This is probably the world's most read primer in orthodox Marxist economic theory - and deservedly so. It flawlessly covers all 'the basics': the theory of value and surplus value (ch.1); capital and capitalism [historical bacground, and basic dynamics] (ch.2); and neo-capitalism [role of the state & war] (ch.3). It does all this in tight, non-technical style. For this reason it is THE starting point for the uninitiated. It is important to note, however, that it cannot be more than it's title suggests: an introduction. It does not deal with the criticisms of Marx's theory of value in any depth. Also, it reveals not only its age, and how times have changed by what is emphasises AND what it ignores. In the case of what it emphasises: much is made of the importance of the cold war as a necessary phenomenon. In the case of what it ignores: it understandably says nothing of post-Fordism, ecological concerns, or the emergence of non-socialist oppositional 'social movements' (such as feminism, environmentalism and multiculturalism). These criticisms are hardly relevant to a book such as this: its central goal is to outline the essential message in Marx's 'Das Kapital', and to show (in ch.3) how this message can be applied (with some inevitable modification) to explain (then) current politico-economic events.

For all those proponents of capitalism, this book will not interest you much. Marx writes to expose capital (money, interest, profit, value, etc) as a relation between people, as a relation of domination and exploitation. The central defense of capital by political economy meant a critique of political economy as the rational expression of a mad world.

What does it mean to try to give a rational explanation of a mad world, a world built upon exploitation/domination and the insubordination of that exploitation/domination (good, old class struggle, like in that bastion of U.S. power, South Korea)? Certainly not a text book on how it works, but a critique of the madness of calling exploitation/domination 'rational', 'moral', 'free', etc. Marx exposes the inherent fragility of capital's power because capital only exists as alienated labor power, the creativity of workers turned against themselves. All the wealth of all the rich and powerful is the product of the labor power of the workers.

Marx's ultimate message is that the capitalist needs the worker, but the worker's only need is the overthrow of capital and the establishment of a humane society: "The free development of all depends on the free development of each." (Marx, 1844 Manuscripts)

As for 'empirical' matters, capitalism has impoverished the vast mass of human beings for the vast wealth of a few. To see the misery, hunger, disease, and human debasement created by capital's thirst for profit and then to say 'capital has nothing to do with this' is to tell lies. To say that capital does not give rise to all the dictatorships of the world is telling lies. To say "Let the market sort it out." is to say "Let things stay as they are." With all our wealth, all our productive capacity, only capital prevents a world of abundance, and therefore a liberation from 'things', a liberation from exploitation/domination. The defence of capital depends on moral bankruptcy, class privilege, and inhumanity being the standard of human conduct.

I suggest a look at John Holloway, Werner Bonefeld, and Richard Gunn, among others, for an intelligent, impassioned and insightful reading of Marx. And happily, Amazon carries their 3 vol. set, Open Marxism.

"When Volume 1 of Capital was first published, capitalist industry, though predominant in a few Western European countries, still appeared as an isolated island circled by a sea of independent farmers and handicraftsmen which covered the whole world, including the greater part even of Europe," writes Ernest Mandel in his introduction to 'Capital'.

How did we advance to the present day?

An *economic* text, this book is considerably distinct from much of Marx's preceding output. In contrast to Marx, many capitalist apologists have explained capitalism as an "Unknown Ideal" while others despise historical analysis-- as if a feudal baron shouted one day, "I invented capitalism!" The bulk of Marx's presentation is theoretical-- calls for action, the nature of the state, and philosophical concepts are given little treatment throughout the 2,500 pages. What Marx *does* talk about- commodity production, use-values and exchange-values, theories of surplus-value, crisis theory, organic and technical compositions of capital, the transformation problem, changes in the rates of profit, and much more. It is an analysis of *capital*, and hence, *capitalism.* There is little information about the mechanics of a post-capitalist society. After investing the time to read it, readers will be baffled when critics argue "50 bujillion people DIED as a result of 'Capital!!!'" (Marx died in 1883) -- "therefore Marx is wrong!" To be objective, a thinker can imagine the absurdity of blaming World War Two, the slave trade, and imperialism on 'The Wealth of Nations'.

This is a brilliant work. The tough part is understanding the meaning of his terms, which was especially difficult for me, learning the neo-classical viewpoint first. The first chapters took a few days to understand with confidence. After that, the sheer length of the text is formidable, though rewarding and absolutely fascinating.

Later, in Mandel's introduction, "it would be very easy to 'prove' Marx's analysis to be wrong, if experience had shown, for example, that the more capitalist industry develops, the smaller and smaller the average factory becomes, the less it depends upon new technology, the more its capital is supplied by the workers themselves, the more workers become owners of their factories, the less the part of wages taken by consumer goods becomes (and the greater becomes the part of wages used for buying means of production). If, in addition, there had been decades without economic fluctuations and a full-scale disappearance of trade unions and employers' associations..... one could indeed say that 'Capital' was so much rubbish and had dismally failed to predict what would happen in the real capitalist world a century after its publication. It is sufficient to compare the real history of the world since 1867 on the one hand with what Marx predicted it would be, and on the other hand with any such alternative "laws of motion", to understand how remarkable indeed was Marx's theoretical achievement and how strongly it stands up against the experimental test of history."

A paranoia exists of socialist conspiracy to create monopoly as a transitional stage for communism. The largest 500 industrial and commercial corporations in the United States account for roughly 10% of all employees, 50% of profits, 70% of sales, and 90% of manufacturing assets, and 200 banks control 80% of all banking assets. How does this happen? An explanation that isn't even Marxist-- Joseph Schumpeter argues that modern technology creates enormous returns to scale. Under this hypothesis, large firms have the profit to experiment with new technologies, which creates new cost structures that promote greater efficiency in production. Competitive firms, which cannot absorb experimental failures and would have their innovations copied by the competition, have everything to lose by innovating and often not much to gain.

The volumes of this massive economic text were published successively in 1867, 1885, and 1894. His theoretical influence is seen on moderns including Paul Sweezy, Anwar Shaikh, Nubuo Okishio, Paul Mattick, Joan Robinson, and many others. There has been plenty of work critical of Marx in academia. Most economists feel marginalism has rendered it obsolete, others have appropriated pieces of Marxist thought into their work.

Have fun!

Marx was not attempting to contribute to economic theory. His book was a *critique* of political economy (as economics was called back then).

Marx shows that politics--struggles over power, oppression and resistance--is the real substance of economics. In the 3 volumes of Capital, and the notebooks of the Grundrisse, Marx shows the categories of economic analysis for what they are: relations of force. Capitalism is a system of antagonism. In 'Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse', the Italian theorist Toni Negri states: "There is not a single category of capital that can be taken out of this antagonism, out of this perpetually fissioning flux."

For instance, the central concept of Marx's 'Capital', surplus-value, both conceals and points to this antagonistic tension. The very duality of the term testifies to this. As does the meaning of the term. Buy 'Capital', then read it as a critique of economic categories, and you may see this. For help, consult Marx's 'Grundrisse', the writings of Antonio Negri and Louis Althusser--and check out the exciting new journal, 'Rethinking Marxism'.

Marxism has gained a fresh life, free from the dogma of socialist states, infused with the insights of post-structuralism. Read Marx anew. And work for a better world. The revolution is here and now, here and there. Communism is not a utopia of the future; it is found in creative resistance and radical alternatives to capitalism today. Eventually perhaps, the communist efforts--the efforts which express the values of communism, as described by Marx and by writers like Negri and Derrida--may just gain hegemony in the world.

Marx's 'Capital' is no historical artifact; it is a great resource in the ongoing struggle under capitalism--a struggle inherent in capitalism. And what is this struggle over, exactly? It is a struggle to diminish the suffering in the world, the suffering of the world.

The full title is "Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution: A Debate." However, as this is a publication of the American Socialist Party, there isn't much debate in it. While there are minor points that the various writers disagree on, none of them bring up anything unique. This magazine-type publication is only 68 pages long, and only 4 of those were written by Lenin. $9 seems way too much to pay for so little.