(4) department II uses ÂŁ500 to buy means of production from departÂment I; (5) department I (sic) buys means of consumption from department I with the same ÂŁ500 ; (6) department II buys means of production from department I with this ÂŁ500; (7) department I buys means of consumption from department I I with the ÂŁ500
-- Marx, Karl, 1978, Capital, Volume II, p. 492, London, Penguin.
I wanted to point out that capitalists were just playing tag, but the English translator was probably as bored (and confused) as I was. The 2 different French translation don't reproduce the mistake that was done on item 5. Reading book two of capital is an adventure, and really helps situating Marx in the history of economic thoughts. But even David Harvey qualifies the book as "rather boring" in his companion for the book. The end section is supposed to wrap the arguments together, but its just a complete mess. Harvey just say that the section completely fails at its goal, on top of showing contradictions with volume I:
If the schemas point to anything in the way of a politics, therefore, it is to the necessity to stabilize worker incomes in order to harmonize the relationship between the total output of means of production and the total demand for consumer goods. This contradicts the findings of Volume I, where Marx envisages the increasing impoverishment of the working class as an inevitable outcome of free-market capitalism. Marx only hints at this contradiction, however, because the equivalent chapter to the “General Law” chapter is missing from Volume II. It is interesting to surmise how we might have read Volume I if the “General Law” chapter had not been written—and we therefore had only the chapters on simple and expanded reproduction. Conversely, we need to imagine what the equivalent chapter in Volume II to the “General Law” chapter might have looked like.
-- Harvey, David, 2013, A companion to Marx' Capital volume II, p. 242, Verso, London. (the page number refers to the pdf that's easily available online ;).
It is quite obvious that production is way better explained by the work-value theory, but I didn't think Marx shat his pants so bad in Vol II-III. And this is just skinny dipping in the works that Marx weren't deemed good enough to be published: the Grundrisse, the Theories of Surplus Value, the unpublished chapter of Capital and all the other drafts. For the new years, try to stay farther away from the source of knowledge, it kinda stinks when you get close.
















