Back to Categories
Politics19 min read
Capital
by Karl Marx
A Critique of Political Economy
Published: August 6, 2023
4.3 (417 ratings)
Table of Contents
Book Summary
This is a comprehensive summary of “Capital” by Karl Marx. The book explores a critique of political economy.
what’s in it for me? discover the reality behind the notorious masterpiece#
Introduction
karl marx – capital – a critique of political economy marx's capital isn't just a book.
it's a lens through which to view and critique the world of capitalism.
its influence has rippled through history, from labour movements of the early 20th century to modern discussions about income inequality.
whether one agrees with marx's views or not, there's no denying the significant impact capital has had on our understanding of economics and society.
since publication, this three-volume text has influenced political and economic thought on a global scale.
it's shaped many socialist and communist movements that pushed for workers' rights and a more equal distribution of wealth.
of course, it has also faced criticism, particularly from proponents of free-market capitalism, who argue that competition and market forces can better regulate economies and create wealth.
this chapter will dive into some of marx's main points and offer some simple examples to clarify a few of the author's more complex theories.
if you've ever been curious about the marxist ideas that have sparked both literal and figurative revolutions across the globe, then you're in the right place.
the basics – commodities and labour you may have heard the term commodities before, particularly in the financial news.
the basics: commodities and labor#
a commodity refers to any object that satisfies human needs, from food to clothing to homes to gadgets.
it is the usefulness of a commodity that gives it what marx calls use-value, which is significant because it forms the basis of wealth in any society.
in capitalism, commodities can also become the physical representation of something called exchange-value.
in this sense, even objects without a use can have an exchange-value.
for example, art and music don't provide shelter or food, but they can still have a high value in the marketplace.
many things have both a use and an exchange-value.
the contents of a well-stocked storeroom of athletic shoes in a shop, for instance, can be exchanged for money, which will pay rent and salaries, and buy more shoes to sell.
these shoes may then accrue even more exchange-value for being trendy and stylish, rather than just being useful as shoes.
but all exchangeable commodities, from shoes to cars to hairspray to corn, have something in common.
they are products of human labour.
in this way, commodities are like crystallisations of social labour, bearing value.
labour is responsible for creating both the use-value and exchange-value of a commodity.
the concept of useful labour is used to describe the work that contributes to the use-value of an item.
for example, the work involved in tailoring a coat or weaving linen are both types of useful labour because they create useful products.
not all labour is equal, though.
the production of different commodities requires different types of labour.
these types are not interchangeable.
a tailor can't produce linen, and a weaver can't make a coat.
this differentiation forms the basis of the social division of labour, the varying kinds of work required by a community to function and produce commodities.
while this division of labour is necessary for producing commodities, it doesn't always mean commodities are created by individuals.
in many systems, like in some indian communities or factories, tasks are divided.
so not all labour can be simply exchanged as a commodity.
the value of a commodity, be it a coat or linen, reflects the human labour embedded in it, abstracting away from the specific type of labour.
this abstraction is critical for these goods to be comparable and exchangeable in the market.
for instance, despite the difference in the types of work, both tailoring and weaving are considered equivalent, as they both represent human labour.
the magnitude of a commodity's value is determined by the amount of labour it embodies, meaning a coat worth double the value of the linen that forms it contains twice the amount of labour.
this doesn't change the use value of the commodities, however, as a coat will still serve its purpose of providing warmth.
when things become symbol: social hieroglyphics#
when things become symbol – social hieroglyphics imagine a simple object, like a wooden table.
it's just a table, right?
well, not quite.
first, it's clear that the table is useful.
it holds your coffee cup, your laptop, maybe a houseplant.
this utility comes from human labour that transforms wood into something practical.
no mysteries here.
but here's the twist.
when that table enters the marketplace as a commodity, it becomes something more.
it's not just wood-shaped like a table anymore.
it gains value, standing on equal footing with every other commodity, regardless of what it is.
even more, this simple table somehow begins to embody complex social relationships.
this happens because all types of human labour, from chopping down trees to designing furniture, are seen as equal when they produce commodities.
the table's value isn't solely based on the physical wood or how it's shaped, but on the human labour put into it, measured by the time spent on that work.
this labour time is of interest to all humans, as it dictates how we produce our means of subsistence.
the value of a product, then, is really just a reflection of the social nature of labour.
it doesn't come from the product's usefulness or the nature of its value factors, but from the fact that it's a commodity.
that's why products of labour have this odd quality of being tangible while they also represent intangible social relations.
now, this only becomes important when we produce things specifically for exchange, that is, when we expect our products to be valued.
this is when the work of individual producers takes on a dual character.
on the one hand, it's a specific type of useful labour meant to fulfil a social need.
on the other, it can only satisfy the producer's individual needs if all kinds of useful labour are seen as equal, an idea that only exists because we, as a society, have agreed on it.
so, when we exchange our products, we're not only trading physical items, but also weighing different kinds of labour as equal.
we might not realise it, but we're treating our products as symbols, or social hieroglyphics, that represent the human labour behind them.
it's like we're unconsciously creating a language of value.
this notion, that the value of commodities is really just a reflection of the human labour used to produce them, is a significant breakthrough in understanding our social world.
however, it doesn't change the fact that we still see the social nature of labour as an objective quality of the products themselves.
even though we know that air is made up of different gases, we still experience it as just air.
similarly, we understand the concept of value, but continue to see it as an inherent part of commodities.
so, a wooden table is not just a table.
it's a product of human labour, an embodiment of social relations, and a participant in the mysterious world of commodities.
beyond worth how capital moves commodities represent the labour that created them.
beyond worth: how capital moves#
but when they generate more value than their cost to make, they also generate surplus value, or capital.
but this capital isn't a thing per se.
rather, it's a circulating force in society.
marx visualises capital as moving in a circular path, or circuit, among different stages of the economic process.
there are three phases in this circuit – money capital, productive capital, and commodity capital.
simply put, capitalists start with money, which they use to buy resources and labour power to create a product.
this is the productive phase.
they then sell the produced commodities for money, completing the circuit.
this cycle is repeated continuously in the capitalist system.
but there are different types of capital too – fixed and circulating.
circulating capital refers to the capital tied up in raw materials and labour, which is fully consumed in the production process and transfers its value to the final product.
if you are making a cake, flour and eggs are your circulating capital.
fixed capital, on the other hand, refers to durable goods or infrastructure used in the production process that gradually transfers its value to the product over time, like the oven used to bake the cake, or the bowls and mixer you use to prepare the batter.
finally, each of these systems is interconnected with others.
for the whole capitalist system to continue working smoothly, the output from one sector of the economy has to match the input requirements of another.
in other words, the capitalist system depends on a certain balance of production across different industries.
think about a toy factory.
they need plastic from the plastic industry, packaging from the paper industry, and so on.
for continuous production, the output of one industry – toys – becomes the input – play materials – of another industry, like a retail store or daycare centre.
marx calls this interdependence reproduction schemes.
when too much isn’t enough: surplus, capital, and hoarding#
when too much isn't enough.
surplus, capital and hoarding.
now let's explore the transformative process of commodities through sale and purchase.
in normal circumstances, the circulation of money maintains a flow between these two actions – a continual exchange.
however, when purchases do not immediately follow sales, money ceases to circulate and effectively becomes immobile.
early in the development of commerce, people discovered the desire, or perhaps necessity, to hold on to the product of a sale.
in other words, commodities are frequently sold not to buy other goods, but to convert them into cash, often resulting in the hoarding of money.
a historical example that beautifully illustrates this is the behaviour of indian society in past centuries.
indians were traditionally known to hoard or bury their money, keeping vast amounts of silver out of general circulation.
in fact, between 1602 and 1734, indians reportedly buried £150 million sterling of silver.
similarly, from 1856 to 1866, england exported £120 million in silver to india and china, most of which ended up in india.
the value of a commodity also measures its attractiveness to all other elements of material wealth, and therefore measures the social wealth of its owner.
a major stash of gold is often seen as a sign of high social worth and intelligence.
the desire to hoard, max tells us, is inherently insatiable because of the universal exchange potential of gold.
but every hoard in fact has a limit to its value, which drives hoarders to continually accumulate more, much like the mythical sisyphus who was compelled to endlessly push a boulder uphill.
hoarding, interestingly, requires a form of self-restraint, a sacrifice of immediate desires.
the hoarder must resist the urge to turn gold into a means of enjoyment.
the virtues of hard work, saving and frugality become integral to this process of accumulation.
but hoarding also serves various functions in the economy.
fluctuations in the circulation of commodities and their prices cause the quantity of money to constantly ebb and flow.
the quantity of gold and silver in a country must be greater than the quantity required to function as currency.
this is achieved through hoards, which act as reserves, serving as conduits for the supply or withdrawal of money to and from circulation.
so money isn't just a medium of exchange.
it has a life of its own.
it reflects our desires, our fears, our values and sometimes even our virtues.
the next time you look at a coin, remember, it's not just a piece of metal.
it's a physical representation of human endeavour, needs and aspirations.
alienation: a feature, not a bug#
as systems of capital become more complex, like the current global economy, it is easy to see how the simple idea of labour exchange for value becomes lost in the seemingly endless maze of economics.
in broad strokes, marx saw alienation as the result of workers being disconnected from their work, from the products of their labour, from themselves and from each other.
first, he believed that alienation comes in the capitalist system when workers don't have any say in the design of their work or how their workplaces are managed.
they're alienated from the process of work itself.
they don't control it.
it controls them.
let's imagine factory workers whose job is to attach one part of a product to another, over and over again.
this work might be monotonous and uninspiring, leaving the workers feeling disconnected from the labour they're performing.
workers are paid a wage for their labour, but the value of the goods they produce is often greater than the wage they receive.
this difference is surplus value.
and it is surplus value that is appropriated by the capitalist class, creating a class divide and perpetuating inequality.
also, the products that workers create don't belong to them.
they belong to the capitalist.
so, workers are also alienated from the products of their own labour.
consider workers who make beautiful furniture but can't afford to buy any of it themselves.
the fruits of their labour are out of their reach.
under capitalism, work is not necessarily a way for people to express themselves or use their creative capacities.
instead, work is just a means by which to survive.
this means workers are alienated from their own potential and humanity.
imagine a talented artist who works in a call centre to pay the bills, but never has the time or energy to pursue creative endeavours.
finally, capitalism alienates workers from each other.
in a competitive marketplace, workers are often pitted against each other for jobs, promotions and wages.
this undermines feelings of community and solidarity.
this last point is especially poignant when considered alongside another key idea, the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fail.
in simple terms, over time in a capitalist economy, there's a tendency for the rate of profit to decline.
how does this happen?
well, to increase profits, capitalists invest in machinery and technology to boost productivity and cut labour costs.
however, because value in a commodity comes from human labour, not machinery, the more an economy relies on machinery over human labour, the lower the overall amount of value produced, leading to a lower rate of profit.
so while individual capitalists might boost their own profits by investing in machinery, when all capitalists do this, the overall rate of profit in the economy can decline.
this tendency, marx argues, leads to economic crises.
as falling profits make investment less attractive, leading to overproduction and recessions.
this inherent instability, according to marx, is one of the key contradictions and problems of capitalism.
final summary#
Conclusion
you've just listened to our chapter to capital by karl marx.
the key takeaway is that this profound work draws our attention to the inherent exploitation within capitalist economies, where labour, despite being the true source of value, is often devalued and workers are paid less than the worth they generate.
this discrepancy, or surplus value, is pocketed by the capitalists, perpetuating an unequal system and widening the gap between the rich and poor.
marx intriguingly posits that these systemic issues are not aberrations but intrinsic to capitalism, inevitably leading to recurrent crises.
lastly, he underscores the dehumanising aspect of capitalism, as it alienates workers from their work, turning them into mere cogs in a machine rather than creative, fulfilled individuals.
okay, that's it for this chapter.
thanks so much for listening.
and if you can, please leave us a rating.
you can find the rate it button on your screen right now.
we always appreciate your feedback.
hope to catch you again in the next chapter.
You Might Also Like
Discover more book summaries in the same category or by the same author.