Talk:Das Kapital

message: Footnotes 1, 2, and 3 link to the German editions of volumes 1 to 3, at www.e-rara.ch.  Footnote 3 links to the third volume, part one, but there is no link (on that page or elsewhere) to the third volume, part two.  However, it appears this (volume 3 part 2) can be downloaded from here: https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/8205199?name=Zweiter%20Theil%20Kapitel%20XXIX%20bis%20LII.  Should Footnote 3 be amended to reflect that volume 3 is in two parts with a link to each part?
Mgchristensen (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 3 should also link to volume 3, part 2 

message: "The foreign editions of Capital. Critique of Political Economy (1867) by Karl Marx include a Russian translation by the revolutionary socialist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876)."
That is not the case. Bakunin did start the translation to Russian, but according to Resis quoting Marx and James Guillaume, he never went far. Bakunin praised Das Kapital and wished for it to be translated to French, but he was not its translator to Russian. OliveiraCris (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed Bakunin's translation 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 21:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Both Das Kapital and Capital are commonly used in English. The former is more unambiguous without extra context. Capital (book) is less ideal because it does not disambiguate from Capital (novel) or any other book of the same title (even though Marx's is the most prominent). In the context of Marx scholarship (etc.), it may well be customary to simply say Capital, but that is because of the context. And the comparison of Ngrams between "Marx's Capital" and "Marx's Das Kapital" is inapt, because only the former requires any inclusion of "Marx's" to be unambiguous. I would support the alternative Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. SilverLocust (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it, the more I wouldn't be against the original titles from four years ago (Das Kapital, Capital, Volume I, Capital, Volume II, and Capital, Volume III). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy doesn't sound bad either (though Capital (book) should continue to redirect here). :3 F4U (they/it) 01:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well to me that shows Das Kapital is prevalent and specific references to individual volumes are sparing by comparison. You might also consider that English sentence may also use "Volume I of Das Kapital" or "first volume of " as a phrase in text while "Das Kapital, Volume II" is as likely to be a citation as it is to be text referring to the book itself. If anything the methodology of searching JSTOR should be improved, and that would still be ignoring usage in other areas of life. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 April 2023 

message: Seems crazy to me that this article doesn't touch on the impact of one of the most socially impactful works in recorded history. The article for Harry Potter has a "Legacy" subheader overviewing all the fanfiction those books inspired, but nothing for a book that inspired social movements, political parties, economic reconfiguration, societal revolutions, assassinations, or civil wars in nearly every country on the face of the earth over two centuries?
Imagine if the article for the 95 Theses didn't mention the development of Protestantism. Bit of a head-scratcher. Jhodders (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a legacy section at Karl Marx#Legacy. What information distinctly related to this work, rather than Marx's writings as a whole, do you propose ought to be added here? SilverLocust (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy / Influence Section 

message: The opening has the sentence "Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist mode of production in contrast to classical political economists such as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill."
I don't think Marx was in contrast to them, any more than any of them were to each other.  In fact, Marx was in many ways a faithful follower to Ricardo in many matters, particularly value, and our modern neoclassical economists are the ones who are in contrast to David Ricardo on many things (although not free trade, where they tend to agree with Ricardo).
I am changing those "in contrast to" words.  I am not sure what the exact wording should be, but saying Marx is in contrast to Ricardo makes no sense, as he was a more faithful follower to Ricardo than modern economists are.  I don't know what the exact words should be, but they should not be in contrast to, against and so forth. 
I am also changing a repeat of this language further down the page.
In Book 1 of Capital, Chapter 1, Marx says "Since Robinson Crusoe’s experiences are a favourite theme with political economists..." with a footnote referencing Ricardo, and Marx goes on to use Robin Crusoe as a metaphor and quotes Ricardo's use of Crusoe in a footnote.  This is just the beginning of Marx's references to Ricardo, who he often followed, although he sometimes diverged from him.
Describing Marx's relationship to his predecessors is complex, as he is, in his mind, sometimes following them, sometimes clarifying and adding to them, and sometimes contrasting them.  To use terms Marx and Engels use, this is not an anti-thesis to the theses of previous economists, but a synthesis of them. Minimax Regret (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening - in contrast to 

message: I was doing some reading and happened upon the CPSU's introduction to their version of Volume IV/Theories of Surplus Value by karl Marx. It claims that the version by Kautsky, mentioned in this article on the Works, bastardized the original manuscripts and left out a lot of details, which their publication corrects. I have not read either version of Volume IV, so I cannot confirm whether or not the accusations in the preface are true (I suspect though that they likely are,) but in any case, it seemed like important information to include in the article, given this is essentially the only place on English Wikipedia which mentions anything about Volume IV, and a separate publication of it which is extremely different seems like it would be necessary to include. Thus I made an edit adding that the CPSU's publication exists and that it claims to be "more correct."
If anyone who has worked on this article has any further knowledge of the topic of what "Volume IV" precisely is, and how accurate a term that even is given that it seems only Lenin and Engels reference it that way even if it was intended to be a finishing work to Volumes I-III, I would appreciate a review of my edit and of the CPSU's preface to their version for accuracy's sake. Thanks AquaticOnWiki (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Complexity of "Volume IV"