Summary of the Capital by Karl Marx
Capital is Marx‘s masterpiece, a work he has been working for over thirty years but never finished. The first volume, which first appeared in German in 1867 with the title Das Kapital, analyzes the process of the capitalist production. It is the only part published during his life. Capital has the undeserved reputation of being a dry and difficult work. In fact, the first volume is the most revolutionary work of the nineteenth century.
The work is full of biting wit and passionate denunciations of the brutality of capitalism of the nineteenth century, based on a penetrating account of its internal mechanism. The analysis of capitalism Marx in Capital provides the theoretical basis of its findings – that is to say that capitalism can not be fundamentally reformed but must be overthrown by a revolution led by the working class. It must be replaced by a socialist society in which production will be managed democratically to meet the needs of humanity and not for the benefit of a few. As the Marxist writer Hal Draper has said succinctly:
Capitalism can not, in the long term, solve the economic problem of providing a human life for the masses … This proposal is the basis of class approach of Marxism. Without it there is no class approach, and it can not be any. If this is not true then there is no reason not to just be a good réformiste.
If the Capital is a work difficult to read because the first nine chapters are relatively abstract, but the rest of the book consists of harrowing descriptions of the functioning of capitalism and historical analysis of its origine.4 The first chapters deal property, value, money, capital, surplus value, and exploitation. They are necessary because they establish the theoretical framework which shows that the problems described by Marx is not abuse or simply the product of temporary circumstances or accidental but are rooted in the very nature of capitalism.
Capital: Merchandise, value and money
Capital begins by observing that the wealth of the capitalists appears as an “immense accumulation of commodities” (35) Marx begins his work by examining the nature of goods – in other words, everything that can satisfy a human need and is produced in order to be exchanged or sold. Borrowing the terminology of the philosopher and Scottish economist Adam Smith (1723-1790), Marx calls the utility of a commodity (that is, its ability to meet a specific human) its “use value”, that it compares with its “exchange value”, the amount of other goods with which it can be exchanged at a particular time.
But this raises an obvious question. How is it that so different objects may have the same exchange value? Marx answers this question by making two assumptions that have generated much controversy. First he proposes that underlying its exchange value, every commodity has a value which is the measure of the cost of production for the entire society and is equal to the amount of socially necessary labor and time for its By production.8 work and time “socially necessary”
Marx means the time “needed to produce an article of consumption in normal production, and with the average level of qualifications and work intensity prevailing at that time. “(39) Second, Marx suggests that the value of a commodity determines its exchange value, so that the exchange is somehow a reflection of its value -” the only form in which the value of a commodity may occur or be expressed “(38). Marx calls the latter case the “law of value” and value analysis is usually called, for obvious reasons, the “theory of labor value” (even though Marx himself has never used the term in his works) .
In the first chapter of Capital, Marx discusses a highly abstract form of production in which there is neither capitalist nor worker, but simply independent producers exchanging goods they produce on the market. In this simplified model there is perfect competition, the supply of any commodity whatsoever can always be increased to meet demand, there is no other than the cost of production work. In this model, the exchange does not simply reflect the value, it will be, on average, in direct proportion. The fact that Marx starts with the simplifying assumption has troubled many of his critics (and many of its defenders, too). One of the most common criticism of Marx is to give examples of goods whose exchange value is obviously not proportional to the time and labor socially necessary to produce them, such as Wasteland and works of art. But the simple model of the first Marx does not claim to cover such cases. As Allen Wood notes, “Marx’s original model limited to goods that can be reproduced freely because it looks at the production of such goods as the dominant form in bourgeois society, and therefore he thinks that the laws of exchange of goods as a basis for understanding the social forms in which the land, food scarce, and so also become objects of exchange. ”
Another common criticism is that the argument given by Marx to the law of value in the first section of Capital Volume I, is invalid. It seems that Marx shows that the exchange should be determined by the value as “the exchange of goods must be expressible by something common to all” and that “[t] ‘something’ in common can not be geometric, chemical or other property in the goods. “(37) Critics have said that the exchange could simply be a reflection of the subjective preferences of consumers, rather than something common to goods traded and that even if they have something in common, Marx did not prove that this factor must be the work and time socially necessary. But in fact Marx himself did not think I have proved the law of value in this “argument”.
As he writes in a letter to his friend Ludwig Kugelmann (1830-1902) just after the publication of the first volume: “All the chatter about the need to prove the concept of value arises from complete ignorance of the subject discussed and the scientific method. “In fact, the law of value is part of a wider scientific hypothesis can not be measured by its ability to explain the workings of capitalism – it can not really be proven before being applied. As Marx said, “even though there was no chapter on the” value “in my book, I give the analysis of real relations contain evidence and demonstration of the relationship of real value” . Specifically, Marx sees very general reasons that prove the law of value, and the question for science is the form that the law should take in particular historical circumstances. Each company must distribute appropriately the work to different sectors of production and distribution under capitalism this is achieved largely by the media of exchange value:
Every child knows that if a nation stopped working, not for a year, but only for, say, a week, she would die. And every child knows also that the quantities of products corresponding to different needs require the amounts of social work associate different and quantitatively determined. It is obvious that the need for distribution of social work in specific proportions is certainly not abolished by the specific form of social production, it can only change the form in which it occurs. Natural laws can not be abolished. The only thing that can change in changing historical conditions, it is the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of the work asserts itself in a society in which the interconnections of social work expressed by the private exchange of individual products of labor, is precisely the exchange value of these products. Where science is involved, is in its ability to show how the law of value is required. So if someone wanted to “explain” from the beginning all the phenomena that apparently contradict the law, should be provided before the science science.
Marx knows that in a capitalist economy the exchange (expressed by the price) and value tend to diverge systematically from each other (“the average price does not coincide directly with the value of goods” [ 166]), and explains some of the reasons why it is ainsi.16 Unlike economists, the goal of Marx is not to develop a theory that can predict the market price (generally a goal hopeless because of the multitude of variables) but to account for social relations that govern the capitalist system. Marx argues that in a capitalist economy, the goods used to support the production relations among humans, creating the appearance that the social relations of production are relations between things, “which appear as independent beings equipped with life by interacting with themselves and also in humans. “(72)
Marx calls this confusion the “commodity fetishism. “One of the goals of the law of value is to dispel this confusion and make the social relations underlying most claires.
Marx discusses the exchange length in Part I of Capital, Volume I, demonstrating that a society based on a simple commodity production the need to develop a “universal measure of value” (94), as of means money. So a society based on the direct exchange of goods (or barter) will create a society in which goods are exchanged against money, which in turn can be used to purchase other goods. All the elements come together to explain how money becomes capital.
Capital: gain and exploitation
A distinctive feature of capitalism is that, unlike the previous types of companies, it is driven by the need to create exchange value rather than useful values. In pre-capitalist economies, most production is used for immediate needs or to satisfy the desires of the members of the ruling class, whether slave owners, feudal lords, or other groups of exploiters. Decisions on what needs to be produced are based on specific values useful needed. Of course there are items that are produced for sale, but generally this is practiced for the seller to purchase products that can not (or does not want to) do it himself. Thus a producer can produce apples and sell them for money they will use to buy pots or furniture. In this form of trade, goods are sold for money, which is then used to buy other goods. Following the notation of Marx, the process is expressed by M-A-M. The role of money in transactions of this type is to serve purely as an intermediary. “The result of the whole process is, in regard to the objects themselves, M-M, the exchange of one commodity for another, the circulation of social work materialized. When this is achieved the process is nearing completion. “(105-106)
Under capitalism, however, things are different. The aim of the capitalist is to make money and usually it purchases goods not for own use but for resale at a profit. The general process of exchange is no longer M-M-A, but A-M-A. In other words, the money is used to purchase goods that are then sold to make more money. It is obvious that this type of exchange would be meaningless if the final amount of money was the same as that used to buy goods from. The capitalist seeks to have more money at the end of the process at first – A ‘rather than A, where A’ is greater than A. So in a capitalist economy, the exchange process takes the form A-M-A ‘.18 So money plays a very different role in a capitalist economy compared to a simple production economy. As Marx says, “The value originally advanced … not only remains intact during the circulation, but adds to itself a surplus value, it grows. It is this movement that converts it into capital. “(150) In more concise,” the money that generates money, this is the description of the Capital. “(155)
One consequence of the difference between the simple exchange of goods and exchange under capitalism is that capitalism contains a force that pushes him to grow.
Repetition or renewal of the bill of sale for purchase is limited [in a society governed by the utility value] by the object of his goal, so to say, consumption or the satisfaction of needs identified, a order who lives entirely outside the sphere of circulation. But when we buy in order to sell it [as is the case in capitalism], on the contrary, we begin and end with the same thing, money, exchange value, and so the movement becomes endless. (151)
In the words of the author (X), “in most ancient societies, governed by the value being useful, the limitless desire for wealth is considered a vice, indeed a perversion of human nature artificial. The Bible and Aristotle pleonaxia call (desire), and medieval Europe follows. Buddhism and Taoism also condemn this vice. But in the capitalist world, it is regarded as a virtue. “19 In medieval Europe, the miser who amassed great wealth was considered abnormal and was ridiculed, but under capitalism the same behavior is rented. “This boundless greed for wealth, race after the passionate exchange value,” Marx observed, “is common to the capitalist and the miser, but if the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist on it is a rational miser. “(153)
How, though, the capitalists are they able to make money by buying and selling? Hence the added value that makes A ‘greater than A come from? Some people can make money by buying a legitimate low-cost (when there is oversupply and low prices) and selling price (when there is a deficit and that prices will rise). Others use tricks to achieve the same result. But this can not explain the origin of the gain in an entire economy, because if someone makes money by buying cheap and selling more expensive, others are perdrent selling cheap and buying more. “The creation of surplus value, thus converting the money into capital, can not be explained on the assumption that the goods are either sold above their value, or bought below their value. “(161) All its transactions allow it to redistribute the value of an individual to another, they can not create value.
The source of the added value lies in what takes place after the capitalist has purchased goods and sells them before it. Most of the capitalists are not just buying and selling the same goods, they use the goods they have bought to produce something new. Wood and screws are purchased to produce a table. Steel, rubber, and glass and other components are used to produce an aircraft. But, of course, this is not the capitalists themselves that produce these objects. They are produced by workers who are hired to integrate their work into the production process. Thus the capitalists buy goods and employ workers, and the work of these on the first result is a new merchandise and superior value.
This allows the capitalists to make profits. What they are buying is the ability to work – the capacity to provide the workers work. Now if we accept the justification of Marx in terms of value, the value of working capacity is equivalent to the time socially necessary to produce (and not the amount of work she is able to provide) – as of means the work required to clothe, feed, educate, and so on, workers to be able to perform the work for which they were engagé.20 Discovery key to Marx is that the value of the capacity work is less than the labor it provides. For example, it may not fault that four hours of socially necessary labor time to prepare for a worker who will perform eight hours of work. For this reason, the ability to work is a commodity that adds more than its initial value during the production process. In contrast, other goods can not add to the product more than their initial value, because they provide no work during the production process – they do not work but they get to work.
Marx’s explanation of the origin of the gain shows that profits are the result of capitalist exploitation, in other words, pay workers below the value they add to goods they produce. The operation is thus part of the nature of capitalism, although how this operation is taking shape is different (and often less obvious) that of the predecessor companies. As Marx said, “The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between, say, a society based on slavery, and one based on wage labor, lies only in the method of extraction of surplus- value of the actual producer, the worker. “(217) The extraction of surplus value is the special form in which the exploitation takes place in capitalism. “[T] he capitalist private property … is based on the exploitation of the nominally free labor of others, in other words, wage labor. “(762)
If workers are exploited by the capitalists, why do they sell their working capacity in the first place? The simplest answer is that they have no choice. Workers have the ability to perform work, but unlike, say, farmers (under the feudal system), they lack the means of production such as tools, raw materials or workshop. To gain access to these necessities, workers have no other choice but to sell their labor power to those who control the means of production, the capitalists. From the standpoint of the capitalist, the pay of the employee is right, at least as a working capacity of workers is paid at the average market price. But they are still able to take advantage of the situation of workers by paying them less than the contribution of their work in production and so they extract the surplus value of workers. For this reason Marx wrote that even if the capitalists buy work capacity “at the cash price, so that the exchange is equivalent, the transaction back to the old trick of every conqueror who buys goods with the money won to that ‘they flew. “(582)
Capital: Absolute surplus value and relative
Marx calls the money spent on hiring of workers ‘variable capital’ (v), because the work they do adds value to other goods used in production, and he calls the money spent on the purchase those goods “constant capital” (c), because they add no new value during production. The rate of surplus value, or operating in an industry or a workshop at a given time can be represented by s / v, where s is the value added during production. The higher the proportion of surplus value from the variable capital, the greater the rate of exploitation is important. One can also think of the rate of exploitation in terms of division of the working day. During the part of the day during which the workers produce a value equal to their pay day, they perform the “necessary work”. During the rest of the day, they perform the additional work, which is the source of the gain. Plus the overtime, the more it yad’exploitation.
Regard the capitalists even more than the rate of exploitation, however, is the rate of profit – the income they receive on their total investment, or s / (c + v). Competition between capitalists requires each contractor to increase its maximum rate of profit, which, in turn, means that it will try to keep the harvest rate as high as possible. In other words, the capitalists want to get the greatest amount of gain possible for a given investment in variable capital (that is to say, work capacity). Or, as Marx wrote a metaphor with expressive, “capital is dead labor, which, like a vampire, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more it sucks work . “(233) Now there are two ways for capitalists to increase the rate of exploitation. First they can extend the duration of daily working time or decrease salaries, so that for the same initial investment they get more hours. Marx calls this the increase in “absolute surplus value.” The second way to increase the rate of exploitation is to reduce how long workers must work to produce the value of their work capacity. Marx calls this the increase in “relative surplus value.”
In a chapter on “work day,” Marx explains how the capitalists of his time trying to increase the length of the working day up to and how workers were struggling to reduce it. The capitalists who paid the ability to work for a day, claimed that they had the most hours of work possible. In response Marx quote, “the voice of the worker”:
By increasing the work day without limit, you might one day exhaust an amount of working capacity that I could restore in three. What you gain in labor I lose in substance. Using my ability to work and its degradation are two different things … you pay me for a day of capacity to work while you go on for three days. It is against our contract and the law of trade. (234)
Thus, according to Marx, there is a conflict of “right against right,” with each party claiming to have justice on his side.
Between equal rights force decides. This is the history of capitalist production, the determination of what a working day is as a result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, that is to say the class capitalists, and collective work, that is to say the working class. (235)
In the industry of lace contemporary of Marx, who was still unregulated child of nine years working up to twenty hours a day. In the pottery industry, children seven years working fifteen hours a day. Marx describes how the atrocious working conditions were destroying the health of workers in many industries, such as phosphorus poisoning caused by the production of matches – “Dante would have seen the worst horrors in his Inferno surpassed in this manufacture.” (246)
In the early nineteenth century, the working day in England was usually considerably longer than it was in the fourteenth century. Indeed, for several centuries, “the charters had tried to increase it by force” (271), but it was not until the late eighteenth century with “the birth of machinery and modern industry” that “any deduction of morals and nature, age and sex, day and night, were dismantled.” (278) attempts to limit the working day by the law were attacked by the capitalists and their supporters intellectuals such as economic losses, as are efforts to increase the minimum wage are attacked by the right today. In England, it was not until 1833 that the “Factory Act” restricted the working day in the textile industry to fifteen hours for adults, noon for children from thirteen to eighteen, and eight hours for those from nine to thirteen. The law was enacted only after years of labor struggles, and after many renowned doctors have testified to the House of Commons against the cruelty and dangers of working in factories. Even so, Marx notes that the law was not applied for more than a decade. When the working day was reduced to ten hours for women and children in 1847, employers reduced wages by 25% and forced employees to sign a petition against the law. It was not until the 1860s that the law was extended to other industries.
The description of Marx brutal working conditions in England in the early nineteenth century is not only of historical interest. On the one hand, similar conditions exist today in all countries in the developing including China, India, Indonesia and Brazil, and even in some economically more advanced countries, such as states USA. According to a report,
National control conducted in 1989 by government inspectors revealed widespread abuse of the child labor laws [USA] … In large urban areas … the inspectors found similar workshops in the nineteenth century where immigrant poor – girls of twelve years and over – have a daily work and are completely excluded from the school system. And between one million and one and a half million children of immigrants working in agriculture – some of them aged three or four years – are at work in the fields of the nation.
Moreover, Marx notes that this trend continues in capitalism, either temporarily or fully restricted by law or not. In the mid-70s, when American capitalism was beginning to experience a crisis of profitability, bosses launched an offensive to cut wages and union power. Buisnesses Week wrote at the time that American workers would have to “swallow … the idea of living with less so that big business is more.” In the United States today, hourly wages adjusted for inflation are lower than they were in 1973, and workers have been able to maintain their standard of living by working more hours This represents a huge gain in absolute surplus value to American capitalists.
But capitalists can increase their rate of profit by earning more relative surplus value. In fact, Marx shows that at the same time as capitalism develops, it is a trend towards increasing relative surplus value as more long hours eventually threaten to destroy the labor force, by introduction of more sophisticated production techniques. The relative surplus value increases when the amount of work required to produce the goods and services that workers need to be prepared to work is generally reduced due to a technical innovation. As the goods can be produced with less labor, their value decreases. Since the value of working capacity is equal to the value of the products needed to create it, if the value of decreases, then the value of work capacity diminishes. Suppose that at some point he nearly four hours of labor to produce a day of work capacity, but due to the development of agriculture that can produce food more efficiently, the amount of work needed to be reduced to three hours. This means that now it takes a worker one hour less to replace the value of their wages, so they can produce a greater amount of surplus value for their employer during the same working day.
Since the relative surplus value is created by increased productivity, Marx made the sketch of the development of capitalist production of simple technology gained in the pre-capitalist society in modern industry. It shows that while productivity and mechanization increase, the degree of control that workers have their way of working is increasingly restricted. Marx also shows that as capitalism develops, most of the production comes to be organized in larger and larger factories where workers are increasingly dependent on each other in a complex division of labor .
Capital: Accumulation and crises
We have already seen that capitalism is motivated by the pursuit of exchange value, which makes it fundamentally different from previous companies. The capitalists, as Marx, obey the maxim “accumulation for accumulation, production for production”. (595) It is not fundamentally because they are greedy people (although most of them probably are) but because the logic of competition with other capitalists forces them to act in this way . That’s why Marx called capitalist “rational miser.”
Fanatically focused on self expansion of value, [the capitalist] ruthlessly forces the human race to produce for production, so it forces the development of the productive capacity of society … [T] he shares with the miser passion for money for money. But what is a single individual temperament is to the miser, the capitalist, the effect of a social mechanism, in which there is only one gear. In addition, the development of capitalist production makes it constantly necessary to increase the amount of capital invested in a given industry, and competition is felt in each individual capitalist to the immanent laws of capitalism as if they were coercive external forces. This forced him to constantly increase its capital at the end to preserve it, but it can not increase with the progressive accumulation. (592)
Today, the largest capitalist enterprises are organized, with boards of directors, a management hierarchy, and shareholders, but they continue to be motivated in the same way “fanatic.” In fact, companies are legally obliged to maximize profits on behalf of their shareholders, without regard for effects on others (provided that these effects do not compromise their profits), leading the legal scholar Joel Bakan to stigmatize them as “pathological institutions.” This leads them to act in this way, however, are not legal requirements but need to be a competitor wins. The legal framework within which they act is simply a consequence of economic reality. That is why corporate behavior can not be fundamentally changed by transforming the economic reality.
The capitalists who are not mercilessly (or at least successfully) profits will be overwhelmed by competition from those who do and will either file for bankruptcy or be bought out by competitors winners. The capitalist firms therefore tend to grow (or concentrate) with the reinvestment of surplus value, and become fewer and fewer (or local) with the redemption of those who are on the verge of bankruptcy . In today’s world it is clearer than ever, with a handful of multinational corporations whose wealth is greater than the GDP of many countries dominating the global economy.
Competition among capitalists is driving the phenomenal growth of capitalism, but it is also, according to Marx, is Achilles’ heel. Marx answers the question of capitalist crises in volumes II and III, where he proves that the unplanned nature of capitalist production inevitably leads to a cycle of boom and crisis, and since labor is the source of value, a general trend towards lower rate of profit as the industry becomes more capital intensive. However, at the beginning of Volume I, offers a brief but devastating critique of the view that supply and demand will balance always gently into a market economy.
Nothing can be more childish than the dogma that says because every sale is a purchase, and each purchase is a sale, the movement of goods necessarily involves a balance between sales and purchases … No one can sell unless someone a purchase. But no one is forced to buy because it just to sell … If the interval time between the two complementary phases of the metamorphosis of a commodity becomes too large, if the difference between the sale and purchase become too pronounced, the intimate connection between them, their union, affirmed by creating – a crisis. (113-14)
The characteristic shape of crises under capitalism is overproduction – too many goods are produced and can not be sold at a profit in the market. As a result, workers are laid off, reducing the demand for consumer products. The manufacturers of such goods shall, in turn, reduce their production, laying off workers and others to reduce their means of production controls. The system is caught in a vicious circle and turned to the recession. Paradoxically, however, the waste product that allows the economy again. The pressure of unemployment force workers to accept lower wages and working conditions deteriorated, while the capitalists smaller, less efficient declare bankruptcy. Huge amounts of capital are accumulated either canceled or destroyed. The companies that survive may purchase plants or machinery cheaper, investment takes off, and the cycle of boom and crisis again.
I noted earlier that the ultimate test of Marxist economics is its ability to explain actual events. During the thirty five years, the economies of the United States and the world have suffered a series of violent attacks, on which economists rely on the ideas of Marx were able to provide clear explanations. This is certainly a strong argument in favor of the ideas of Marx, the fact they can be used to provide vivid analysis of economic developments on a large scale over the last decades, what economists have been unable to ordinary do.
Capital: Socialism and Revolution
The last section of Volume I describes in detail the emergence of capitalism in England, and in particular how a minority of the population has come to control the means of production, leaving the majority in possession of nothing more than their ability to work . Marx begins by rejecting the bourgeois fairy tale about how this is supposed to have happened.
He long time ago there were two kinds of people: some were diligent, intelligent and above all, frugal elite, others of fripouillards lazy, spending their money, and in a tumultuous life … And this original sin dates the poverty of the vast majority who, despite his work to date has nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of a few who constantly increasing although they stopped working long. This insipid childishness is every day preached in defense of poverty. (713-14)
In fact, the birth of the required capital and brutal forced eviction of the peasantry of their land in response to new economic opportunities in the late fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century.
The rapid growth of manufactures of wool Flemish, and the corresponding increase in the price of wool in England, were the direct cause of the evictions. The old nobility had been devoured by the great feudal wars. The new nobility was a child of his time, for which the money was the power of all powers. (718)
This dispossession accelerated to the confiscation of church lands during the English reformation and returned to Scotland in the eighteenth century. Reduced to vagrancy, old peasants were abused by harsh laws enacted by successive monarchs.
So the peasants were, first, expropriated from their land by force, driven from their homes, turned into vagabonds, and then whipped until they bled, tortured by laws grotesque, to accept the discipline of the wage system. (737)
The expropriation process and created the foundations of capitalist agriculture in the countryside, while he produced the work force for the industrial cities and a national market for food, clothing and other goods. Primitive accumulation was stimulated by the addition of more wealth from the slave trade and the first wave of European colonial exploitation. As noted by Marx, “the veiled slavery of the employed EU needed, such as pedestal, slavery pure and simple in the new world. “(759-60) Whoever, having read an account of Marx on the origin of capitalism, can not walk away with the idea that capitalism is a” natural. ” Capital, he writes, is born “dripping with blood and mud from head to toe.” (760)
Having explained the expropriation on which the capital was founded, Marx continues and looks pleased the expropriation of the capitalists themselves. Capitalism produces “misery, oppression, slavery, degradation and exploitation,” but it also creates a disciplined working class whose interests are increasingly in conflict with those who control the system.
The monopoly of capital becomes a barrier to the mode of production, who was born and developed under its aegis. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor finally reach a point where they become incompatible with the capitalist framework. The framework must be smashed. The bell tolls for capitalist private property. The expropriation is expropriated. (763)
Marx’s Capital reveals the underlying dynamics of capitalist production and provides revolutionary socialist concepts essential to understanding the development of capitalist society. But these categories can not simply be applied in a mechanical way. As capitalism develops, it takes new forms, and each new generation of Marxists must face the challenge of developing and extending the theory of Marx to understand these changes. Capital can not give us all the answers, but we offer a scientific framework necessary to try to find ourselves.
Related articles on Karl Marx’s Capital
- Marx and the proletariat (the-philosophy.com)
- Marx: Ideology and Domination (the-philosophy.com)
- Karl Marx comes to light again (rt.com)
- Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton – review (guardian.co.uk)
- Marx Was No Hegelian (thesociologicalimagination.com)
- What did Marx think about capitalism and why was he wrong (wiki.answers.com)