Category Archives: Marxism

Repeating the past

Received wisdom dictates that Marx’s theories have been wholly discredited by the attempt to implement them made by the Soviet Union. Capitalism won, the west declared the end of history, and the left accepted defeat and the necessity of capitalism under the “third way” of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.

In “In Defense of Lost Causes” from 2008 Slavoj Zizek tackles the failures of a number of radical movements, from the Terror of the French Revolution to Stalinism and the Cultural Revolution in China. One thing Zizek challenges is the characterisation of the horrific consequences of these episodes as an inevitable consequence of revolutionary outbursts, that there was only one possible path forward. Does the path taken historically represent the only possible route out of the revolutionary situation?

Discussing Heidegger, Zizek notes that he “locates the future itself into the past”

“not, of course, in the sense that we live in a closed universe in which every future possibility is already contained in the past, so that we can only repeat, realize, what already is present in the inherited texture, but in the much more radical sense of the “openness” of the past itself: the past itself is not simply “what there was,” it contains hidden, non-realized potentials”

(Zizek 2009, p.188).

In other words history is not a deterministic linear process, but nor is it entirely contingent. There are only a limited range of future possibilities and these are built into the past. In this sense therefore we should not reject Stalinism as a ‘distortion’ of Marx or a betrayal of the revolution. We should fully accept it as a natural (but disastrous) path out of the situation in Russia after the revolution, but not the only possible one.

It is in this sense that Zizek suggests we should “repeat Lenin” (or Mao, or Robespierre etc.). Not so that we can repeat the same linear path of failure, but so that at the critical points we can take a different route in pursuit of a more equal society.

Five years after the revolution, Lenin himself seemingly understood this point. He wrote (although he did not finish) an article which was published in Pravda shortly after his death. Here he uses the analogy of a climber ascending a high peak but having climbed high realising that it is too difficult to reach the summit by continuing the path he has chosen.

“He is forced to turn back, descend, seek another path, longer, perhaps, but one that will enable him to reach the summit.”

(Lenin, 2002)

A similar point is made by Alain Badiou in “The Communist Hypothesis“. It is important to acknowledge that the attempts to put communist theory into practice have failed, and not only failed but also resulted in some of the greatest tragedies of the twentieth century. This is a conclusion that it should be possible even for partisans of the left to agree now that these attempts are safely in the past.

But this does not mean that we have to accept the conclusion drawn by the supporters of the “third way” with it’s acceptance that the attempt to create a more equal society is structurally doomed to failure.

All of which leads us back to Marx and one of his most famous lines, from “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte“:

“Men make their own history, but not of their own free will; not under circumstances they themselves have chosen but under the given and inherited circumstances with which they are directly confronted.”

(Marx 1973, p.146)

As Bertell Ollman suggests in “Dance of the Dialectic” (Ollman 2003), Marx is proposing that we “read history backwards” seeking the roots of the present in the past, and using that to develop our understanding of the future. The failure of Soviet communism does not invalidate this insight.

So progressives should continue to look for different pathways to the summit. As Zizek explains, the lesson is that of Samuel Beckett from Worstward Ho “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

Zizek, Slavoj In Defense of Lost Causes (Verso, London, 2009)

Marx, Karl (ed. David Fernbach) Surveys from Exile (Pelican, 1973)

Lenin, Vladimir Notes of a Publicist (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm, 2002, accessed May 2018)

Badiou, Alain The Communist Hypothesis (Verso, London, 2015)

Ollman, Bertell Dance of the Dialectic (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 2003)

Advertisements

Reforming Capitalism

Coming back to reading Slavoj Zizek after a break is always an interesting experience. I picked up “The Year of Dreaming Dangerously” in the Verso end of year sale and it is the usual eclectic mix of philosophy, psychoanalysis, and cultural commentary.

In this book he picks up themes developed from an analysis of a range of protest movements in 2010 and 2011 from Occupy Wall Street to the Arab Spring. One thing he specifically challenges is the desire sometimes heard in response to these protests to ‘democratise’ capitalism, to bring it under the control of the rational liberal state.

“There is no lack of anti-capitalist sentiment today… What as a rule goes unquestioned… is the democratic-liberal framework as a means of fighting against these excesses.”

(Zizek 2012, p.86)

A common assumption is that what is missing from the Occupy movement is a political programme. Something that can be fitted into the democratic system and voted for. That somehow the system can be made better if we all just want it to change a little more. That the unfocused nature of the protest is part of the problem.

But we are now at the end of the last attempt to make capitalism ‘nicer’. Under pressure from the collective effort required to defeat fascism and from a seemingly triumphant Soviet communism a number of concessions were made to the working class. Britain saw the creation of the National Health Service and the construction of a welfare state to provide support “from cradle to grave”. These concessions have been under sustained assault since the late 1970s, gradually dismantled in the name of ensuring that the economy remains ‘competitive’.

Perhaps the search for ways to mitigate the worst impacts of capitalism on the “99%” or “ordinary working people” is doomed to failure from the start.

“we should read the ongoing dismantling of the Welfare State not as the betrayal of a noble idea, but as a failure that retroactively enables us to discern a fatal flaw of the very notion of the Welfare State.”

(Zizek 2012, p.15)

In other words that creating a welfare state and leaving capitalist relations in place is at best a short term solution. Capitalist economics will only tolerate its creation when under pressure, will perceive it as a barrier to profit making throughout, and will move quickly to its destruction when it can.

In fact, the liberal state cannot respond to anti-capitalist protest in a way which addresses the root causes of the problem. Democracy has proved to be “impotent in the face of the destructive consequences of economic life.” (Zizek 2012, p.88). We must look outside the existing system for a solution. Occupy Wall Street’s role according to this view is to open up a space for the existing system to be challenged, and as such it does not need to present a programme. But there remains work to be done to transform the energy of protest into transformative change.

“what is conspicuously absent is any consistent Leftist response to these events, any project of how to transpose islands of chaotic resistance into a positive program of social change.”

(Zizek 2012, p.133)

What this implies then is that the Corbyn project is misguided. We cannot realistically defend past victories or rebuild a mythical golden age of social democratic capitalism. We need to be much more radical than that.

“It is the ‘democratic illusion’, the acceptance of democratic procedures as the sole framework for any possible change, that blocks any radical transformation of capitalist relations.”

(Zizek 2012, p.87)

What is at risk is that all Corbyn will achieve is to harness a youthful and energetic protest movement to the next failed attempt to make capitalism nicer.

Zizek, Slavoj The Year of Dreaming Dangerously (Verso, London, 2012)

Overdetermination

Overdetermination is a concept I recall being introduced to during my undergraduate course on Marxism as part of Louis Althusser‘s “structuralist” approach. It’s not something that I ever really felt I had a grip on. Althusser’s writing feels very much in the French philosophical tradition, and isn’t helped by being read in translation.

My university notes about overdetermination say that Althusser is making the point that there is no simple deterministic relationship between “base and superstructure“. The superstructure both determines and is determined by the economic base, each part shaping and being shaped by the whole. The autonomy of the superstructure is not absolute however, and the economic base is still determinant in the final analysis.

In his monumental work on Marxism, Leszek Kolakowski is dismissive of the concept:

“The upshot is simply that particular cultural phenomena are generally due to a variety of circumstances, including the history of the aspect of life they belong to and the present state of social relations. We are not told what is so ‘scientific’ about this obvious truth, why it is a revolutionary discovery of Marxism, or how it helps us to account for any particular fact, let along predict the future.”

(Kolakowski 2008, p.1176)

My reaction to Laclau & Mouffe’s analysis in “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy” is similar to Kolakowski’s damning verdict. They analyse overdetermination in the context of their construction of a theory of hegemony, building on the work of Gramsci as well as Althusser.

Laclau & Mouffe deny a determining role for the economy and therefore also class in the structure of society . Instead they theorize society as broken down into a wide range of different interests and actors not determined or even strongly influenced by any economic relationships. In this analysis more important than class is the complex intermeshing of ‘elements’ or ‘moments’ which are ‘articulated’ together each influencing and influenced the others. In other words these elements are ‘overdetermined’. In Laclau & Mouffe’s words there are

“a multiplicity of antagonisms whose effects, converging and overdetermined, are registered within the framework of what we have called the ‘democratic revolution’.”

(Laclau & Mouffe 2014, p.152)

This covers what might otherwise be considered various separate struggles operating almost in conflict with traditional working class campaigning such as feminism or anti-racism. Again in Laclau & Mouffe’s words:

“Once the conception of the working class as a ‘universal class’ is rejected, it becomes possible to recognise the plurality of the antagonisms which take place in the field of what is arbitrarily grouped under the label of ‘workers struggles'”

(Laclau & Mouffe 2014, p.151)

This “overdetermination of some entities by others, and the relegation of any form of paradigmatic fixity to the ultimate horizon of theory” (Laclau & Mouffe 2014, p.91) means that while it is not possible to assume that the working class will on their own create a revolution, it is possible to stitch together progressive blocs as part of unified progressive struggle.

Wading through the complicated language, what I think this means in more practical terms is that society is complex and different groups within it interact in ways which are not solely dictated by economic relationships. Any effective progressive strategy must be aware of this, building alliances, and developing shared goals. It cannot simply wait for the tide of history to deliver a working class revolution. Laclau & Mouffe contrast this with the simplified view of orthodox Marxism.

To the extent though that Marx presented a simplified view of society as divided into just two classes, it is clear that this is an abstraction from a more complicated reality to allow him to develop his theory of the ‘laws of motion’ of capitalism. When he comes to apply this theory to the analysis of real situations (in for example “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” or “The Civil War in France”) his writing reflects the more complex world.

After reading Laclau & Mouffe I do now feel that I have a better grip on what the concept of ‘overdetermination’ might mean, however as Kolakowski suggested that concept doesn’t seem particularly useful. It appears to indicate what is an obvious truth, that society is complex, but in Laclau & Mouffe it is used to support the removal from left strategy of the struggle by economically exploited classes. It is then unclear what common ground should be used to underpin the hegemony which they believe holds together the coalitions that they suggest as the way forward for progressive politics.

Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (Verso, London, 2014)

Kolakowski, Leszek Main Currents of Marxism (W W Norton & Company, London, 2008)

Rosa Luxemburg and the Communist Manifesto

After reading Rosa Luxemburg’s “The Accumulation of Capital”, included in Verso’s second volume of her complete works I wrote a post covering her analysis that accumulation could only proceed on the basis of there being sufficient space outside the global capitalist system for it to expand into.

I recently re-read Marx’s and Engels’ Communist Manifesto (thanks to my wife, who gave me the best possible Christmas present for a radical). This was written in 1848, that is before Marx began his economic work. It is interesting therefore that Marx and Engels also point out in the Manifesto the importance of the non-capitalist economies to the growth of capitalism itself.

For example this comment on the importance of the discovery of America on the initially explosive growth of capitalism:

“Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce… This development has, in its turn, reacted back on the extension of industry.”

(Marx and Engels 2010, p. 22)

Marx and Engels seem to have a similar mindset to Luxemburg in her analysis that capitalism needs to grow into the space outside itself in order to expand.

“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe.”

(Marx and Engels 2010, p. 25)

Along with the points Luxemburg makes about capitalism drawing even those parts of the globe that are not part of the capitalist world into its orbit.

“The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.”

(Marx and Engels 2010, p. 25)

“The bourgeoisie… draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation… It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst… it creates a world after its own image.”

(Marx and Engels 2010, p. 26)

As I wrote in my earlier post I don’t think that this is the end of the story, that their are other important factors both supporting and driving the expansion of capital. But it is interesting to see support for Luxemburg’s analysis in this earlier work of Marx and Engels.

Luxemburg, Rosa The Complete Works of Rosa Luxemburg Volume II (Verso, London, 2016)

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich The Communist Manifesto (Vintage, London, 2010)

Rosa Luxemburg and Marx’s Reproduction Schema

One of Rosa Luxemburg‘s most important works is The Accumulation of Capital, written in 1913 and included in translation in the second volume of her complete works published by Verso.

Here Luxemburg unpicks in detail the reproduction schemas described by Marx in Volume 2 of Capital. Marx defines two different basic formulae. Under simple reproduction, the economy remains the same size from year to year, with just sufficient productive activity taking place to replace what is consumed. Of course this exists only in theory. Capitalism is driven by the need to continuously expand, so simple reproduction serves only to demonstrate the basic approach to the problem.

This method abstracts the economy into two basic sections. One part which produces just means of production, commodities supporting the production process. A second part which produces means of consumption, commodities which will be consumed by society. The two sections clearly need to work in close lock step. Sufficient means of production must be created to support continuing production. Sufficient means of consumption must be produced to support the population. Marx goes into mathematical detail (which I won’t duplicate here) to demonstrate how this interaction must work for the economy to function.

In reality though, capitalism is driven by expanded reproduction, or ‘accumulation’. Here a portion of surplus value is used to increase the output of the economy year on year. Marx again shows how this might work mathematically, but somehow it is never quite convincing.

This brings us to the key criticism made by Luxemburg. For the economy to expand in this way then there must be demand for the increased output of both means of production and consumption goods. Marx’s expanded reproduction schema shows production increasing. But where does the increased demand come from? An economy operating at a particular capacity simply ought not to generate the demand (backed by the ability to pay) over and above that needed for simple reproduction. Marx demonstrates mathematically how the growth of an economy should progress, but not the process by which this expansion can actually happen.

What is more the expanded reproduction schema ignores the tension between the drive to produce more and more surplus value (and therefore commodities to be consumed for their value to be realised by the individual capitalist) and capitalism’s need to curtail the capacity for consumption of the majority of the population. The schema as described by Marx implies that accumulation can continue smoothly and indefinitely in mathematical progression. This does not match the lived experience of capitalism with it’s booms and busts. The absence of a smooth growth trajectory is a fundamental part of the system. In other words there must be a flaw in Marx’s analysis.

Marx assumes throughout that the economy in question is a fully self contained capitalist one with only two classes – capitalists and workers – and this is where Luxemburg identifies the critical point. Capital has since the beginning existed in a world which includes significant elements operating in non-capitalist ways, whether it is left over peasants and handicraft workers in the same country or colonies and developing countries overseas. Throughout it’s history capitalism has not been the closed system that Marx assumes in the reproduction schema.

Luxemburg gives two reasons why this is important. First the existence of a market outside capitalism itself creates the safety valve that is missing in the schema. This is where the demand comes from that allows the system to move beyond simple reproduction, allowing surplus value to be turned into capital and reinvested in expanding production.

“the surplus value that is to be capitalized and the corresponding part of the capitalist mass of products cannot possibly be realized within the capitalist sphere, and must therefore at all costs find purchasers outside this sphere, in social strata and formations not engaged in capitalist production.”

(Luxemburg 2016 p. 259)

The progressive growth in production also implies a growth in the workforce and allowing the world outside capitalism to be included in the theory makes clear where these additional workers come from – that is the ranks of peasants and others who are progressively brought into the world of waged work.

“It must be able to draw on other social reservoirs of labor-power not previously under the command of capital, which are added to the wage proletariat as required.”

(Luxemburg 2016 p. 260)

This is an aggressive and destructive process. Marx discusses “primitive accumulation” as something that kick starts the beginning of capitalism. Luxemburg asserts that in fact this continues all around us. In her time it was the growth of colonies and imperialism. In ours we might see it in the extension of commodity exchange to areas of life not previously touched by capitalism such as childcare.

“the accumulation of capital as a historical process, in all its relations, is contingent upon noncapitalist social strata and forms.”

(Luxemburg 2016 p. 263)

Luxemburg explicitly states then that when capital is no longer able to expand outwards into the non-capitalist world, when the whole globe is fully incorporated into capitalism, that the system will no longer be tenable and must collapse.

“Yet the more violently, forcefully, and thoroughly imperialism brings about the decline of noncapitalist civilisations, the more rapidly in removes the very basis for hte accumulation of capital. As much as imperialism is a historical method to prolong the existence of capital, objectively it is at the same time the surest way to bring this existence to the swiftest conclusion.”

(Luxemburg 2016, p.325)

Although there is much that is valuable in Luxemburg’s thinking, I think there are two basic problems.

First that the century of capitalism since Luxemburg wrote this has shown it’s ability to find new spaces for exploitation. To the extent that her analysis is correct, it does not imply the approach of the ultimate crisis of capitalism that she is seeking to demonstrate. It simply confirms the system’s dynamic nature, its ability to find new outlets and opportunities for primitive accumulation. Nothing from the last hundred years suggests there is any inherent limit to this.

Second and more significantly I think that Luxemburg misses Marx’s point. David Harvey points out that the expanded reproduction schema is constructed in such precise terms that it is hard to believe that Marx is not trying to point out that securing such a smooth path to accumulation is highly unlikely. Marx’s schema demonstrates the expanded reproduction is mathematically possible. But think about all the different processes that have to align in order for this to work: wages we must be suppressed to maintain profits, but sufficient to support realisation; the relation between producing means of production and means of consumption which must be just right to avoid overproduction as a result of disproportionality.

Obviously the schemas are totally unrealistic, and Marx has cooked the figures to fit his case. But are the schemas so unrealistic as to reveal nothing about the nature of the stresses, strains and contradictions, as well as the dynamic capacities, of a capitalist mode of production? If not, what are the schemas intended for?

(Harvey 2013, p. 368)

In other words the schema is an analytical tool rather than a statement of categorical truth. Something which allows us to examine what mechanisms the system must possess for it to function, how they must mesh together, and more importantly where they might jar and clash. Luxemburg is therefore undoubtedly right to point out how difficult it is for expanding capital to realise itself in the market, and no doubt aggressively exploiting the remaining non-capitalist segments is part of how capitalism solves this. But so is debt, speculation, and the loss of value or destruction of individual capitals which guessed the market wrong. The system is fundamentally not stable. Marx’s toolbox can help us to understand where and how that instability appears and its impact.

Luxemburg, Rosa The Complete Works of Rosa Luxemburg Volume II: Economic Writings 2 (Verso, London, 2016)

Marx, Karl Capital A Critique of Political Economy Volume 2 (Penguin, London, 1992)

Harvey, David A Companion to Marx’s Capital Volume 2 (Verso, London, 2013)

Notes from Michael Heinrich on Capital

Michael Heinrich’s “Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital” is a fascinating short introduction to Marx’s ‘critique’. There are a number of key insights which I want to capture here.

Chapter three goes into detail on the nature of value. Heinrich draws a distinction between what he calls a traditional Marxist ‘substantialist’ view and value as developed as a social relation through the act of exchange. In the ‘substantialist’ view value is understood as a property of each individual commodity, created during production. In Heinrich’s view this is not what Marx is getting at. Instead value is determined by “socially necessary” labour time, and what is socially necessary can only be determined in exchange where the individual labour of producers is compared to the total labour of society.

“abstract labour is a relation of social validation existing only in exchange… value is not at all a property that an individual thing possesses in and of itself.”

“The substance of value… is something only obtained by things when they are set into relation with one another in exchange.”

(Heinrich 2012, p.53)

“this social relationship between people appears as a relationship between things: it is no longer people who stand in a specific relationship with one another, but commodities.”

(Heinrich 2012, p.73)

This emphasis on value as a social relation and not an eternal property of individual commodities chimes well with Marx’s statement that under capitalism, commodities represent:

“the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things.”

(Marx 1990, p.165)

Heinrich defines the substantialist view as a ‘pre-monetary’ theory of value, one which sees value as part of the commodity and money as a passive practical way to simplify the process of exchange. Marx’s theory is rather a ‘monetary’ one. Commodities cannot be related to each other without the value form that is money.

In chapter 7 Heinrich touches on the equalisation of the rate of profit, something which I felt I didn’t really understand on a first reading of Marx, defining the link between the amount of surplus value generated and the actual profit received by an individual capitalist. If commodities actually exchange at or near their true value then different rates of surplus value must mean that capitalists in different branches of production receive differing rates of profit.

As explained by Heinrich rates of profit are equalised in process similar to “supply and demand”. Assuming that capital is able to move between different branches of production, then individual capitalists will gravitate away from areas with lower rates of profit and towards those with higher rates. As supply increases in the areas with higher profit rates, prices will fall and vice versa. The result establishes an average or general rate of profit. To the individual capitalist this process disguises surplus value as the actual source of profit, making it appear that profit is a premium added to the cost of producing it.

“The actual profit of an individual capital… thus seems on the one hand to depend upon objective conditions (market prices) and on the other hand on the subjective skill of the capitalist in producing at a low cost of production. The fact that profit rests on the appropriation of surplus value is not apparent.”

(Heinrich 2012, p.147)

Most importantly of all, this transition from value to price is a transition from one level of description to another. To see the dialectic whole from a different angle. Value mediates the relationship of individual labour to the labour of the whole of society. Price and profit mediate the relationship of individual capital to the total social capital. They are different poles of the same social relationship.

Heinrich argues that Marx has not proven that the rate of profit is bound to fall over the long term (Heinrich 2012, p.151) on the basis that while it is likely that the organic composition of capital is increase, Marx assumes that the rate of surplus value will remain at least stable thereby leading to a falling rate of profit. In fact it is possible that the rate of surplus value may increase, or at least fall more slowly than the organic composition of capital rises either one of which will mean that the rate of profit does not fall.

On crises Heinrich outlines an “underconsumptionist” view. The unrestricted nature of production struggles to realise value in a world where the income of most people is constrained.

“The tendency for an unlimited extension of production confronts an ability to consume in society that is limited in a variety of ways.”

(Heinrich 2012, p.172)

“a potentially unlimited reproduction confronts a limited consumption… The consequence is a tendency towards the overproduction of commodities… and the over-accumulation of capital.”

(Heinrich 2012, p.173)

This leads to crisis as value cannot be realised in the market, leading to the destruction of social wealth but also conversely an increase in the rate of profit for the remaining capitals and a eventually a renewed upturn often driven by technological changes which improved profitability.

In the final chapter, Heinrich offers some thoughts on how Marx envisaged a communist society working. This is of interest as a rule Marx did not write much about what would come after capitalism. For Heinrich there are two key differences. First that society is no longer based on exchange. Capital, commodities, and money no longer exist. Second humanity is emancipated from a social structure that develops a life of it’s own and impose itself upon each individual. The social relations which generate fetishism must disappear with society organised as an “association of free men”.

Heinrich contrasts this with traditional Marxism-Leninism based on changing distribution patterns which remains dependent on a central authority, with the people becoming a passive object of the party’s policies.

Finally Marx:

“emphasises the massive development of productivity on the basis of science and technology, as well as the comprehensive development of the abilities of the workers as essential preconditions for the transition to a communist society.”

(Heinrich 2012, p.223)

Heinrich, Michael An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital (Monthly Review Press, New York, 2012).

Marx, Karl Capital, A Critique of Political Economy (Penguin, London, 1990)

Review: An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital

This is a superb summary of the key points made by Marx across the three volumes of Capital. Heinrich is clear from the start that he seeks to avoid the simplifications of the one-time ‘orthodox’ Marxism-Leninism of the defunct Soviet Union. The analysis is sharp, succinct, and up to date.

This is not a companion to the book itself, in the way that David Harvey’s two volume “Companion” is. What Harvey provides is a walkthrough, a genuine companion on the road as you work through each chapter. His goal is to encourage you to read Marx as a work of literature and on his own terms.

By contrast Heinrich takes you away from the book itself to summarise and draw out the principle conclusions. He looks beyond the debates of the past within organised communism to assess Marx’s analysis from a modern dispassionate perspective. His section on the development of value within capitalism as a social relation I found especially insightful. Heinrich also does an excellent job of drawing together the three volumes to explain what Marx is attempting in each, while showing how they join to create a overarching analysis.

The focus throughout is on the categories and structures of Marx’s economics rather than his philosophical approach. Heinrich specifically attacks the use of the word ‘dialectics’ in simple Marxism-Leninism as a way of saying ‘this is complex’. Bertell Ollman’s “Dance of the Dialectic” would make a useful companion work, covering as it does Marx’s method rather than the specifics of his economic analysis.

In brief, a superb short outline of Marx’s economic analysis as laid out in the three volumes of Capital.

Heinrich, Michael An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital (Monthly Review Press, New York, 2012).