Preface

This great work (Das Capital) of Karl Marx has been before the public for years.

Its readers have mostly been scientists. And in all these years no scientist has been able to give it an adverse criticism. The subject matter is of vital importance to the general public.

Some may wonder, then, why is this work not read by the general public?

It is not strange if you take into consideration these facts.

Marx spent forty laborious years in gathering facts, he had read every author of note on political economy, from Aristotle to Herbert Spencer.

He was well versed in the philosophy of thinking and employed both the inductive and deductive methods.

He introduced the facts, classified them, according to their relations and significance, and the sequences of these facts were the premises from which he made deductions to explain individual cases.

Being of a scientific frame of mind he thought consecutively for long periods of time.

Hence the paragraphs are so long that only the best trained minds can hold a complete paragraph in consciousness, and, unless this is done the thought is not comprehended.

The work was thought out and published in German, and, although translated into English, it is still idiomatically German.

Recognizing the importance to the public weal of a clear understanding of economic problems, I concluded that the best service I could render to society was to present the contents of Das Capital to the public in such a manner as would be comprehensible to the most sluggish mind.

I present my efforts to the public, believing that I have, in a measure at least, solved the problem.

I force attention by a question, which compels the reader to think.

I present but a single proposition in the answer.

I make summaries which teaches the finding of relations between facts, and properly bringing them together.

Explanations are made of terms not in common use. I make digests to show what to look for in the chapter referred to.

Hoping this work will accomplish the end sought,

The Author

Part I. Commodities and Money

Chapter I. Commodities

Section 1. The two factors of a commodity: Use-value and Value. (The substance of value and the magnitude of value.)

1. The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities; its unit being a single commodity.

What presents itself? The wealth.

What wealth? The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails.

How does this wealth present itself? As an immense accumulation of commodities.

What is the unit of this wealth? A single commodity.

What, then, must we begin our investigation with? The analysis of a commodity.

What do we mean by the word analysis? The separating of a thing into its elements, or parts, and considering each part separately.

2. What is a ·commodity? In the first place an object outside of us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another.

The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.

Neither are we here concerned how the object satisfies these wants—whether directly as a means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.

3. What do commodities consist of? All useful things.

How may they be looked at? From two points of view: that of quality and that of quantity.

And what are they? An assemblage of many properties.

How may they be used? In various ways.

How do we discover the various uses of things? It is the work of history.

A thing may be used today for one purpose, tomorrow for another. Hence, by all the uses it has been put to, or the history of its past uses gives us its uses of the present.

What else does this history give us? The socially recognized standard of measures for the quantity of these useful objects.

In what has the diversity of these measures origin? First, partly in the diverse nature of these objects—the liquids have gills, quarts, gallons, etc., —it would be difficult to measure liquids by the foot, yard, etc. On the other hand, it would be difficult to measure land by the quart or gallon. Second, and partly by convention.

What is here meant by “convention”? The common consent, or agreement of society.

 4. What is use-value? The utility of a thing.

How is the utility of a thing limited? By its physical properties.

Has use-value any existence apart from the commodity? No.

What is a commodity as a use-value? Something useful—a utility.

A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, so far as it is a material thing, is a use-value.

Does this property—utility—depend on labor? No, it is essentially independent of the amount of labor required to appropriate its useful qualities.

What do we assume when treating of use-values? To be dealing with definite quantities—such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, tons of iron, etc.

For what special study does commodities furnish the material? That of the commercial knowledge of commodities—to be successful a merchant must know to what use a thing can be put to, in his locality.

When do use-values become a reality? Only when being consumed.

What do commodities constitute besides use-values? The substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth.

What are they in the society we are about to consider? The material depositories of exchange value.

What have we found, so far as we have gone in our analysis, a commodity to be? First, a material object that satisfies some human want. Second, a depository of value.

5. Our next step will be to consider exchange value.

How does exchange value first present itself? As a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which value in use of one sort, are exchanged for those of another sort.

Is this relation constant? No. The quantity of a commodity that will exchange for a certain quantity of another commodity is constantly changing with time and place.

What does exchange value appear to be? Something accidental, and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value.

How intrinsic? As something that is inherent in, and inseparable from commodities.

And what does this seem to be?A contradiction in terms.

Let us consider the matter a little more closely, and we will find the contradiction only seemingly so.

6. A given commodity, for example: a quarter of wheat, is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, z gold, etc., in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions.

What does x, y and z, in our illustration, mean? Quantities of an unknown amount. The quantity, whatever it may be, is represented by a letter, known quantities by the first letters, unknown quantities by the last letters of the alphabet.

What do we see by this example? First, that the wheat has many exchange values, in fact, it has as many exchange values, as there are different commodities placed in exchange with it. Second, that if x blacking, y silk, and z gold, each represent the exchange value of a quarter of wheat, they must, as exchange values be equal to each other.

What other element have we now found in a commodity? Exchange value.

What is value? Simply a mode of expression.

What does the valid exchange value of a commodity express? Something equal.

To speak proper, exchange value is value. The value of a commodity is its phenomenal form, something contained in it yet distinguishable from it.

How are the proportions in which commodities are exchangeable represented? By an equation.

7. Let us take two commodities; for example, corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever that proportion may be, can always be represented by an equation, in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron. For instance, 1 quarter of corn = x cwt. of iron.

What does this equation tell us? That in two different things—1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron—there exists in equal quantities, something common to both.

What must these two things be equal to? A third thing which, in itself, is neither the one nor the other.

What must they each, as exchange value, be reducible to? This third thing.

8. A single geometrical illustration will make this clear.

In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles.

But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure—namely, by half the product of the base into the altitude.

Base, 6 one-half 6 = 3 x by 8 the altitude = 24 the area.

How must the exchange value of commodities be capable of being expressed? In the same way as the geometrical figure—that is, in terms of something common to them all, of which they represent a greater or less quantity.

9. Is this something common a natural property?

No. It can be neither a chemical, geometrical, nor any other natural property of a commodity—natural properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities—make them use-values.

But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterized by a total abstraction from its use-value. Then one use-value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or as old Barbon says: “One sort of wares is as good as another, if the values be equal.” “There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value.” “An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”

What are commodities as use-values? Above all, they are of different qualities.

What are they as exchange values? Merely different quantities, and do not contain an atom of use-value.

10. If we leave out of consideration the use-value of commodities, what have we left?

Only one common property, that of being the product of labor.

But the product of labor itself has undergone a change in our hands.

If we make abstraction from its use-value, we make abstraction, at the same time, from the material elements and shapes that make the products a use-value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yard, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight.

What further abstraction do we make? We make abstraction from the useful character and concrete kinds of labor embodied in the products.

And what is left? Nothing but what is common to all commodities. It is no longer the labor of the joiner, mason, tailor, spinner, nor any other concrete form of labor—all are reduced to one and the same sort of labor—human labor in the abstract.

11. Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congealation of homogeneous human labor, of labor power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure.

What do these things tell us? Only that human labor power has been expended in their production, and that labor is embodied in them.

When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, what are they? Values.

12. What have we now discovered? The third thing to which the former two things are equal, which is common to them both, and is neither the one nor the other.

And that is the social substance—homogeneous human labor—i.e.,. labor in the abstract.

We also find that value expresses the quantity of homogeneous human labor embodied in a commodity. And that value manifests itself as something totally independent of the use-values, or utility of a commodity.

But if we abstract from their use-value what remains? Nothing but their value as defined above.

Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange of commodities is their value.

The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself, or be expressed.

For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value, independent of this, its form.

13. Why has an article value? Only because human labor, in the abstract, has been materialized in it.

How is the magnitude of value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of value creating substance—labor—contained in an article.

How is the quantity of labor measured? By its duration, labor-time finds its standard in weeks, days and hours.

14. If you shirk, or work slowly, and spend a great deal of time on the production of an article will it have more value? Indeed not. For the labor that forms the substance of value is homogeneous human labor; expenditure of one uniform labor power.

How do we determine the uniform labor power, that is, the unit of value? The total labor power of society is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, and it counts as one homogeneous mass of human labor power, although it is composed of individual units.

How do each of these individual units count when separate? The same as any other. That is, in so far as it has the character of average labor power of society, and takes effect as such. Hence, the labor power, embodied in a commodity that gives it value, is only that amount of labor-time socially necessary for its production.

How do we determine the duration of time socially necessary for the production of a given article? By that required under normal conditions of production.

What constitutes the normal condition of production? First, the degree of labor-saving machinery. Second, the average degree of skill and the intensity of labor prevalent at the time.

As an example of contrast between necessary and waste of labor-time in production we will cite: The introduction of power-looms in England, probably reduced by one-half the labor-time required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth.

The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact continued to require the same time as before.

But, for all that, the product of one hour of their labor represented, after the change, only half an hour’s socially necessary labor, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

15. What do we glean from this illustration? That which determines the magnitude of value is: the amount of labor socially necessary to produce an article.

How do we consider each individual commodity? As an average sample of its class. Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labor are embodied—or which can be produced in the same time—have equal value.

What are all commodities, as values? Only definite masses of congealed labor-time. 

16. Does the value of commodities remain constant? No. But it would remain constant if the labor-time required for its production remained constant.

But the labor-time changes with every variation in the productiveness of labor.

How is the productiveness of labor determined? By various circumstances, among others: First, by the average amount of skill of the workmen. Second, the state of science and the degree of its practicable application. Third, the social organization of production. Fourth, the extent and means of production. Fifth, by physical conditions.

For example: It takes the same amount of labor to plow, plant and cultivate an acre of land, one year as another. Now, if the rains, temperature and other physical conditions are favorable, the acre of land will yield, say, twenty bushels of corn. And if the climatic conditions are unfavorable it will yield, say, but ten bushels of corn.

Hence, in the unfavorable year ten bushels of corn will have embodied in them the same amount of labor as the twenty bushels of corn in the favorable year, and will, consequently, have the same value.

What appears to happen from this condition of affairs? As a large tract of land is similarly affected in the favorable year, the local market has a large supply, the unfavorable year the local market has a great demand.

What does this give rise to? The old mistaken notion that prices are regulated by the “law of supply and demand.” Because in the favorable year the supply is large and prices are low. In the unfavorable year there is a seeming scarcity and prices are high.

Why is this so if “supply and demand” does not regulate prices? From the fact stated alone, in the favorable year the same labor-time, say twenty hours, is embodied in twenty bushels of corn, as in the unfavorable year in ten bushels of corn. Hence, in the favorable year corn is worth one hour’s labor-time per bushel, and in the unfavorable year two hours’ labor-time per bushel. Their price is governed by the law of value.

The same labor extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor ones.

Diamonds are of very rare occurrence upon the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labor-time, consequently much labor is represented in a small compass. In richer mines the same quantity of labor would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall.

If we could succeed, at a small expenditure of labor, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks.

In general, the greater the productiveness of labor, the less is the labor-time required for the production of an article, and the less is the amount of labor crystalized in that article, and the less is its value. And vice versa, the less the productiveness of labor, the greater is the labor-time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value.

How does the value of a commodity vary? Directly, as the quantity; and inversely, as the productiveness of the labor incorporated in it.

17. Can a thing have use-value without having value? This is the case whenever its utility is not due to labor such as air, virgin soil, and natural meadows, etc.

Can a thing be useful and the product of human labor without being a commodity? Certainly! Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labor creates, indeed, use-values, but not commodities.

What must he do in order to create commodities? Produce use-values for others—social use-values.

Can a thing have value without having a use-value? Certainly notl If the thing is useless, so is the labor contained in it; it does not count as labor and, therefore, creates no value.