Scan barcode
megit2's review against another edition
5.0
most teenagers start with adam smith, then they decide to see if marx has any kick. it does.
byrenical's review against another edition
4.0
His predictions of capitalism sound like they would have been terrible, good job they never came to fruition...
woolfsfahan's review against another edition
5.0
Essential Marxist reading. Marx distills many of the arguments from Capital into a style much less likely to induce a brain bleed, making this a great introductory text to more advanced Marxist theory.
colinhdempsey's review against another edition
3.0
imagine being a russian serf toiling in the fields under the harsh management of some melodramatic bourgeoisie cunt who can’t even tie his shoes without questioning how that act reflects God’s presence (aka Levin) and busting this shit out. much of this stuff is common knowledge now but when it was first published this must’ve been a real big mother fucker moment.
reading it is a sport unto itself. the sentences are lengthy, bubbling with fatty additives that bog down their flow. if most of the sentences cut half of the words out the prose would flow like butter. as it stands it tries to do too much with too many words.
reading it is a sport unto itself. the sentences are lengthy, bubbling with fatty additives that bog down their flow. if most of the sentences cut half of the words out the prose would flow like butter. as it stands it tries to do too much with too many words.
sean_2005's review against another edition
5.0
Great essay, very understandable, easy vocabulary and has good examples.
I recommend this to all newbies to Marxism as an introductory piece to start.
Very good analysis of Capitalism.
I recommend this to all newbies to Marxism as an introductory piece to start.
Very good analysis of Capitalism.
lipsandpalms's review against another edition
2.0
While Marx is correct about the expansive nature of capital either he willfully ignores some aspects or the views are now obsolete. The views expressed here are more concrete than the ones in the communist Manifesto but still misguided. Here are my thoughts on them:
In discussing complex machinery replacing mindless labor: this is a good thing. Sure it displaces the low wage earner but it also produces product at a cheaper rate for the customer's purchase thus allowing a larger percentage of their wages to be spent elsewhere.
The value of a product is partially determined by its cost to produce, this is true. But it is also determined by what customers are willing to pay for it.
Profit obtained by selling a product or service higher than what it cost to produce it (including the workers wages to produce the product or service) is not theft of the worker's value. It is the incentive to establish business in the first place.
If capitalists are unnecessary, why don't the work force simply acquire their own permits, workspace, tools, and cut out the middle man? Owning and managing the workers of a factory is work in itself. To assume a factory can produce consistent linen or any other product without the need of leadership and start-up capital is naiive.
If capitalism is supposedly producing the cause of its own downfall (namely, a large and dissatisfied working class) it has not yet been eradicated after over 100 years of this text being published. What would Marx think of East and West Berlin, I wonder.
Another issue I have is that Marx assumes that the laborer is trapped in the same kind of labor and that their wages are at best stagnant and at worst decreasing. Maybe this is due to the time period but today education is plentiful. If someone is willing, it has never been easier to become educated in a particular subject and move on to more skilled work that achieves higher pay.
In discussing complex machinery replacing mindless labor: this is a good thing. Sure it displaces the low wage earner but it also produces product at a cheaper rate for the customer's purchase thus allowing a larger percentage of their wages to be spent elsewhere.
The value of a product is partially determined by its cost to produce, this is true. But it is also determined by what customers are willing to pay for it.
Profit obtained by selling a product or service higher than what it cost to produce it (including the workers wages to produce the product or service) is not theft of the worker's value. It is the incentive to establish business in the first place.
If capitalists are unnecessary, why don't the work force simply acquire their own permits, workspace, tools, and cut out the middle man? Owning and managing the workers of a factory is work in itself. To assume a factory can produce consistent linen or any other product without the need of leadership and start-up capital is naiive.
If capitalism is supposedly producing the cause of its own downfall (namely, a large and dissatisfied working class) it has not yet been eradicated after over 100 years of this text being published. What would Marx think of East and West Berlin, I wonder.
Another issue I have is that Marx assumes that the laborer is trapped in the same kind of labor and that their wages are at best stagnant and at worst decreasing. Maybe this is due to the time period but today education is plentiful. If someone is willing, it has never been easier to become educated in a particular subject and move on to more skilled work that achieves higher pay.
emilyknott's review against another edition
4.0
despite this text being written and published in the 19th century, it still remains relevant today with its insight into class relations. specifically, i found the concept of the power the working class really has incredibly enlightening, the idea that "capital, which, without wage-labour, ceases to be capital" displays the strength within the working class.
another aspect that particularly drew me in, which has been highlighted by others reviewing, was:
“to say that "the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of capital", means only this: that the more speedily the worker augments the wealth of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall to him" - illustrating the dynamics between the capitalist and the worker, and the forced nature of labour.
nonetheless, i will admit due to my somewhat limited understanding of economics and marxism as a whole, i did find certain aspects of the short text challenging - yet would still recommended it to those looking for a good read, as it's largely base concepts:)
(ignore the read dates i forgot i was reading this)
another aspect that particularly drew me in, which has been highlighted by others reviewing, was:
“to say that "the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of capital", means only this: that the more speedily the worker augments the wealth of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall to him" - illustrating the dynamics between the capitalist and the worker, and the forced nature of labour.
nonetheless, i will admit due to my somewhat limited understanding of economics and marxism as a whole, i did find certain aspects of the short text challenging - yet would still recommended it to those looking for a good read, as it's largely base concepts:)
(ignore the read dates i forgot i was reading this)