Experience has shown that most readers who finished Capital volume 1 (C1) start reading volume 2 (C2) with excitement only to ask themselves: what the fuck? Many things which can be found in the first few chapters of volume 2 seem to be known from volume 1 and hence one is inclined to believe that Marx already explained those there. Furthermore, the stuff seems to be weirdly arranged, such that some have the impression everything is rather confused and repetitive. Hence this reading aid which does not present the central results but points out questions which can help to avoid the impressions mentioned above.

From volume 1 we know: for the end of valorisation it needs: money as an advance, production (with a particular time relation between necessary labour time and surplus-labour)  and the commodity whose sale realises the valorisation of the advance.

The end of capital – to approach wealth as such – is accomplished through accumulation, the permanent renewal of the chain money, production, and commodity … while the value grows.

In volume 1 the treatment of accumulation was

from an abstract point of view, i.e. simply as one aspect of the immediate process of production (C1, 710).

The question asked there was: What character does the simple repetition of the capitalist process of production imprint on it? Which prerequisites of repetition does the capitalist process of production create itself?

The result in C1 was:

“The capitalist process of production (…) produces and reproduces the capital-relation itself.” (C1, 724)

The process of production, the way it is established, leave the worker without means, such that she is dependent on capital again and again. The process of production creates value in such magnitudes that it can function as forceful command over the worker – again and again and in increasing magnitude.

Exploitation in the process of production as source of surplus-value includes that workers are combined appropriately under the command of capital – in production. At the same time, the process of production includes the separation of the workers from the means of production such that workers and capital confront each other in the sphere of circulation again and again.

Hence, a capitalist must spend money to gain command over production. A capitalist must have money, to buy workers. Expressed as a contradiction: a capitalist must spend money (give away) and own it.

From the point of view of C1 one could be tempted to say, this is no problem and hence no contradiction since if things run their normal course the application of workers produces commodities and the sale of these commodities begs money which the capitalist then can use to buy workers again.

But, these are two different ends:

1. Something must happen such that value valorises.

2. Something must happen such that money is available again.

The first end as a continuous is the circuit of capital.

The second end as a continuous one (in addition to augmentation) is emphasised in the circuit of money capital, which is investigated in the first chapter of C2.¹

The investment of money and the thus initiated stages $P$ and $C’-M’$ do not only have to suited for the increase of value within the sphere of production but also for holding on to money again.

The investigation of the circuit of money capital ($M-C…P…C’-M’$) follows the following questions:

• Which achievements do the three stages produce for the circuit of capital?

• Implicit in the first question: Which achievements do they not accomplish such that they are only stages of capital which are on their own dependent on others and hence refer to other stages?

• Which specific determinations does the end M-M’ imprint on these stages (purchase, production, sale)? This question contains two sub-questions:

  1. Which specific determinations does the end of value increase imprint on these three stages?

  2. Which specific determinations does the end of restoring the money form imprint on these three stages?

An example what is meant by this:

It makes a differences whether a commodity must be sold such that money is available or whether a commodity must be sold for a particular price and in a particular magnitude such that capital increased. During business as usual one cannot observe the difference: a capitalist sells the collection of commodities he produced, augmented his money investment and at the same time received money in his hands again such that she can initiate the process of production again. However, everybody knows that companies sometimes are in desperate need for money to pay workers and suppliers. If the sale stalls they make distress sales, sell the commodities cheaper, sell for any price. This might enable them to keep up production, but their capital did not increase. This example from the competition of capitals is only meant to highlight the difference between increasing value and getting money. In C2 this difference is developed – by means of the circuits – as a necessary content of the accumulation of capital. The example can also be used to get some ideas for question five (see below).

• An ongoing side question is always: the achievement of one particular form or one particular stage of accumulation – is it because of the end of capital or is it simply because of the form of value (money: because it is money, commodity: because it is a commodity)?

  For example: That capital can access means of production and workers (as far as they are available as commodities) is due to the socially valid access power of money as money, whose foundation is simple commodity circulation (C1, Ch.3). However, that money is a function of capital is not because it is simply money but because of its use in relation to the capitalist process of production. The particular form determination M-C as a stage of the circuit of capital is not owed to the laws of simple commodity circulation, but necessities of valorisation which are “independent” (C2, 112) with respect to it.

As a result of these question one can show that the restoration of the money form including its augmentation requires the renewal of the productive stage and the renewal of commodity capital. These results initiate the investigation of the productive and the commodity capital circuits.

For those circuits (almost) the same questions apply as for the circuit of money capital.

• The fourth chapter brings together the results for the three circuits and derives new requirements for capital from it. For this one should pay attention to one more thing which is not explicitly highlighted in the text:

  For accumulation we have: the three circuits need each other. The three stages also refer to each other and require each other. Positively one can say: they are means for capital.

  But, can one also find determinations which express that the circuits or the stages obstruct each other in their function for capital? Such that the positive function of one stage at the same time is detrimental for the function of another stage?

Glossary

• Circuit of money capital: $M-C…P…C’-M$’ = buying commodities with money which are then applied in production in such a way that commodities with surplus-value are produced whose sale brings in a sum of money which is bigger than the advance.

• Forms of capital: money ($M$), commodity ($C$) and production process ($P$)

• Acts of circulation: $M-C$ and $C’-M’$

• Stages of the circuits: purchase, production, sale

• Money capital: money with the purpose of augmenting itself

• Commodity capital: commodities which bear surplus-value