the Chapter 1 Section 2 outline to the Part One subheading. FrenchFrieG 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 1, section 1 suggestions: "The Two Factors Of The Commodity: Use-Value And Value (Substance Of Value, Magnitude Of Value)" -- use this subtitle as the outline for the summary. Focus on commodities, their two factors (use-value and value), and Marx's explanation of the substance of value (abstract human labor) and the measure of value (socially necessary labor time). The discussion of exchange-value can safely be left for a later section. This is an important section, so making the summary as short and clear as possible will be helpful. Marxclass 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 1, section 2 suggestions: The linen Marx is talking about is cloth, not thread. Use the American spelling, "labor" instead of the British "labour." It's probably best to stick to talking about value and to avoid talking about prices since money has yet to be introduced into the discussion by Marx. For Marx, tailoring and weaving are different forms of concrete, useful labor that create different use-values (coats and cloth). The value of these different use-values created by these different forms of concrete labor can be compared because both are expenditures of definite quantities of human labor-time in the abstract. So if 1 coat and 20 yards of linen both take the same amount of socially necessary labor time to produce, then they both have the same value. The last paragraph on p. 137 can be a helpful place to look for Marx's summary of this "dual nature" of labor (concrete and abstract) that produces dual-natured commodities (use-values and values). Marxclass 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Part Eight Discussion

Suggestions for Chapter 27: Delete the page numbers in the chapter title -- there are too many different editions in print to tie the article to any one specific edition. "The last third of the 15th Century marked the beginning of an era that provided for the rise of capitalist modes of production, changing the shape of modern industry, economics as well as the role of private ownership in the contemporary world." -- mode, not modes, of production -- and instead of "changing the shape..." perhaps the second half of this sentence should highlight that the particular change this chapter is tracing is the initial creation of the working class. "Most classically illustrated in England, and then spreading to Scotland, Germany and across Europe, the process of primitive accumulation takes root in the transition from communal land ownership by peasants and feudal lords alike, to the private ownership of a select few." -- This is the history in England. The claim that it is most classically or that it then spread geographically elsewhere seems somewhat contentious. "The manufacture of wool and its accompanying high prices serve as motivation for the feudal lords to drive peasantry from communal property." -- perhaps the expansion of the manufacture of wool... and higher prices. Some mention of "sheep-walks" and "deer-forests" are usual in discussions of this chapter, as is some mention of the "dissolution of of the bands of feudal retainers" (878) and the "colossal spoliation of church property" (881). "Bills" plural for the Inclosure of Commons. "The parliament later declares a ‘genreal Act of Parliament for the enclosure of Commons,’ claiming that a parliamentary 'coup d’etat' is necessary for the transformation into private property." -- perhaps strike this sentence. This is Marx's gloss on the events, and not an actual act of Parliament. Wage-laborers instead of labourers. -- use the American spelling. (first form of capitalist production) -- perhaps delete this parenthetical remark. It seems out of place here and is likely to be somewhat contentious as well. "free and rightless proletarians" -- use double quote marks for quotations and give reference (895). Marxclass 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 28 suggestions: "vagabondage" seems an archaic word, perhaps it can be avoided. The prohibition against combinations of workers in France was prohibited even after the revolution.

Chapter 29 suggestions: "Firstly the Agricultural Revolution of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries increased the productivity of the newly acquired lands." -- isn't Marx saying it is the newly acquired lands (the usurped commons) that allowed for more production of cattle and sheep? Marxclass 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 31 suggestions: “one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation” -- give the reference for this quote. On p. 915 Marx lists: "colonies, the national debt, the modern tax system, and the system of protection." -- each of these should probably get at least a brief mention in the chapter summary. Marxclass 20:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 32 suggestions: No connection with the Communist Manifesto should be asserted -- even though there may be some overlap in themes. Spell check. Use reference tags to match other citations in the article. "the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people"(930) -- The historical tendency of capitalist accumulation is towards its own downfall. This quote is the opposite of what's asserted here: it is the overthrow of capital (the few usurpers) by the proletariat (the mass of the people) that Marx is anticipating.

Chapter 33 suggestions: Spell check. Use reference tags. Consider shortening and leaving out some of the details. The overall point for Marx is that in the case of the colonies, even the capitalists say what Marx is saying: "The only thing that interests us is the secret discovered in the New World by the political economy of the Old World, and loudly proclaimed by it: that the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property as well, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of that private property which rests on the labour of the individual himself; in other words, the expropriation of the worker" (940). Marxclass 14:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good on you

I've come across this while doing work on the History of economic thought page and I just wanted to say that there has been a stellar effort put in on this, and well done. Wikidea 08:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we be more specific on the date of publication? The year was 1867, as correctly stated here. Anybody have a source that will give us a month? --Christofurio (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Both marxists.org and Saul K. Padover The essential Marx: the non-economic writings, a selection (1979), say September 14, in Hamburg. I will add it to the article. Grant | Talk 03:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC) This is confirmed in detail in the David McLellan biography.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Popularization

In December 2008 a manga popularization of Volume I hit Japanese bookstores. The fictionalized Vol. 1 of "Das Kapital" chronicles a cheese factory run by protagonist Robin, who rebels against his father's socialist principles and becomes a slave driver after teaming up with a cold-blooded capitalist investor. But Robin struggles between his capitalist ambitions and his sense of guilt over the exploitation of his workers. Meanwhile, exploited salary-men are seen slowly coming to terms with the central analysis: that they are the sole source of capitalism's wealth.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jIVYxy6UnhtQ7VjkmmeCSGjt1V5gD957MCKG1 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1121/1227137525860.html

Kjk2.1 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

removed per WP:TRIVIA ... see my comment on Talk:Das_Kapital#Popularization CES (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikification

Since there aren't many wikilinks in the article, I thought I'd add some. I might add some more another time. In any case, I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject at hand, so I'll just do my best to link to the most relevant article, and if I miss the mark I hope someone will improve my effort or remove the link if no appropriate article exists. Dr. Stanovsky, I'm looking your way on this one ;-) W.stanovsky (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing sections?

Is there a chapter 2 in the book? Why isn't there a chapter 2 section in this article? W.stanovsky (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, while I'm at it, same question for chapter 1, section 1 and (found it) chapter 15, section 3. W.stanovsky (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To those, add chapter 25, sections 1 and 2. W.stanovsky (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Split the article?

I know there are arguments to be made for having everything in one place, but currently this article is WAY beyond Wikipedia guidelines for article length. It seems to me that splitting it out so that there's a separate article for each of the eight parts would get each article down to a pretty ideal size. Then this main article would only have to have the broad overview and background and a short summary of each part, with a link to the main article. Thoughts? W.stanovsky (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

My First Inline Citation!

I added a line with a reference [2] that helped me a ton when I was trying to finally read Das Capital left to right. I hope it stands and I don't get stompted (again..) I also read that Marx made the first three chapters difficult on purpose so that the censor(s) would fall asleep and in turn approve the book for publication. Can anyone fill this out or not?--Oracleofottawa (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reduction of Parts II and III

It looks like in the last few months, parts II and III were replaced with much shorter, less thorough, un-wikified versions. I realized that the article is too long, but I think (see a previous post here) that the best solution is eventually to create a separate article for each part. I think it's counterproductive to remove detail that represents someone's hard work in this article. If no one disagrees, I'll eventually come back around and reinstate those sections as they were, preparatory to splitting this article into parts. W.stanovsky (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

can no one be bothered to breakdown these two parts into a discription of there individuel chapthers like all the other parts, or at least make separate articles like stanovsky suggested a few months ago, it would make them allot clearer. also there is no discription at all of chapter 2 in part 1. 92.23.97.62 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

request

Now, I always knew that Volume II and III were 'sealed books' with respect to the general public and even to most educators, intellectuals, and even vulgar Marxists who rely on secondary sources, but I never expected that out of all writers dedicated to working on wikipedia articles for the general public, not a single individual would devote some time to lengthening the content of the wikiarticles Volume II and III.

A la prochaine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.193 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you take a stab at it then? Sindinero (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

notes on capital

Value expresses the fact that a commodity is a product of social labour. In this sense a commodity’s value does not represent the amount of individual labour expended in it but rather - that part of social labour as a whole credited to that commodity; socially necessary labour-power expended. The substance of value is ‘homogenous human labour’ or ‘human labour-power expended without regard to the form of its expenditure’ (128). The magnitude of value refers to the socially necessary labour-time required to produce a commodity or ‘the labour-time required to produce any use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labour prevalent in that society’ (129). Thus a commodity is not only a thing (a use-value) but more importantly, it embodies a portion of society’s labour-time (a value).

This point touches on Marx’s sociological theory of the market – value is purely a social phenomenon and that the existence of value (Wertgegenstandlichkeit) is therefore ‘purely social’ (139) i.e. abstract labour which creates value must be understood as a social category and not as a physiological concept. This may seem obvious, but it is a very important point that differentiates Marx’s labour theory of value from other classical political economists who preceded him, particularly Ricardo. Exchange relations reflecting amounts of labour-time embodied in particular commodities was not an original discovery: to all of classical political economy this point was central. Marx’s contribution was that value is characteristic only of a particular kind of society in which the relations between various producers or members of society are regulated through the market. Thus value is not inherent in the isolated commodity prior to entering the sphere of exchange where portions of social labour are being measured and equated in relation to one another.

Value therefore does not simply refer to the amount of labour-time expended in the commodity but the socially necessary labour-time, the amount of labour time in relation to the labour-time of society as a whole. Thus ‘it is the expression of equivalence between different sorts of commodities which brings to view the specific character of value-creating labour, by actually reducing the different kinds of labour embedded in the different kinds of commodity to their common quality of being human labour in general’ (142). It may appear as if Marx is presenting a technical economic argument in the first three sections of the chapter and then offering a sociological commentary in the fourth but this is misleading. He points out that his close examination of the form of value (174, fn.34) is what differentiates his theory from others i.e. understanding commodity exchange not only in terms of technical economic relations but as one means for the regulation of the social division of labour. This concept is discussed at length in Isaak Illich Rubin’s Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value.

The third section shows how Marx’s dialectical method is well suited to the task of deriving money as the necessary form to materialize value objectively. He dissects the purely quantitative exchange relation in order to discover the real social content of that relation. Thus his analysis of different exchange forms must be understood as an analysis of different types of social relations corresponding to the different levels of development of exchange. He works his way up from the simplest form of exchange to the most advanced until he reaches the money form. He explains and shows historically/logically how commodity exchange necessarily gives rise to money which acts as the general equivalent expression of value. Therefore money should be understood as itself a form of social relation. Inspiration for his theory of money (or the circulation of commodities), which Marx considered to be one of his main accomplishments and achievements over Ricardo’s theory and classical political economy in general, can be traced back to his reading of Hegel’s Logic, particularly the chapter on Measure (Logic I) as well as the section on Teleology (Logic II). Marx was certainly indebted to Hegel ‘that mighty thinker’ from whom he borrowed the science of dialection and this was captured by Lenin who drew attention to the importance of studying Hegel when reading Marx: ‘It is impossible completely to understand Marx’s Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!’

The analysis of chapter one begins with Marx defining the capitalist mode of production as one in which wealth appears as ‘an immense accumulation of commodities’ (125). The wealth of pre-capitalist societies and even mercantilism which was a transitional form did not appear predominantly in the form of commodities but rather as landed property. In the fetishism section, capitalist society is described by Marx as a society in which human relations adopt ‘the fantastic form of a relation between things’ (165), a feature that is not predominant in the early stages of capitalism nor is it predominant in commodity exchange within pre-capitalist societies. Therefore the category of simple commodity production cannot be imposed on the first chapter of Capital for it distorts Marx’s dialectical argument.

Marx draws a sharp contrast between the capitalist mode of production and all other historical social forms. In the fetishism section, after developing the forms of value and labour in the capitalist world, two examples are given of how the production process worked in societies based on use value production and these he contrasted with modern capitalism. The examples given were the medieval Western European system and the peasant communal household forms of production across a number of different societies. These examples were only added after the 1867 editions of Capital, that is, after the Paris Commune. Thus far from depicting the development from simple commodity production to modern capitalist production as a stable continuum, Marx emphasized the ruptures that occurred historically between capitalism and other forms of pre-capitalist society.

Money is a commodity in which the value of other commodities is expressed. When the value of a commodity is established, no money is present, however, the price is not arbitrary, for it relates the amount of labour embodied in the commodity and the labour embodied in the gold. Gold is not only a measure of value, it is also a standard of price. The two cannot be confused. Setting prices is done arbitrarily, carried out by governments (e.g. 1 oz of gold will be called $1).

In order to exchange one commodity for another, the value of the first commodity must be realized in the form of money and the money then has to be realized in the use-value of the second commodity. The form of the circulation of commodities is C-M-C which is different from the simple exchange of use-values C-C. Money serves as a means of circulation in the circulation of commodities. In chapter 3, Marx discusses the money required for circulation and argues that the quantity of money depends on several factors such as the level of prices, transaction numbers and the velocity of circulation of money (211-220). While economists have argued that the level of prices are determined by the quantity of money (monetarist view), Marx argued that with commodity money, the circulation determines the movement of money and not the other way around i.e. level of prices determine the quantity of money required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Image/infobox

For images of books, the first edition is generally preferred over newer editions or translations -- see Template:Infobox book, for example. If there are no objections, I'll replace the newly introduced image of the Fowkes Penguin edition with the original image used at Das Kapital. Sindinero (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Do what you like. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on whether the articles on the various volumes of capital could benefit from infoboxes? Sindinero (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If possible, any article on a book (or volume thereof) should have an infobox. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

clarify

These two statements/claims seem to contradict one another. Perhaps further clarification/elaboration would clear up the confusion.

'Marx also points out that with the advance in technology of machines led to the substitution of less skilled work for more skilled work... During the progression of machinery the numbers of skilled workers decreased...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

external links

http://www.socanth.sfu.ca/documents/doc/Volume_One_Package (gary teeple notes on capital v1)

http://digamo.free.fr/dhcompa.pdf (Harvey Capital reading guide)

http://libcom.org/files/Shortall-Incomplete_Marx-300dpiBW-compressed.pdf (Shortall's the Incomplete Marx - notes on the three volumes)

http://marxismocritico.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/guide-to-capital.pdf (Clarke guide to capital volumes 1,2,3)

http://gruppegrundrisse.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/rosdolsky-the-making-of-marxs-capital_cs.pdf (Rosdolsky's The Making of Capital) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

poorly written fetishism section

After leafing through the first paragraph, I could not get myself to finish reading the entire section. Both the content and form is really bad. Seriously, the word 'intrinsecal' is made up and used instead of the grammatically correct word intrinsic. Next we have the ridiculous phrase 'to do the commodity.' Then it says 'attributes to a thing a characteristic when it is actually a social product, originates in the fact that under a commodity based society' -- first of all, social product or the idea that a commodity is the product of social labour, can very well be a characteristic of something since characteristic is very general term and does not simply refer to a property that appears to be or in fact is intrinsic to something which characteristic used in this context seems to be implying and second, it is not 'originates in fact but FROM the fact. I mean, really, I do no have a good grasp of the English language but even I could... The last sentence starting with 'Therefore, the value of the commodity' is even more difficult to follow. I will stop here and hope that that this section is further edited since CF forms the foundation of Marx's labour theory of value.

'In other words, why does the commodity appear to have an exchange-value as if it was an intrinsecal characteristic of the commodity instead of a measurement of the homogenous human labor spent to do the commodity? Marx explains that this sort of fetishism, which attributes to a thing a characteristic when it is actually a social product, originates in the fact that under a commodity based society the social labour, the social relations between producers and their mutual interdependence, solely manifest in the market, in the process of exchange. Therefore, the value of the commodity is determined independently from private producers so it seems that it is the market which determines the value apparently based on a characteristic of the commodity; it seems as if there are relations between commodities instead of relations between producers.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Work in Question and Capitalism

I have some rather thorny questions to ask:

1. When this work was first printed, how much did it cost to produce, how much was it sold for, and who profited from its publication?
2. Has this work always been in the public domain, and if not, why not?

I could make a great many easy points like this, but some sort of answer should be made available, just to make the entire subject more clear. If I'm full of it, then there should be some sort of record to make that clear to doubters such as myself. Thank you. TheLastWordSword (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Capital I, in html5.id.toc.preview format

I published the book in this format at http://synagonism.net/book/economy/marx.1887-1867.capital-i.html with these advantages:

• (html5) no need for special programs to read it. All machines have the needed browser (= html reader).
• (id) anyone can refer to ANY PART of it, because all html-elements have IDs.
• (toc) automatically created expandable table-of-contents makes reading easy.
• (preview) link-preview makes reading fast.

Because I do not want to be accused that I promote myself, IF you find it worthwhile, please put it on the external-links of this article. Synagonism (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Done! jxm (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Way too long!

Seriously this article is way beyond the wiki guidelines for acceptable length. I realize this book is very important to some people, but that does not give you the right to waffle on endlessly. Condense it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.167.113 (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rather than condense it, as this anon editor suggests, maybe we should consider breaking out some of the longer sections into separate articles, per WP:SUMMARY. That would make this article a little less daunting and rather more accessible for the casual reader. Parts 1, 4, and 7 look like good candidates for splitting. Anyone interested in helping to coordinate that task? jxm (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The user above doesn't understand the slightest thing about hegelianism or marxism-- he frequents wikipedia to digest a small tidbit of information, a solidly grounded fact rather than the experience which is indicative of both disciplines. Please, please leave the article as is. I beg you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.61.75 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I presume the "user above" y're referring to concerns the first proposal - i.e. to condense this article. I don't agree with that approach, as it risks losing some of the key comments and observations. OTOH, the section splits would retain (or even amplify) the current text as separate linked articles. This page then serves as the parent, much as Das Kapital currently does for the entire work. It also provides a more convenient vehicle for editors to introduce additional secondary references, in order to reduce the current preponderance of primary source citations. jxm (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have considered reorganizing the article so that there are sections for each of the eight parts, rather than for each chapter. This would help shorten the article. I created the initial structure for this article and the chapter by chapter seemed reasonable at the time, but perhaps it is grown too unwieldy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.249.213 (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a little arithmetical confusion...

I don't understand this passage:

"So, where does surplus value originate? Quite simply, the origin of surplus value arises from the worker. To better understand how this happens consider the following example from Marx's Capital Volume I. A capitalist hires a worker to spin ten pounds of cotton into yarn. Suppose the value of the cotton is one dollar per pound. The entire value of the cotton is 10 dollars. The production process naturally causes wear and tear on the machinery that is used to help produce the yarn. Suppose this wearing down of machinery costs the capitalist two dollars. The value of labor power is three dollars per day. Now also suppose that the working day is six hours. In this example the production process yields up 15 dollars, and also costs the capitalist 15 dollars. Thus there is no profit."

This should be basic arithmetic, but I can't figure out how you arrive at a yield and cost of $15. I guess the yield comes from 5 (the number of days in a work week) * $3 (the value of labour per day) = $15, and the cost comes from $10 (the cost of 10 lbs. of raw cotton) + $2 (wear and tear of machinery) = $12. Where are the missing $3? I'm super confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.28.134 (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

In this edit, Indopug rewrote the lead. The new version is an improvement in some ways, but it also removed a substantial amount of information present in the previous version, eg, that the book "provides a critical analysis of capitalism as political economy, meant to reveal the economic laws of the capitalist mode of production, how it was the precursor of the socialist mode of production, and of the class struggle rooted in the capitalist social relations of production". This information should be restored. Additionally, the wording that attributes agency to the book itself rather than its author ("The only instalment of the multi-volume Capital: Critique of Political Economy to be published during Marx's lifetime, it critiques capitalism chiefly from the standpoint of its production processes") needs to be changed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe Capital says little, if anything, about socialism and the socialist mode of production; so this seems to be wrong info. As for agency, that can be fixed by rewording it to "during Marx's lifetime, it *is a critique of* capitalism...".—indopug (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Further, "a critical analysis of capitalism as political economy, meant to reveal the economic laws of the capitalist mode of production" is perhaps better-suited for Capital as a whole. Volume I specifically looks at it from the production point of view, Vol II from a circulation POV and Vol III from a distribution, rent, taxes etc standpoint. That's why I removed it; it's too general a description of Volume I.—indopug (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Very well, point taken. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Volume 3 is subtitled The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole. Only Part 4 looks at the issue of rent. The entire volume looks at production, distribution, circulation, and consumption, both individual and productive, etc.

On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

"In the years since its publication Capital, Volume I has come to be considered as a major work of modern economic thought, alongside the likes of Smith's The Wealth of Nations (1776) and Keynes's General Theory (1936)."

Why not mention Ricardo - 'the economist of production par excellence', as Marx described?

Wall of text, need secondary sources

Huge sections of this article seem to be based purely on Marx's own words. In fact a couple of sections consist of nothing but quotations. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Mere quotations are not encyclopedic content, and commentary on the content is vulnerable to accusations that it is improper synthesis or otherwise original research if they don't reflect the analysis of secondary sources. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This issue has still not been addressed almost three years later. Because it's a very long and detailed work, it makes sense to have summaries of each Part. But each Section? Unless there's something I'm missing, this is simply excessive. I propose (and will do so myself if there are no objections) combining section-by-section summaries into a summary for each part, and removing extraneous quotes where they can't be integrated with the summaries. Moreover, I would like to substantially expand the sections of this article that aren't just summaries of the work itself. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a consensus in this discussion that the common name for these entities is the German-language name, and furthermore that the proposed titles are WP:CONSISTENT with the article at Das Kapital. ThessalonianR's oppose is noted, but the point about the mixed languages was answered by SMcC, and Dekimasu's oppose was struck on the basis of this. Overall therefore, the balance of the discussion is firmly in favour of the moves.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

---

• Capital, Volume I → Das Kapital, Volume I
• Capital, Volume II → Das Kapital, Volume II
• Capital, Volume III → Das Kapital, Volume III

– WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENT. Following on the near-unanimous opposition, at Talk:Das Kapital#Requested move 22 November 2019, to moving the main article to Capital (book), these sub-articles should move to conform to the main article's title. This would also affect the Capital, Volume IV redirect's presently confusing target, Das Kapital#Capital, Volume IV (and text within all of these articles should probably be tweaked to use a single title, not veer around between Das Kapital and Capital). While a case was made at the prior RM that Capital has actually become the common name of the work in English, and some of the Das Kapital-defensive arguments were fallacious (e.g. based on the work being famous, which was never in question, or just defensive against any form of disambiguation being used, which is just not a valid RM argument), support for using Capital was very low (after a previous though poorly framed RM in which it was also low), and at least one respondent wanted to see this conforming move take place. So, here we are. I really don't care either way, as long as the titles are consistent. The fact that none of these even exist as redirects strongly suggests to me that this has not been thought through very clearly, and that we probably have two "camps" of editors, one focused on Marx and his work as a socio-political force, and another focused on him as an author and his works as literary output, without sufficient communication between these groups of editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
     @Anthony Appleyard, Zxcvbnm, Randy Kryn, Necrothesp, ThessalonianR, Dekimasu, Khajidha, Galobtter, Rreagan007, Jaldous1, RL0919, Straw Cat, Cwmhiraeth, and Kostas20142: pinging participants in both previous RMs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I thought this discussion might have petered out, so I stayed away, but I completely agree that there is an actual difference in usage that explains the variation. The book is usually called Capital when it is being analyzed actively (treated as a living text), and usually referred to as Das Kapital when it is being treated as historical. If the articles on the translations here are treating the text as living, and Das Kapital is referring to it as historical, the current setup seems appropriate. Consistency might be preferable but at least we understand the reasons for the inconsistency and they are supported by common usage. In other words, I think I oppose this too. Dekimasuよ! 09:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I will go ahead and say oppose per the above and ThessalonianR below (whom I mainly disagreed with in the previous request). Dekimasuよ! 07:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

    But there is no "we" who understands the reason for the inconsistency; our readers are certainly not such a "we". It's just an inconsistency that no one so far but 2–3 editors has suggested is meaningful to maintain. And this alleged distinction is pure original research, unless you have a source for the idea that "The book is usually called Capital when it is being analyzed actively (treated as a living text), and usually referred to as Das Kapital when it is being treated as historical." I don't think that's even a sensible claim, since that's not what "living text" means, in any context I've ever seen in my life (the term refers pretty much exclusively to religious material and its ongoing spiritual interpretation in changing times). There is also no sharp divide between scholars of Marx from a political science versus a literary analysis and criticism angle; the overlap is massive, and pretty much has to be for a work of this sort. There effectively is no literary analysis of Marx that isn't also political.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Living document#In law is the closest thing around here to what I meant, which is basically what you said but applied to non-religious contexts; "living text" can be used in this way, but I will try to be more clear in the future. I respect the idea that my position could be considered original research, but surely there's a different standard for talk page discussion than would be applied were I to try to introduce my understanding into the article without further evidence. From there on out we are at cross-purposes; all writing is political, but I was referring to the distinction between analysis of the content and of its role as a material/circulating object that has exerted influence on history, not a distinction between different analyses of the content across disciplines. An analogue to this would be the issue of the text itself not being routinely published in English under the title Das Kapital.

That analogue goes to the substantive part of your claim, which is what readers will think of the inconsistency. My sense is that they would be more receptive to inconsistency than to having the individual volumes identified by names under which they are not published (i.e. WP:PLA). For a converse of this issue, we have In Search of Lost Time (despite that not being the only major English title of the work) but also Albertine disparue for one of the volumes.

All that said, at least there was a response to the objections, so I have decided to strike my oppose. Dekimasuよ! 11:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Pulling IV from the nomination and creating another redirect, since it's already not an article. Dekimasuよ! 09:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - there is no reason why the main topic (the book) article should be titled one way and the sub-sections of the book be titled another. That is just confusing for readers and editors alike and just really bad editorial practice. I have no preference on the English vs German spelling, but since the previous RM failed to move it to English, this should change. The previous RM should have been made with all sub-pages and then asked which style to go to, so to not create a situation where a "no-consensus" result can happen in both RMs, leaving this wrong result. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per nom and above. Common name and consistency. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom and similar reasoning from the rename of the parent article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Consistency is important, but I have misgivings about the fact that this proposal seems to contravene a couple of common sense (and Wikipedia naming policy) principles. Firstly, as I argued in the previous discussion, Capital is the English and common name of this work and of its constituent volumes. But I won’t repeat what I've already said. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly for this proposal, have books with the proposed article titles actually been published? I have been able to find publications of the first volume under Das Kapital (without a volume number), but no books with the titles Das Kapital Volume II or Das Kapital Volume III. It seems incredibly strange for the Wikipedia articles for these works to have titles that the works themselves have never been published under. The current titles are used in the MECW and the Penguin edition, the two standard publications of all three volumes. Dekimasu's idea that the use of Capital and Das Kapital depends on context is interesting. However, I would like to see some good evidence for this given that it creates an inconsistency that is no doubt jarring for a lot of readers. If, as I suspect, both titles are used in more or less the same way, all of the articles should use Capital. ThessalonianR (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm still opposed to this, but I am somewhat surprised it has not generated further discussion. However, I assume it's still open because the supports have all been "per nom" and no one has addressed the rebuttals given in the opposes. If there is a suggestion as to how to find the evidence requested, I am open to searching. Dekimasuよ! 01:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

    Probably because a minute or less on Google shows that "Das Kapital, Vol. II" (among other spellings like "Volume Two", etc.) are well-attested.[1][2], including in Google Scholars result ranging from the 2010s back to the 1910s. I think part of the cognitive dissonance here is "Das Kapital, Volume II doesn't seem like a proper title because it's mixing German and English". It's not; it's a title in German followed by an English designation, a natural disambiguation: "Das Kapital, Volume I" (judging from source usage, this should probably actually be "Das Kapital, volume I" with a lower-case v) However, some sources do in fact italicize the entire phrase, and furthermore it would hardly be the only originally non-English work in multiple volumes to be published in an English edition using the English word "volume" but bearing the original title (example found in under 20 seconds: [3]).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that forms such as "Das Kapital Volume II" are never used, only that they are used much less frequently than forms such as "Capital Volume II". What I said was that (as far as I can see) no publication of the second or third volumes uses Das Kapital. The searches you have provided do not show such publications. As for the mixed use of German and English, I don’t have a problem with that in and of itself. What I do have a problem with is using the less commonly used name and using names for the second and third volumes that they have never been published under. ThessalonianR (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. On this English-language project, consistently using the original non-English title is less likely to cause confusion with the more common meaning of the word, "Capital". BD2412 T 03:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  True! I had not actually thought of that when I originally proposed moving Das Kapital to Capital (book) to match these drill-down articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It is true that the word "Capital" doesn't usually denote this work, but this isn’t a sufficient criterion in Wikipedia’s article naming policy. If it were, English Wikipedia would have articles entitled Nesmrtelnost, La Peste, Hundejahre etc. ThessalonianR (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. This is a tough one. On Amazon the actual title for the book in English is just Capital. But, references to this book in the NY Times[4] are still Das Kapital, so I think the name most commonly used in reliable sources is the latter. --В²C ☎ 23:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A Times article isn't the best evidence for it being the common name. Compare these two Google Scholar results, the first using Das Kapital, the second using Capital: [5], [6]. Capital has about 30 times as many results. Or are the sources in these results not reliable? ThessalonianR (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Das Kapital which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)