Francis James Baird Wheen (born 22 January 1957) is a British journalist, writer and broadcaster.
Wheen was educated at Copthorne Prep School, Harrow School and Royal Holloway College, University of London. At Harrow he was a contemporary of Mark Thatcher who has been a recurring subject of his journalism.[citation needed] He is a member of the 'soap' side of the Wheen family, whose family business was the long-established "Wheen & Sons", soap-makers, as was revealed in the gossip column of the Daily Mail on 26 March 2007. He was married to the writer Joan Smith between 1985 and 1993.
He is the author of several books including a biography of Karl Marx, which won the Isaac Deutscher prize. A column for The Guardian ran for several years. He writes for Private Eye and is the magazine's deputy editor. His collected journalism 鈥� Hoo-hahs and Passing Frenzies won him the George Orwell Prize in 2003. He has also been a regular columnist for the London Evening Standard.
Wheen broadcasts regularly (mainly on BBC Radio 4) and is a regular panellist on The News Quiz, in which he often referred to the fact that he resembles the former Tory party leader Iain Duncan Smith. He is also one of the more frequently recruited guests for Have I Got News For You.
Wheen wrote a docudrama, The Lavender List, for BBC Four on the final period of Harold Wilson's premiership, concentrating on his relationship with Marcia Williams, which was first screened in March 2006. It starred Kenneth Cranham as former Prime Minister Wilson and Gina McKee as Williams. In April 2007 the BBC paid 拢75,000 to Williams (Baroness Falkender) in an out-of-court settlement over claims made in the programme.
Francis Wheen is a signatory to the Euston Manifesto and a close friend of Christopher Hitchens. In late-2005 Wheen was co-author, with journalist David Aaronovitch and blogger Oliver Kamm, of a complaint to The Guardian after it published a correction and apology for an interview with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes. Chomsky complained that the article suggested he denied the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. The writer Diana Johnstone also complained about references to her in the interview. The Guardian's then readers' editor Ian Mayes found that this had misrepresented Chomsky's position, and his judgement was upheld in May 2006 by an external ombudsman, John Willis. In his report for the Guardian, Willis detailed his reasons for rejecting the argument.
Surprisingly useful intro to Marx, both in popularizing the revelations and (sometimes unintentionally) demonstrating the controversies鈥�
Preamble on Marx: --Having experienced numerous summaries by much more credible authors (see the end), it was a surprise to read such an accessible and concise introduction to Marx by a British journalist who supported the imperialist invasion of Iraq.
The Good: --Wheen鈥檚 book is divided into 3 parts: 鈥淕estation鈥� (the formative years), 鈥淏irth鈥� (of Capital Volume 1), and 鈥淎fterlife鈥� (history since).
--鈥淕estation鈥� really brings Marx to life, weaving together key concepts in his development: 1) Historical Materialism: flipping Hegel鈥檚 idealism and extending Feuerbach鈥檚 materialism with 鈥淧hilosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.鈥� 鈥his was later to become: 鈥渕en make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.鈥� 2) Roots in German philosophy, French politics, and English economics. 3) 1858 plan for 6 volumes on political economy (* emphasizes the last 3 were not completed, hence much confusion regarding the state's role and geopolitics, esp. imperialism): i) Capital (intro) ii) Landed property iii) Wage labour iv) State* v) International trade* vi) World market*
--鈥淏irth鈥� dives into Capital Volume 1: 1) The conceptualization of capitalism starts with a world of commodities, interrogating this abstraction to find use-value vs. exchange-value, the Labour Theory of Value (LTV) via socially-necessary labour-time, 2 natures of labour to match the 2 types of values, and the abstraction of labour social relations into exchangeable things (commodity fetishism). Wheen describes this Frankenstein nature of commodification: 鈥淗owever glorious its apparent economic triumphs, capitalism remains a disaster since it turns people into commodities, exchangeable for other commodities. Until humans can assert themselves as the subjects of history rather than its objects, there is no escape from this tyranny.鈥� 2) C-M-C (commodity-money-commodity) commodity exchange where money is spent to obtain another commodity鈥檚 use-value (money is a means to an end) actually resembles petty producers (market fundamentalists focus on this, since the exchange looks equal). The rising Industrial Capitalism becomes 惭-颁-惭鈥�, where money is invested, i.e. 鈥渁dvanced鈥� instead of spent, where the return of more money M鈥� is the end in itself. This process of advancing money for more money creates 鈥渃补辫颈迟补濒鈥�. 3) Surplus value (the more money M鈥�) cannot routinely come from unequal exchange, since buyers are also sellers (of course, Michael Hudson would stress that Marx here is assuming a rent-free market where commodities are exchanged at their value, whereas the real world is consumed by economic rent via Finance and imperialism: The Bubble and Beyond). Surplus value comes from labour power, which itself is a unique commodity (labour market). Capitalists only need to pay enough for labour鈥檚 social reproduction (in fact, much of this is externalized to the State), and the remaining unpaid labour generates surplus value. 4) Immiseration thesis: rise in productivity leads to rise in relative size of the Industrial Reserve Army (relative surplus population). Workers are displaced by automation (structural unemployment), refuting a Supply/Demand equilibrium. It鈥檚 important to consider the entire scope of capitalism (i.e. global) to see the 2 poles, although immiseration has now spread to the Western white-collar middle class (hence the rise of the Far Right: ) 5) Business cycles: commercial crisis of overproduction, where the only counter is to destroy some capital and/or expand markets (thus greater future crises).
6) Dialectics鈥� or having it both ways? Elaborating on Wheen鈥檚 piecemeal discussion here: a) Real-world capitalism is full of contradictions; thus, analyses must be flexible enough to both accurately describe micro events and synthesize them with macro phenomenon. Also, Wheen provides useful context for Marx鈥檚 rich but inaccessible presentation style. b) Theoretical 鈥渓aw鈥� does not mean there are no exceptions. Wheen then considers the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall (TRPF), where mechanization (constant capital) replaces labour power (variable capital) and the decrease in labour power (according to Labour Theory of Value) means decreased surplus value. Fundamentalist Marxists (e.g. Robert Brenner, Andrew Kliman) seem to make this their central 鈥淐risis theory鈥�, whereas heterodox Marxists (e.g. aforementioned Hudson/Harvey/Patnaik) tend to emphasize moving beyond Capital Volume 1 assumptions and into Volumes II/III and beyond on overproduction, asymmetrical capitalist development i.e. imperialism, economic rent esp. debt crisis). c) Having it both ways? While Marx does change as he evolves with his research/real world conditions (thus, certain ideas are bound to contradict over time), Wheen also points to specific movements where Marx seems to hedge his bets, particularly around predicting future crises and theorizing a final crisis.
The Questionable: --鈥淎fterlife鈥�: all my mentions of 鈥渋mperialism鈥� should foreshadow issues with the final section: 1) While Marxism dwindled into reformism in the advanced capitalist countries (ex. Germany SPD鈥檚 Erfurt Program), it blossomed in backward Russia. The Narodniks theorized that since Russia already had an embryonic agrarian communal system, they should challenge rigid historical law and leapfrog over the privatization/capitalist industrialization stage. When the 鈥�Agrarian Question鈥� was posed to Marx in 1881, he replied with difficulty that the bourgeoisie phase 鈥溾€榠s expressly limited to the countries of Western Europe鈥欌€�, i.e. transitioning from one type of private property (feudalism) to another (capitalism). 鈥溾€楬ence the analysis provided in Das Kapital does not adduce reasons either for or against the viability of the rural commune.鈥欌€�...So far, so good...
2) Wheen further shows Marx鈥檚 struggles with his long-held belief in revolution through collective action under conditions of sufficient material productivity versus the clandestine operations taking place in backward Russia, framing it as Marx鈥檚 growing impatience. ...Of course, Wheen then frames the Russian Revolution and the rest of real-world socialism as a regression to rigid dogma in contrast to Marx鈥檚 continuous dialectical arguments, going so far as to say 鈥淥ne could even argue that the most truly Marxist achievement of the Soviet Union was its collapse: a centralized, secretive and bureaucratic command economy proved incompatible with new forces of production, thus precipitating a change in the relations of production.鈥� before citing traitor Gorbachev. 鈥or someone who stresses real-world contradictions, Wheen seems rigidly set on not even giving one mention to imperialism and its overwhelming layers of violence and strangulation, adopting the economized version of Marxism conveniently popular in the imperialist Western Left. For recent, diluted versions of this bias (i.e. omission of geopolitics), see Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future and The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality.
3) On the domestic level, Wheen does manage to consider the limitations of the academic Western Left, and finishes with the relevance of Marx in the uneven geographies of 21st century globalization and financialization.
This is a book about the book that probably directly and indirectly influenced the 20th Century more than any other. While a thin volume (especially when compare to the great work that it explores) it does some valuable work and sets a few important records straight. Perhaps key amongst these is to underscore that Das Kapital cannot and should not be seen as a "Marxist bible of eternally codified canons" - although such a religious cult soon developed around the book, a book which is probably as deeply read and understood by is adherents as the Bible is to many Christians or the Koran to many Muslims. In his lifetime Marx himself,as he despaired at those who were busy even then building his cult, Wheen notes stated "all I know is that I am not a Marxist". Part of the book is concerned with the basic contents of Marx's philosophy and the apparant contradictions and how Marx either refuted these or was happy to leave confusion in place so as to hedge his bets in areas of uncertainty. Wheen also emphasises that Marx did not explain how, why or when the system would destroy itself. Critically he notes that Marx saw Capitalism as a powerful and successful economic system that while depending on exploitation had constructed a resilliant society in which economics was the driving force of human development. Another valuable contribution made by Wheen's book is his illustration of the litary nature of Marx's work which is steeped in cultural and literary references which demonstrate his huge reading, understanding and love for literature (Wheen notes that there is a 450 page book devoted just to Marx's literary references). It is unlikely that I will ever sit down and try to read Das Kapital itself (I've tried in the past to tackle the first volume but have settled for abridged versions designed for people like me who lack a broad literary or economic knowledge and that was tough enough going) but I would recomend this book as a good one for clearing up some common misconceptions, for revealing some suprises and in its closing pages placing Marx in a modern context that finds his work still as relevant today as it was back then. I also like Marx's favourite motto "everything should be questioned" a lesson many of those who follow/followed him would do to learn for starters.
Karl Marxin (1818 鈥� 1883) vaikutus modernille maailmalle on ollut suunnaton. H盲nen teoksiaan on painettu ja ajatuksiaan levitetty ymp盲ri maailmaa 鈥� eniten sitten Jeesuksen. Pitk盲n 1900-luvun aikana (termi Eric Hobsbawmin) h盲nen filosofiansa innoitti ns. sosialistista leiri盲, jonka alaisuudessa eli parhaimmillaan puolet maailman v盲est枚st盲.
Marx oli kapitalismina tunnetun talousj盲rjestelm盲n suurin kriitikko. Noin 1850-luvun vaihteesta l盲htien h盲n tuotti valtavan m盲盲r盲n erilaista tutkimustietoa ja artikkeleita, joissa pohdiskeli kapitalismin olemusta. Julkaistuista teoksista merkitt盲vin on tietenkin kolmiosainen P盲盲oma (Das Kapital), jonka ensimm盲isen osan Marx julkaisi vuonna 1867. Kaksi j盲lkimm盲ist盲 osaa l盲htiv盲t painosta vasta filosofin kuoleman j盲lkeen. Ne toimitti julkaisukuntoon pitk盲ik盲inen yst盲v盲 ja ty枚toveri Friedrich Engels (1820 鈥� 1895). Jo ensimm盲isen osan kirjoitusty枚 kesti vuosikymmeni盲. Tutustumisen kapitalismiin h盲n teki sellaisella pedanttisella pieteetill盲, ett盲 lopputulosta on pidetty viimeisen盲 filosofisena systeemin盲. T盲rke盲n盲 innoittajana toimi G.W.F. Hegel (1770 鈥� 1831), jonka ajattelun keski枚ss盲 olleen dialektiikan Marx k盲盲nsi nurinp盲in henkisest盲 materialistiseksi. Lopputulos johti filosofian, sosiologian ja taloustieteiden uudelleenarviontiin 鈥� joka jatkuu edelleen. Marx on siin盲 mieless盲 mielenkiintoinen klassikko, ett盲 h盲n on aina ajankohtainen.
Marxin ajattelua on tutkittu valtavasti. Pelk盲st盲盲n Suomeksi h盲nest盲 on julkaistu mittava m盲盲r盲 erilaisia ja eritasoisia tutkimuksia. Vuonna 2007 alkanut yleismaailmallinen taloustaantuma (lama?) nosti h盲net taas parrasvaloihin. Suomessa t盲m盲 n盲kyi piikkin盲 julkaistujen Marx-teosten m盲盲r盲ss盲. Mieleen nousevat kuin itsest盲盲n intialaissyntyisen taloustieteilij盲n, Meghnad Desain (s.1940) vuonna 2008 Gaudeamuksen kautta suomennettu erinomainen Marxin kosto sek盲 brittil盲isen kirjallisuuskriitikko Terry Eagletonin (s. 1943) vuonna 2010 Like kustantamon toimesta julkaisema Miksi Marx oli oikeassa?
Gummeruksen Ajatuskirjat oli selv盲sti samoilla apajilla julkaistessaan vuonna 2009 englantilaisen journalistin Francis Wheenin (s. 1957) pitk盲n esseen Marxin P盲盲oma. Se tarttuu h盲rk盲盲 sarvista ja pyrkii reilun 150 sivun tiivistelm盲ll盲盲n osoittamaan, mik盲 P盲盲oman merkitys on ollut maailmanhistoriassa. Tavoite on sivum盲盲r盲 huomioon ottaen kunnianhimoinen, joten luonnollisesti mieleen hiipii ep盲ilys, miten tuhansiin sivuihin paisuneesta j盲rk盲leest盲 saa j盲rkev盲n tiivistelm盲n.
Ei kovin hyvin, jos ei huonostikaan.
Wheen k盲y lyhyesti l盲vitse Marxin el盲m盲n p盲盲kohdat: syntym盲n Trieriss盲; opiskelut Berliinin hegelil盲isess盲 yliopistossa; avioitumisen Jenny von Westphalenin (1814 鈥� 1881) kanssa; sanomalehtimieskauden sek盲 maanpakolaisuuden Ranskassa, Belgiassa ja viimein, vuodesta 1851, Lontoossa, jossa h盲n eli el盲m盲ns盲 loppuun. Ty枚t盲 British Museumissa riitti, mutta perhe joutui el盲m盲盲n jatkuvasti n盲lk盲rajalla. My枚s t盲t盲 filosofin yksityisel盲m盲n kurjuutta, lapsikuolemineen, Wheen valoittaa.
Itse kohde, P盲盲oma, pidet盲盲n keski枚ss盲, ja kirjoitusprosessin eri vaiheita esitell盲盲n mutta loppujen lopuksi teoksen sis盲lt枚 j盲盲 pintapuoliseksi. T盲rkeit盲 k盲sitteit盲, kuten lis盲-arvoteoria, avataan muutama kappale, mutta muutoin P盲盲oman verraton kapitalismin analyysi 鈥� kuinka kapitalismin dynamiikka toimii 鈥� j盲盲 marginaaliseksi. Edell盲 mainittua materialistista dialektiikkaa ja Marxin ennustamaa vallankumousta sivutaan kyll盲, mutta vain ohimennen. Lukijan on syyt盲 olla selvill盲 niiden merkityksest盲 Marxin filosofialle ja 1900-luvun historialle muutenkin.
Mysteeriksi j盲盲 my枚s P盲盲oman valtava merkitys j盲lkimaailmalle. Eurooppalainen ty枚v盲enliike mainitaan sivulauseessa, samoin merkitt盲v盲t sosialistijohtajat, kuten Karl Kautsky (1854 鈥� 1938) ja V.I. Lenin (1870 鈥� 1922), jotka kehitteliv盲t Marxin n盲kemyksi盲 paremmin massoille sopiviksi, mutta ellei j盲lleen ole paremmin selvill盲 n盲iden ilmi枚iden ja henkil枚iden historiallisesta merkityksest盲, lukija on helposti ymm盲ll盲盲n. Marxin ajatusten politisoiminen ja Neuvostoliiton syntyminen johtivat verrattoman ajattelijan julkisuuskuvan tuhriutumiseen. H盲nen ajatuksiaan on v盲盲ristelty ja h盲nen nimiss盲盲n on tehty rikoksia, jotka olisivat saaneet t盲lt盲 rauhaa rakastavalta filosofilta jyrk盲n tuomion. Kuinka monelle tulee esimerkiksi yll盲tyksen盲 se, ett盲 h盲n olisi ollut kauhuissaan Neuvostoliitossa harjoitetusta valtiokapitalismista tai gulakeista? Marxilaisuuden erilaisia virtauksia sivutaan muutamalla esimerkill盲, mutta ensi kertaa asiaan perehtyv盲lle lukijalle ne menev盲t ohitse. Postmodernia marxilaisuutta k盲sitell盲盲n sent盲盲n kiinnostavin kommentein.
Teosta voi suositella aihepiiriin vasta tutustuvalle tietyin varauksin: Historiantuntemuksen perusl盲ht枚kohdat tulee olla hyvin hallussa. Kokeneemmille lukijoille se ei tarjoa juuri uutta, mutta ehk盲 virkist盲v盲n kertauksen. Kirjaa lukiessa her盲sikin monta kertaa kysymys: Kenelle se on oikein suunnattu? Ajatus tuntuu puuttuvan.
A lovely small essay on "Das Kapital" not as a classic of political economy, but as a literary effort. However odd it may sound to ferret out elements of Gothic romance in Marx, the metaphors are there, and are quite likely things Karl-Heinrich himself would've understood: the creation (capitalism) that turns on and ensnares its creators, the creation that lives by draining out the life and soul of its creator. Wheen is having a good time here, but he's serious enough about "Kapital" as more than just a text in economics and politics. Marx was always a philosopher first, and "Kapital"--- huge, sprawling, endlessly re-written, never completed ---is not just an analysis of economic trends or a program for political action. "Kapital" in spirit (whatever Althusser may have thought) goes back to the ideas of the young Marx, to the idea that capitalism, however powerful its productive forces may be, is an process that destroys its creators and labourers both, and destroys human value even while creating an array of goods.
A useful and concise book, worth reading as a preliminary for The Big One, ie .
The first two chapters (containing a potted history of Capital and its author, along with a basic sketch of its contents) are great, almost overflowing with useful insights. The third and final chapter is frankly dreadful, condemning all Marxism after Marx and going full throttle on the eurocentrism and cynicism. If you discard the last chapter, you'll have an overall far more enriching and enjoyable experience, and you'll have saved yourself an hour or so. You're welcome.
If reading Marx's Capital seems like a daunting task, but you still want to know what it says and why it's so important, Francis Wheen's brief "biography" of it is pretty much perfect for you. Along with the expected inclusions 鈥� the influences, the process, the basic arguments 鈥� Wheen argues that Capital is as much a literary work as an economic one, and discusses the various literary allusions with which Marx sprinkled his opus.
This is an exceptionally quick read, and very well done, a terrific introduction to one of modern history's most important works.
Loved this book and frankly, love the genre of relatively short books about seminal books (apparently a kind of innovation from Atlantic Books). Briefly, you get a good feel not only for Marx's approach and priorities, but an organic appreciation for the context in which he wrote. This book certainly whetted my appetite for more on Marx, his writings, and his legacy.
Binnen de boekenreeks 'Boeken die de wereld veranderden' is Das Kapital van Karl Marx niet alleen chronologisch het laatste maar ook wellicht het meest chaotische. Francis Wheen doet zijn best om de invloed van deze chaos te verklaren en daar waar de uitleg rond de invloed van Das Kapital prima is, net als de interpretaties achteraf (bv. Lenin), blijft m.i. de lezer wat op zijn honger betreffende de inhoud van het meesterwerk.
Wheen's brief, enthusiastic treatment of one of the Western canon's most forbidding volumes doesn't exactly make you want to read it, but does generate new respect for its eccentricity and prophetic power. Early on, Wheen argues that Das Kapital should be seen as a work of art, and not as a mind-numbing economics text:
"By the time he wrote Das Kapital, he was pushing out beyond conventional prose into radical literary collage -- juxtaposing voices and quotations from mythology and literature, from factory inspectors' reports and fairy tales, in the manner of Ezra Pound's Cantos or Eliot's The Waste Land. Das Kapital is as discordant as Schoenberg, as nightmarish as Kafka."
I'm still unconvinced, but then again I find both The Waste Land and the Cantos (not to mention Schoenberg) dull as dishrags. Wheen goes on to talk about the hilarious gestation and birth of Kapital, featuring dilatory Marx lying to his publishers for twelve years (talk about a missed deadline), and having to write standing up toward the end (due to some painful warts on his ass).
The chapter on the book's "afterlife" was most fascinating to me, especially as Wheen outs Louis Althusser as a wife-murdering charlatan, and then quotes several recent free-market capitalists (including George Soros) as Marx enthusiasts.
Very engrossing and well written. And just as the reviewer Bill Ward said, "Wheen shows that Marx's work is something like a vast Gothic novel, whose heroes are enslaved by the monster they created: capitalism." I can't believe I'm saying this but after reading this, I want to read Capital from cover to cover.
This small book is broken down into only three chapters in which the author describes some biographical history about Marx and the circumstances of his life leading up to the first submission, summarizes many of the basic ideas in Capital including inconsistencies and Marx's unique (sometimes bombastic other times couched) writing style, and lastly discusses some of the important the political and polemic effects of his work until now.
#DasKapital adalah karya fragmenter yang tak lengkap. Marx sendiri merancang 6 jilid, sedangkan yang terbit semasa hidupnya hanya jilid pertama. Jilid ke-2 dan ke-3 adalah hasil kompilasi Engels. Maka ini penting diketahui terutamanya oleh penganut komunisme yang berkeras bahawa apa yang diucap Marx benar, dan yang tidak diucapnya salah.
Kata ekonomis Michael Lebowitz, benar bahawa Marx dengan bijaksana telah menemukan satu benua baru, tapi itu tidak berarti Marx telah memetakan benua itu semuanya dengan benar.
Really, a person with any sense of history has to read Capital. It's a vitally important work to understanding economy from the 19th century forward. But why not, before plunging into what Wheen describes as a gothic horror novel without reading a history of Capital's history? So glad I did. His enthusiasm for Capital is infectious and makes the reader EXCITED to have at Marx's classic.
I also took his suggestion and purchased McLellan's abridgment of Capital. While one day I'd love to read all three volumes, for my scholarly work, the abridgment will do nicely.
Loved this short audiobook! I really didn鈥檛 know much about Marx or Das Kapital it turns out. This book shared the background and story of how the book was written, the key points of the book, and it鈥檚 legacy from the 19th century up to the present.
I can hardly believe how efficient it was. Now I want to read the full Das Kapital!
Volgens dit boek zag Marx zichzelf als denker en als creatief kunstenaar. De schrijver vraagt zich af of lezers in onze tijd het onsamenhangende en de 鈥済ebroken verteltrant鈥� zouden duiden als artistiek, of eerder als vormloos en ondoorgrondelijk. Hij nodigt lezers uit om Marx te lezen zoals je luistert naar Beethoven of kijkt naar Goya鈥� Schijnbaar heeft Marx Das Kapital niet zelf voltooid; het is een onaffe verzameling notities en concepten dat later door anderen is aangevuld. Alleen het eerste deel is van Marx zelf.
Omkering In 1843, kort na zijn trouwen, schrijft Marx een inzicht in zijn aantekeningen. Volgens Hegel maakte 鈥榙e idee van de staat鈥� de maatschappij, maar volgens Marx vanaf dat moment is het andersom. Religie maakt niet de mens, maar de mens maakt religie; de constitutie cre毛ert niet de natie, maar andersom. Marx neemt dit fundamentele idee van omkering over van Ludwig Feuerbach. In een boek over Feuerbach betoogt Marx dat de mens zichzelf onderwerp van de geschiedenis moet maken ipv andersom. Later vertaalt hij dat naar het kapitalisme waarover het vindt dat het ondanks de evidente economische triomfen mensen reduceert tot uitwisselbare waar. Of dit waar is, is maar ten dele het geval zou ik zeggen: mogelijk wel bij herhaalbaar uitwisselbaar werk, maar duidelijk niet of deels bij ondernemerschap en werk waarvoor hoogwaardige kennis en expertise is vereist.
Communistische bijbel Volgens de schrijver kan Das Kapital niet het heilige boek van het communisme zijn dat veel communisten er wel van maken: 鈥�Das Kapital is een incompleet, fragmentarisch werk.鈥� Naast omissies bevat het ook fouten; veel voorspellingen zijn nooit uitgekomen. Het vernieuwende is dat Marx een tot dan toe onontgonnen terrein in kaart bracht: het industri毛le kapitalisme. Marx gaat uit van destijds geldende bepaling van de waarde van een goed, namelijk de hoeveelheid arbeid die erin zit. Hij behandelt zelf 茅茅n van de problemen hiervan: hij gaat uit van een soort maatschappelijk gemiddelde, omdat anders producten van luie of slecht opgeleide arbeiders waardevoller zouden zijn dan andere. Dit noemen we tegenwoordig productiviteit. Een ander probleem is dat het met deze interpretatie van waarde niet mogelijk moet zijn dat een eenvoudig product veel geld (of een andere ruilwaarde) kost. Inmiddels weten we dat mensen uit schaarste of om emotionele of andere redenen wel degelijk veel geld betalen voor eenvoudige producten, zie edelstenen.
Revolutie Een centrale stelling van Marx is dat mechanisering leidt tot hogere productiviteit en daarmee afname van behoefte aan arbeid. Werkloosheid groeit en daarmee de verpaupering van arbeiders. Eventuele overproductie van goederen bij stijgende productiviteit in combinatie met verarmende bevolking zou worden vernietigd, volgens Marx. Uiteindelijk leidt dit proces tot revolutie, tot onteigening van hen die onteigenden.
Ontvangst Een ironische situatie is dat Das Kapital in het westen lauw werd ontvangen maar in Rusland goed. Marx zelf schreef erover dat hij het ironie van het lot vond omdat hij zelf de Russen 25 jaar had bevochten. Degenen die het boek volgens Marx nodig hadden, waren het minst in staat om het te begrijpen, terwijl de elite er geen behoefte aan had. Lenin baseerde zijn idee毛n op Das Kapital maar paste ze pragmatisch toe in zijn eigenbelang: 鈥淒e moderne socialistische beweging kan alleen maar ontstaan op de basis van een diepgaande wetenschappelijke kennis (鈥�). De drager van deze wetenschap is niet het proletariaat maar de burgerlijke intelligentsia.鈥� Misschien zien we hier het begin van wat later tirannie werd? Marx adagium was niet een ideologie maar een kritisch dialectisch proces; Lenin en Stalin maakten het tot een star dogma. Na Rusland omarmde China het Marxisme, maar Mao richtte zich op de boeren ipv op de steden en industrie (Rusland). Twee jaar na invoering, in 1960, was er hongersnood in China en stapte dat land er alweer vanaf. Sinds de dood van Mao is China de kapitalistische weg opgegaan: marktleninistisch ipv marxistisch-leninistisch.
Afsluiting Bizar om een heel boek te lezen over mislukte op Marx gebaseerde politiek-economische experimenten en fouten in Marx denkwijze, en vervolgens de auteur te horen verzuchten dat in onze tijd de 鈥渨erkelijke betekenis鈥� van Marx鈥� werk duidelijk zal worden en dat hij alsnog de meest invloedrijke denker van de eenentwintigste eeuw zou kunnen worden. Klinkt haast religieus; die mensen houden ook maar vast aan verouderde idee毛n tegen beter weten in.
(Jim Cook鈥檚 review) Francis Wheen鈥檚 book is a short (130 pages), lucid, and very engaging account of the development, reception, and 鈥渁fterlife鈥� of one of the world鈥檚 鈥済reat鈥� books: Marx鈥檚 Capital.
It鈥檚 divided into three well-labeled chapters: Genesis, Birth, and Afterlife. The first chapter relates the story of the very long gestation of Marx鈥檚 Capital. As Marx was a perfectionist who wanted to complete a study that was both 鈥渟cientific鈥� and a work of art, coupled with his inability to finish a job once started, his projected 6 volumes of Capital materialized into only one volume that he was able to publish during his lifetime. The other volumes of Capital (volume 2, 3, and the three volumes of Theories of Surplus Value) were published after his death, edited by others. The posthumous volumes, based as they are on Marx鈥檚 sometimes chaotic notebooks, are a much more difficult read than volume 1, first published in 1867.
The first chapter of Wheen鈥檚 book also provides captivating glimpses of many of Marx鈥檚 earlier writings, some of which were not published until the twentieth century (e.g., the Paris Manuscripts of 1844, and the Grundrisse).
The second chapter is a brief overview of some of the key concepts in Capital. Overall, Wheen鈥檚 exposition is balanced and lucid, although I did not agree with all of his interpretation. For example, on page 44, Wheen advances a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of Marx鈥檚 notion of commodity fetishism; and, he also seems to confuse the concept of 鈥渟urplus value鈥� with 鈥減rice鈥�, two very different things. That said, most readers will find that Wheen鈥檚 brief analysis is a model of clarity.
The final chapter examines the fate of Capital following its initial publication 155 years ago. Wheen鈥檚 observations about Lenin are particularly interesting; he also briefly covers several of the key intellectual controversies inspired by Capital over the past century and a half.
Overall, this little 鈥渂iography鈥� of Capital is an excellent introduction to both the book and its impact on the modern world. The only quibble I have with it is that Wheen (or his editors) chose not to include footnotes; consequently, none of the many quotations throughout the book are referenced, a cardinal error in my view.
What did I like the most? I alluded earlier to the artistic merits of volume one of Capital. It is a great work of literature as well as an interesting take on social formation and history. Marx was a voracious reader and Capital includes a huge number of allusions to great works of literature. Wheen鈥檚 book tends to focus on this aspect of Capital and I especially liked his account of the influence of Dante鈥檚 Inferno on the structure and content of Capital (see pp. 70-2, especially). I wonder if this influenced the Canadian political scientist, William Clare Roberts who wrote one of the most interesting studies of Capital I have ever read (Marx鈥檚 Inferno: The Political Theory of Capital (2013)?
Wheen鈥檚 little book is highly recommended and I give it five stars.
Very captivating and well written short book about the history of probably the most important book written in last 3 centuries. This small book, only 128 pages with only three chapters in which the author, in addition to some biographical history about Marx, summarizes many of the basic ideas in Capital including Marx's unique writing style. It is amazing that the book that altered the course of history; even today after some 150 years, finds its readers. I was surprised to learn that the first volume of Capital quickly sold through its print run in, of all places, Russia, while the French could never quite get a translation to Marx鈥檚 satisfaction and the Germans ignored him. No English edition was available in his lifetime. An excellent book that puts Marx's "Das Kapital" in more context, both in what came prior and what came since. A great read. As Wheen said it in the book "Far from being buried under the rubble of the Berlin Wall, Marx may only now be emerging in his true significance."
I'd recommend this to anyone who would like to know something about Marx and his masterpiece. The book is pretty decent, entertaining, short and easy to read; I wanted to go through it again in order to gather my thoughs because I'm currently reading the whole of Das Kapital.
Only negative thing to say about the book is that Francis Wheen cannot sometimes be without stating his own opinion as a fact - extremely annoying habit if not stated clearly. Otherwise a pretty good start delving into Marx's thinking.
A great introduction to Marx's work and the historical moment in which he carried it out. Wish I could have read this when studying Marx in college. At the same time, I wish this book had been written yesterday, so that the "Afterlife" section could cover the 2008 Financial Crisis and the debate over neoliberalism and inequality. Alternatively, the "Afterlife" section could have been much abbreviated or left off altogether.