Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital

Sazgapo link
Kufuma Wikipedia
DYK toolbox

An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital

[kulemba source]
  • ... that in Marxist scholar Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, he insists that all three volumes of Das Kapital need to be read to understand Marx? Source: "Heinrich insists throughout the text that a reading of Capital that does not include volumes 2 and 3 will lead necessarily to misinterpretation: 'What we believe to be understood after reading only the first volume is not only incomplete, but in fact distorted' (9)." https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2013.795263
    • ALT1: ... that when Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital was published, Paul Cockshott claimed Heinrich removed the scientific method from Marx? "In a nutshell, my objection to Heinrich's interpretation is that, if we follow it, we end up with something that is no longer a scientific theory of capitalism, whereas a slightly different interpretation gives a strong and testable scientific theory." https://doi.org/10.1080/03017605.2013.805004 (posting the doi for proof of peer review-- non-paywalled link available here: https://marxismocritico.com/2016/05/24/new-age-marxism/)
    • ALT2: ... that in Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, he argues that Marx was not an economist? Within world view Marxism, Marx had taken over key categories, if not the whole, of the labour theory of value from classical political economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and added to that an explanation of exploitation and the crisis-prone nature of capitalism. Thus, according to this view, 'there are no fundamental categorical differences between Marxist political economy and classical political economy, only differences concerning the conclusions of both theories' (p 33). According to the 'new reading of Marx' that Heinrich subscribes to, this is a faulty understanding of what Marx was attempting to do in Capital. This is highlighted by the subtitle of the book: 'A Critique of Political Economy.' Marx was not trying to provide an alternative political economy, but wanted to 'criticize the categorical presuppositions' of political economy. This is the key difference and can be emphasised by noting that Marx was not 'predominantly criticizing the conclusions of political economy, but rather the manner in which it poses questions' (p 34)" pages 26-7 of https://www.jstor.org/stable/24482457
    • ALT3: ... that in Marxist scholar Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, he claims to solve the transformation problem? "Heinrich's claim is ultimately that Marx's labour theory of value is a monetary theory of value: 'without the value form, commodities cannot be related to one another as values, and only with the money form does an adequate form of value exist' (63–4). It is a compelling reading, and one with which Heinrich can also sidestep the infamous 'Transformation Problem' that plagued Capital's reception since its first printing. He essentially calls the entire problem a category error: he insists there is no point trying to derive production prices from values, because value and price are 'different levels of description' (149), mediated by different forms of exchange."
    • ALT4: that according to Michael Heinrich's book An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, Marx opposed the labor theory of value? Source is same quote as ALT2 and supplemented directly from Heinrich: "Marx's value theory is a monetary theory of value...However, within traditional Marxism, a non-monetary theory of value was dominant..." (page 165 of the book)
    • Reviewed:

Created by Freedom4U (talk). Self-nominated at 08:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • I will be reviewing this. WJ94 (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tick - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Red X - I'm not sure the hook is catchy - I don't think its surprising to a general reader that someone would think that you need to read an entire work in order to understand it (even acknowledging that this is not often done for Capital).
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is long enough, new enough, neutral, and well sourced - I think you've done a good job with this article. If you could find a more interesting hook (does Heinrich have an unusual take on Marx, or an intriguing comment from one of the book's reviewers?) that'd really help. WJ94 (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  • @WJ94: You just challenged an unchallenged view I've had which was that most people who read Capital Volume 1 don't read Volumes 2 or 3, and maybe it doesn't have as much basis as I thought. I've added an alternative DYK which talks about Cockshott claiming Heinrich's interpretation made Marx unscientific. Also made it so that the citations pointed out exactly what belonged to what. Freedom4U (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Freedom4U: Thanks for that. My point was not so much that most people do read volumes 2 and 3, but more than for a general audience who might be unfamiliar with Marx, it is perhaps not surprising that a commentator on Marx advocates reading all three volumes. I have some reservations with ALT1 - specifically, I'm a little nervous about using a negative comment about the work where the source is the person who made that comment. I think we'd be on safer ground with a hook based on one of Heinrich's claims in the book. There might be something in the critique of worldview Marxism, or the idea of critiquing both Marxism and bourgeois readings of Marx? WJ94 (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @WJ94: Thanks for your critique. Your comment about it being for a "general audience" got me thinking and I've added three more alternatives. Yeah, was iffy about the Cockshott one too-- what he's trying to say is that Heinrich's interpretation of Marx can't be "empirically proven" or something along those lines. Freedom4U (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Freedom4U: Great, thanks for those alternatives. I think ALT3 probably requires too much contextual knowledge for the general reader, but I like the other two. I have slightly modified ALT2 to remove the final clause (which I think reduces the clarity of an otherwise good hook) - I hope you don't mind. But I am happy to approve ALT2 and ALT4. WJ94 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Kufuma ku "https://tum.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/An_Introduction_to_the_Three_Volumes_of_Karl_Marx%27s_Capital&oldid=51263"