Comments on James Mill
{"WorkMasterId":6472,"WpPageId":282463,"ParentWpPageId":189644,"Slug":"marx-comments-on-james-mill","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/karl-marx/marx-comments-on-james-mill/","RelativeUrl":"theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/karl-marx/marx-comments-on-james-mill/","HasFullText":true,"RawHtmlLength":134005,"CleanHtmlLength":79254,"Kicker":"Philosophy Work","Title":"Comments on James Mill","Deck":"Marx uses notes on James Mill to develop claims about money, exchange, alienation, recognition, and social relations.","BackLink":{"Text":"Back to Karl Marx","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/karl-marx/"},"AuthorCard":{"Label":"Author","Title":"Karl Marx","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/karl-marx/","MediaHref":"","ImageSrc":"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/karl-marx-01-mayall-1875-standard-portrait.jpg","ImageAlt":"Karl Marx, Mayall portrait, 1875","FilterTerra":"Western Europe","ClickText":"Karl Marx","ClickHref":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/karl-marx/","Copies":["1818 CE – 1883 CE","Trier, Rhine Province, Kingdom of Prussia","German philosopher of historical materialism, alienation, class struggle, ideology critique, political economy, capitalism, communism, religion critique, and social transformation."]},"ContextCards":[{"Label":"Period","Key":"Period:4","Title":"Modern History","DateText":"1800 CE – 1944 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/"},{"Label":"Era","Key":"Era:11","Title":"Long 19th Century","DateText":"1870 CE – 1913 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/philosophers-of-the-long-19th-century/"},{"Label":"Composition","Title":"1844 CE","Url":"","DateText":""}],"DateNote":"Displayed as 1844 CE for manuscript notes.","GeoCards":[{"Label":"Region","Key":"Region:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita","Key":"TerraAvita:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita Region","Key":"TerraAvitaRegion:3"},{"Label":"Modern Country","Key":"Country:DEU:1"}],"OriginalTitle":"Auszuege aus James Mills Buch Elemens d\u0027economie politique","Language":"German / French / English","DisciplineCards":[{"Label":"Primary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:epistemology"},{"Label":"Secondary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:ethics"}],"Tradition":"Historical materialism / critique of political economy","FullText":{"Title":"Full Text","Copy":"Full text from Marxists Internet Archive: Comments on James Mill .","Url":"","Label":"","Kicker":"","Cards":[]},"CoreThesis":["Marx uses notes on James Mill to develop claims about money, exchange, alienation, recognition, and social relations."],"Classification":{"AlternateTitles":"Notes on James Mill; Comments on James Mill\u0027s Elements of Political Economy","KeyConcepts":"James Mill; money; exchange; alienation; recognition; needs; social relation; political economy","Methodology":"Historical-materialist analysis, critique of political economy, dialectical critique, philosophical polemic, archival manuscript work, journalism, and social theory.","Structure":"The page records an approved Marx work with explicit year, source evidence, and visible coauthorship, manuscript, posthumous, or Engels-edited status where needed."},"Arguments":["Marx uses notes on James Mill to develop claims about money, exchange, alienation, recognition, and social relations."],"Influence":{"InfluencedBy":"Hegel, Feuerbach, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Aristotle, Epicurus, French socialism, British political economy, and nineteenth-century revolutionary politics.","InfluenceOn":""},"Significance":["Included as one of the twenty-seven direct Karl Marx work pages approved for the Karl Marx full-process repair.","The work anchors Marx\u0027s continuing relevance for capitalism, labor, alienation, class, ideology, religion critique, political economy, state power, social transformation, and historical explanation."],"EvidenceNote":["Accepted through Marxists archive and manuscript/scholarship evidence; HasFullText remains false."],"MainSections":[{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Text","BodyHtml":"\u003cp class=\"dz-philo__section-copy dz-philo__full-text-source\"\u003eFull text from \u003ca href=\"https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/\"\u003eMarxists Internet Archive: Comments on James Mill\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-text-body\"\u003e\n\u003ch1\u003eComments on James Mill,\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cem\u003e\u0026Eacute;l\u0026eacute;ments D\u0026#8217;\u0026eacute;conomie Politique\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h1\u003e\n\n\u003chr /\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eWritten\u003c/span\u003e: in the first half of 1844;\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eFirst published\u003c/span\u003e: in full in Marx/Engels, \u003cem\u003eGesamtausgabe\u003c/em\u003e, Erste Abteilung, Band 3, Berlin, 1932;\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eFirst English Translation\u003c/span\u003e: by Clemens Dutt for the \u003cem\u003eCollected\nWorks\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cbr /\u003e\nMarx used a translation of Mill\u0026#8217;s book, by J. T. Parisot, Paris, 1823.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u003ca name=\"001\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\nMarx kept a wide variety of notebooks throughout his life. He often used them to aid in his study of other authors. A common practice was to transcribe long sections from a particular book, and then comment on those sections at some length.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u003ca name=\"002\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\nDuring his time in Paris, Marx kept nine notebooks \u0026#8211; largely dedicated to his growing interest in economics. They date from the end of 1843 to January 1845.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u003ca name=\"003\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\nThe \u0026#8220;Paris Notebooks\u0026#8221; deal with books by J. B. Say, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, McCulloch, James Mill, Destutt de Tracy, Sismondi, Jeremy Bentham, Boisguillebert, Lauderdale, Sch\u0026uuml;tz, List, Skarbek and Buret. Most of Marx\u0027s accompanying commentary on these authors is very fragmentary;\nand, ideas are often restated far more clearly in the \u003ca href=\"../manuscripts/preface.htm\"\u003eEconomic and Philosophic Manuscripts\u003c/a\u003e (1844).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u003ca name=\"004\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\nThe exception to this is the material addressing James Mill\u0027s book, \u003cem\u003eElements of Political Economy\u003c/em\u003e (London, 1821). Marx used an 1823 French translation of Mill\u0027s book. The Mill part of the Paris Notebooks is quite lengthy \u0026#8211; it starts on page 25 of the fourth\nnotebook and continues into the fifth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u003ca name=\"005\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\nFollowing a lengthy selection of Mill excerpts, Marx suddenly \u0026#8220;veered off\u0026#8221; and began developing a larger, tangential thought. After writing his thoughts out, Marx returned to more Mill transcription. Soon, a second digression followed. Upon its completion, Marx finished up his summarizing. (Only the middle three parts of this Mill section of the Paris Notebooks are presented below \u0026#8211; in other words, most of the opening and all of closing Mill transcriptions are omitted).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u003ca name=\"006\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\nThis document is very close in nature to the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. Some have suggested that the ideas contained herein might be a glimpse into the missing bulk of the EPM second manuscript.\u003ca name=\"007\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003chr /\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026#8220;… A medium of exchange… is some one commodity, which, in order\nto effect an exchange between two other commodities, is first received\nin exchange for the one, and is then given in exchange for the other.\u0026#8221; \n(p. 93) Gold, silver, \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"008\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u0026#8220;By \u003cem\u003evalue of money\u003c/em\u003e, is here to be understood the proportion\nin which it exchanges for other commodities, or the quantity of it which\nexchanges for a certain quantity of other things.\u0026#8221; \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"009\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u0026#8220;This proportion is determined by the \u003cem\u003etotal\u003c/em\u003e amount of money existing in a given country.\u0026#8221; (P. 95)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"010\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u0026#8220;What regulates the quantity of money?\u0026#8221; \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"011\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026#8220;Money is made under two sets of circumstances: Government either\nleaves the increase or diminution of it free; or it controls the quantity,\nmaking it greater or smaller as it pleases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"012\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u0026#8220;When the increase or diminution of money is left free, government\nopens the mint to the public, making bullion into money for an many as\nrequire it. Individuals possessed of bullion will desire to convert it\ninto money only when it is their interest to do so; that is, when their\nbullion, converted into money, will be more valuable than in its original\nform. This can only happen when money is peculiarly valuable, and when\nthe same quantity of metal, in the state of coin, will exchange for a greater\nquantity of other articles than in the state of bullion. As the value of\nmoney depends upon the quantity of it, it has a greater value when it is\nin short supply. It is then that bullion is made into coin. But precisely\nbecause of this conversion, the old ratio is restored. Therefore, if the\nvalue of money rises above that of the metal of which it is made, the interest\nof individuals operates immediately, in a state of freedom, to restore\nthe balance by augmenting the quantity of money.\u0026#8221; (Pp. 99-101)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"013\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u0026#8220;Whenever the coining of money, therefore, is free, its quantity\nis regulated by the value of the metal, it being the interest of individuals\nto increase or diminish the quantity, in proportion as the value of the\nmetal in coins is greater or less than its value in bullion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"014\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u0026#8220;But is the \u003cem\u003equantity of money\u003c/em\u003e is determined by the \u003cem\u003evalue\nof the metal\u003c/em\u003e, it is still necessary to inquire what it is which determines\nthe value of the metal … Gold and silver are in reality commodities. They\nare commodities for the attaining of which labour and capital must be employed.\nIt is cost of production, therefore, which determines the value of these,\nas of other ordinary productions.\u0026#8221; (P. 101)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"015\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n In the compensation\nof money and value of metal, as in his description of the cost of production\nas the only factor in determining value, Mill commits the mistake \u0026#8211; like\nthe school of Ricardo in general \u0026#8211; of stating the \u003cem\u003eabstract law\u003c/em\u003e\nwithout the change or continual supersession of this law through which\nalone it comes into being. If it is a \u003cem\u003econstant\u003c/em\u003e law that, for example,\nthe cost of production in the last instance \u0026#8211; or rather when demand and\nsupply are in equilibrium which occurs sporadically, fortuitously \u0026#8211; determines\nthe price (value), it is just as much a \u003cem\u003econstant law\u003c/em\u003e that they are\nnot in equilibrium, and that therefore value and cost of production stand\nin no necessary relationship. Indeed, there is always only a momentary\nequilibrium of demand and supply owing to the previous fluctuation of demand\nand supply, owing to the disproportion between cost of production and exchange-value,\njust as this fluctuation and this disproportion likewise again follow the\nmomentary state of equilibrium. This \u003cem\u003ereal\u003c/em\u003e movement, of which that\nlaw is only an abstract, fortuitous and one-sided factor, is made by recent\npolitical economy into something accidental and inessential. Why? Because\nin the acute and precise formulas to which they reduce political economy,\nthe basic formula, if they wished to express that movement abstractly,\nwould have to be: In political economy, law is determined by its opposite,\nabsence of law. The true law of political economy is \u003cem\u003echance\u003c/em\u003e, from\nwhose movement we, the scientific men, isolate certain factors arbitrarily\nin the form of laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"016\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMill very well expresses the essence of the matter in the form\nof a concept by characterising \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e as the \u003cem\u003emedium\u003c/em\u003e of exchange.\nThe essence of money is not, in the first place, that property is alienated\nin it, but that the \u003cem\u003emediating activity\u003c/em\u003e or movement, the \u003cem\u003ehuman\u003c/em\u003e,\nsocial act by which man\u0027s products mutually complement one another, is\n\u003cem\u003eestranged\u003c/em\u003e from man and becomes the attribute of money, a \u003cem\u003ematerial\nthing\u003c/em\u003e outside man. Since man alienates this mediating activity itself,\nhe is active here only as a man who has lost himself and is dehumanised;\nthe \u003cem\u003erelation\u003c/em\u003e itself between things, man\u0027s operation with them, becomes\nthe operation of an entity outside man and above man. Owing to this \u003cem\u003ealien\nmediator\u003c/em\u003e \u0026#8211; instead of man himself being the mediator for man \u0026#8211; man\nregards his will, his activity and his relation to other men as a power\nindependent of him and them. His slavery, therefore, reaches its peak.\nIt is clear that this \u003cem\u003emediator\u003c/em\u003e now becomes a \u003cem\u003ereal God\u003c/em\u003e, for\nthe mediator is the \u003cem\u003ereal power\u003c/em\u003e over what it mediates to me. Its\ncult becomes an end in itself. Objects separated from this mediator have\nlost their value. Hence the objects only have value insofar as they \u003cem\u003erepresent\u003c/em\u003e\nthe mediator, whereas originally it seemed that the mediator had value\nonly insofar as \u003cem\u003eit\u003c/em\u003e represented \u003cem\u003ethem\u003c/em\u003e. This reversal of the\noriginal relationship is inevitable. This \u003cem\u003emediator is\u003c/em\u003e therefore\nthe lost, estranged \u003cem\u003eessence\u003c/em\u003e of private property, private property\nwhich has become \u003cem\u003ealienated\u003c/em\u003e, external to itself, just as it is the\n\u003cem\u003ealienated\u003c/em\u003e species-activity of man, the \u003cem\u003eexternalised mediation\u003c/em\u003e\nbetween man\u0027s production and man\u0027s production. All the qualities which\narise in the course of this activity are, therefore, transferred to this\nmediator. Hence man becomes the poorer as man, i.e., separated from this\nmediator, the \u003cem\u003ericher\u003c/em\u003e this mediator becomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"017\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChrist \u003cem\u003erepresents\u003c/em\u003e originally: 1) men before God; 2) God\nfor men; 3) men to man.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"018\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e represents originally, in accordance with\nthe idea of money: 1) private property for private property; 2) society\nfor private property; 3) private property for society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"019\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBut Christ is \u003cem\u003ealienated\u003c/em\u003e God and alienated \u003cem\u003eman\u003c/em\u003e. God\nhas value only insofar as he represents Christ, and man has value only\ninsofar as he represents Christ. It is the same with money.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"020\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhy must private property develop into the \u003cem\u003emoney system\u003c/em\u003e?\nBecause man as a social being must proceed to \u003cem\u003eexchange\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\n and\nbecause exchange \u0026#8211; private property being presupposed \u0026#8211; must evolve value.\nThe mediating process between men engaged in exchange is not a social or\nhuman process, not \u003cem\u003ehuman relationship;\u003c/em\u003e it is the \u003cem\u003eabstract relationship\u003c/em\u003e\nof private property to private property, and the expression of this \u003cem\u003eabstract\u003c/em\u003e\nrelationship is \u003cem\u003evalue\u003c/em\u003e, whose actual existence as value constitutes\n\u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e. Since men engaged in exchange do not relate to each other\nas men, \u003cem\u003ethings\u003c/em\u003e lose the significance of human, personal property.\nThe social relationship of private property to private property is already\na relationship in which private property is estranged from itself. The\nform of existence for itself of this relationship, money, is therefore\nthe alienation of private property, the abstraction from its \u003cem\u003especific\u003c/em\u003e,\npersonal nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"021\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHence the opposition of modern political economy to the monetary\nsystem, the \u003cem\u003esyst\u0026egrave;me mon\u0026eacute;taire\u003c/em\u003e \u003csup\u003e\u003ca href=\"#n1\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e,\ncannot achieve any decisive victory in spite of all its cleverness. For\nif the crude economic superstition of the people and governments clings\nto the \u003cem\u003esensuous, tangible, conspicuous\u003c/em\u003e money-bag, and therefore\nbelieves both in the absolute value of the precious metals and possession\nof them as the sole reality of wealth \u0026#8211; and if then the enlightened, worldly-wise\neconomist comes forward and proves to them that money is a commodity like\nany other, the value of which, like that of any other commodity, depends\ntherefore on the relation of the cost of production to demand, competition,\nand supply, to the quantity or competition of the other commodities \u0026#8211; \nthis economist is given the correct reply that nevertheless the \u003cem\u003ereal\u003c/em\u003e\nvalue of things is their \u003cem\u003eexchange-value\u003c/em\u003e and this in the last instance\nexists in money, as the latter does in the precious metals, and that consequently\nmoney represents the true value of things and for that reason money is\nthe most desirable thing. Indeed, in the last instance the economist\u0027s\ntheory itself amounts to this wisdom, the only difference being that he\npossesses the capacity of abstraction, the capacity to recognise the existence\nof money under all forms of commodities and therefore not to believe in\nthe exclusive value of its official metallic mode of existence. The metallic\nexistence of money is only the official palpable expression of the soul\nof money, which is present in all branches of production and in all activities\nof bourgeois society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"022\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe opposition of modern economists to the monetary system is\nmerely that they have conceived the essence of \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e in its abstract\nuniversality and are therefore enlightened about the sensuous superstition\nwhich believes in the exclusive existence of this essence in precious metal.\nThey substitute refined superstition for crude superstition. Since, however,\nin essence both have the same root, the enlightened form of the superstition\ncannot succeed in supplanting completely the crude sensuous form, because\nthe former does not attack the essence of the latter but only the particular\nform of this essence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"023\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003epersonal\u003c/em\u003e mode of existence of money as money \u0026#8211; and\nnot only as the inner, implicit, hidden social relationship or \u003cem\u003eclass\nrelationship\u003c/em\u003e between commodities \u0026#8211; this mode of existence corresponds\nthe more to the essence of money, the more abstract it is, the less it\nhas a \u003cem\u003enatural\u003c/em\u003e relationship to the other commodities, the more it\nappears as the product and yet as the non-product of man, the less \u003cem\u003eprimitive\u003c/em\u003e\nits sphere of existence, the more it is created by man or, in economic\nterms, the greater the \u003cem\u003einverse\u003c/em\u003e relationship of its \u003cem\u003evalue as money\u003c/em\u003e\nto the exchange-value or money value of the material in which it exists.\nHence \u003cem\u003epaper money\u003c/em\u003e and the whole number of \u003cem\u003epaper representatives\nof money\u003c/em\u003e (such as bills of exchange, mandates, promissory notes, etc.)\nare the \u003cem\u003emore perfect\u003c/em\u003e mode of existence of \u003cem\u003emoney as money\u003c/em\u003e\nand a necessary factor in the progressive development of the money system.\nIn the \u003cem\u003ecredit system\u003c/em\u003e, of which \u003cem\u003ebanking\u003c/em\u003e is the perfect expression,\nit appears as if the power of the alien, material force were broken, the\nrelationship of self-estrangement abolished and man had once more human\nrelations to man. The \u003cem\u003eSaint-Simonists\u003c/em\u003e, deceived by this \u003cem\u003eappearance\u003c/em\u003e,\nregarded the development of money, bills of exchange, paper money, paper\nrepresentatives of money, \u003cem\u003ecredit\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ebanking\u003c/em\u003e, as a gradual abolition\nof the separation of man from things, of capital from labour, of private\nproperty from money and of money from man, and of the separation of man\nfrom man. An organised \u003cem\u003ebanking system is\u003c/em\u003e therefore their ideal.\nBut this abolition of\n\u003ca name=\"024\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\nestrangement, this \u003cem\u003ereturn\u003c/em\u003e of man to himself and therefore to other men is only an \u003cem\u003eappearance;\u003c/em\u003e\nthe self-estrangement, the dehumanisation, is all the more \u003cem\u003einfamous\u003c/em\u003e\nand \u003cem\u003eextreme\u003c/em\u003e because its element is no longer commodity, metal, paper,\nbut man\u0027s \u003cem\u003emoral\u003c/em\u003e existence, man\u0027s \u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e existence, the \u003cem\u003einmost\ndepths\u003c/em\u003e of his heart, and because under the appearance of man\u0027s \u003cem\u003etrust\u003c/em\u003e\nin man it is the height of \u003cem\u003edistrust\u003c/em\u003e and complete estrangement. What\nconstitutes the essence of \u003cem\u003ecredit?\u003c/em\u003e We leave entirely out of account\nhere the \u003cem\u003econtent\u003c/em\u003e of credit, which is again money. We leave out of\naccount, therefore, the \u003cem\u003econtent\u003c/em\u003e of this trust in accordance with\nwhich a man \u003cem\u003erecognises\u003c/em\u003e another man by advancing him a certain quantity\nof value and \u0026#8211; at best, namely, when he does not demand payment for the\ncredit, i.e., he is not a usurer showing his trust in his fellow man not\nbeing a swindler, but a \u0026#8220;good\u0026#8221; man. By a \u0026#8220;good\u0026#8221; man, the one who bestows\nhis trust understands, like Shylock, a man who is \u0026#8220;able to pay.\u0026#8221; \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"025\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCredit is conceivable in two relationships and under two different\nconditions. The two relationships are: first, a rich man gives credit to\na poor man whom he considers industrious and decent. This kind of credit\nbelongs to the romantic, sentimental part of political economy, to its\naberrations, excesses, \u003cem\u003eexceptions\u003c/em\u003e, not to the \u003cem\u003erule\u003c/em\u003e. But even\nassuming this exception and granting this romantic possibility, the life\nof the poor man and his talents and activity serve the rich man as a \u003cem\u003eguarantee\u003c/em\u003e\nof the repayment of the money lent. That means, therefore, that all the\nsocial virtues of the poor man, the content of his vital activity, his\nexistence itself, represent for the rich man the reimbursement of his capital\nwith the customary interest. Hence the death of the poor man is the worst\neventuality for the creditor. It is the death of his capital together with\nthe interest. One ought to consider how vile it is to \u003cem\u003eestimate\u003c/em\u003e the\nvalue of a man in \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e, as happens in the credit relationship.\nAs a matter of course, the creditor possesses, besides \u003cem\u003emoral\u003c/em\u003e guarantees,\nalso the guarantee of \u003cem\u003elegal\u003c/em\u003e compulsion and still other more or less\n\u003cem\u003ereal\u003c/em\u003e guarantees for his man. If the man to whom credit is given\nis himself a man of means, \u003cem\u003ecredit\u003c/em\u003e becomes merely a \u003cem\u003emedium\u003c/em\u003e\nfacilitating exchange, that is to say, \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e itself is raised to\na completely \u003cem\u003eideal\u003c/em\u003e form. \u003cem\u003eCredit is\u003c/em\u003e the \u003cem\u003eeconomic\u003c/em\u003e judgment\non the \u003cem\u003emorality\u003c/em\u003e of a man. In credit, the \u003cem\u003eman\u003c/em\u003e himself, instead\nof metal or paper, has become the \u003cem\u003emediator\u003c/em\u003e of exchange, not however\nas a man, but as the \u003cem\u003emode of existence of capital\u003c/em\u003e and interest.\nThe medium of exchange, therefore, has certainly returned out of its material\nform and been put back in man, but only because the man himself has been\nput outside himself and has himself assumed a material form. Within the\ncredit relationship, it is not the case that money is transcended in man,\nbut that man himself is turned into \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e, or money is \u003cem\u003eincorporated\u003c/em\u003e\nin him. \u003cem\u003eHuman individuality\u003c/em\u003e, human \u003cem\u003emorality\u003c/em\u003e itself, has become\nboth an object of commerce and the material in which money exists. Instead\nof money, or paper, it is my own personal existence, my flesh and blood,\nmy social virtue and importance, which constitutes the material, corporeal\nform of the \u003cem\u003espirit of money\u003c/em\u003e. Credit no longer resolves the value\nof money into money but into human flesh and the human heart. Such is the\nextent to which all progress and all inconsistencies within a false system\nare extreme retrogression and the extreme consequence of vileness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"026\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the credit system, its nature, estranged from man, under\nthe appearance of an extreme economic appreciation of man, operates in\na double way:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"027\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) The antithesis between capitalist and worker, between big and\nsmall capitalists, becomes still greater since credit is given only to\nhim who already has, and is a new opportunity of accumulation for the rich\nman, or since the poor man finds that the arbitrary discretion of the rich\nman and the latter\u0027s judgment over him confirm or deny his \u003cem\u003eentire\u003c/em\u003e\nexistence and that his existence is wholly dependent on this contingency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"028\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) Mutual dissimulation, hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness are carried\nto extreme lengths, so that on the man without credit is pronounced not\nonly the simple judgment that he is poor, but in addition a pejorative\nmoral judgment that he possesses no trust, no recognition, and therefore\nis a social pariah, a bad man, and in addition to his privation, the poor\nman undergoes this humiliation and the humiliating necessity of having\nto \u003cem\u003eask\u003c/em\u003e the rich man for credit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"029\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3) Since, owing to this completely \u003cem\u003enominal\u003c/em\u003e\nexistence of money, \u003cem\u003ecounterfeiting\u003c/em\u003e cannot be undertaken by man in\nany other material than his own person, he has to make himself into counterfeit\ncoin, obtain credit by stealth, by lying, etc., and this credit relationship\n\u0026#8211; both on the part of the man who trusts and of the man who needs trust\n\u0026#8211; becomes an object of commerce, an object of mutual deception and misuse.\nHere it is also glaringly evident that \u003cem\u003edistrust is\u003c/em\u003e the basis of\neconomic trust; distrustful calculation whether credit ought to be given\nor not; spying into the secrets of the private life, etc., of the one seeking\ncredit; the disclosure of temporary straits in order to overthrow a rival\nby a sudden shattering of his credit, etc. The whole system of bankruptcy,\nspurious enterprises, etc…. As regards \u003cem\u003egovernment loans\u003c/em\u003e, the state\noccupies exactly the same place as the man does in the earlier example….\nIn the game with government securities it is seen how the state has become\nthe plaything of businessmen, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"030\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4) The \u003cem\u003ecredit system\u003c/em\u003e finally has its completion in the\n\u003cem\u003ebanking system\u003c/em\u003e. The creation of bankers, the political domination\nof the bank, the concentration of wealth in these hands, this economic\n\u003cem\u003eAreopagus\u003c/em\u003e of the nation, is the worthy completion of the money system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"031\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOwing to the fact that in the credit system the \u003cem\u003emoral recognition\nof a man\u003c/em\u003e, as also \u003cem\u003etrust in the state\u003c/em\u003e, etc., take the form of\n\u003cem\u003ecredit\u003c/em\u003e, the secret contained in the lie of moral recognition, the\n\u003cem\u003eimmoral\u003c/em\u003e vileness of this morality, as also the sanctimoniousness\nand egoism of that trust in the state, become evident and show themselves\nfor what they really are.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"032\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExchange\u003c/em\u003e, both of human activity within production itself\nand of \u003cem\u003ehuman product\u003c/em\u003e against one another, is equivalent to \u003cem\u003especies-activity\u003c/em\u003e\nand species-spirit, the real, conscious and true mode of existence of which\nis \u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e activity and \u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e enjoyment. Since \u003cem\u003ehuman\u003c/em\u003e\nnature is the \u003cem\u003etrue community\u003c/em\u003e of men, by manifesting their \u003cem\u003enature\u003c/em\u003e\nmen \u003cem\u003ecreate\u003c/em\u003e, produce, the \u003cem\u003ehuman community\u003c/em\u003e, the social entity,\nwhich is no abstract universal power opposed to the single individual,\nbut is the essential nature of each individual, his own activity, his own\nlife, his own spirit, his own wealth. Hence this \u003cem\u003etrue community\u003c/em\u003e\ndoes not come into being through reflection, it appears owing to the \u003cem\u003eneed\u003c/em\u003e\nand \u003cem\u003eegoism\u003c/em\u003e of individuals, i.e., it is produced directly by their\nlife activity itself. It does not depend on man whether this community\nexists or not; but as long as man does not recognise himself as man, and\ntherefore has not organised the world in a human way, this \u003cem\u003ecommunity\u003c/em\u003e\nappears in the form of \u003cem\u003eestrangement\u003c/em\u003e, because its \u003cem\u003esubject\u003c/em\u003e,\nman, is a being estranged from himself. Men, not as an abstraction, but\nas real, living, particular individuals, \u003cem\u003eare\u003c/em\u003e this entity. Hence,\n\u003cem\u003eas\u003c/em\u003e they are, so is this entity itself. To say that \u003cem\u003eman is\u003c/em\u003e\nestranged from himself, therefore, is the same thing as saying that the\n\u003cem\u003esociety\u003c/em\u003e of this estranged man is a caricature of his \u003cem\u003ereal community\u003c/em\u003e,\nof his true species-life, that his activity therefore appears to him as\na torment, his own creation as an alien power, his wealth as poverty, the\n\u003cem\u003eessential bond\u003c/em\u003e linking him with other men as an unessential bond,\nand separation from his fellow men, on the other hand, as his true mode\nof existence, his life as a sacrifice of his life, the realisation of his\nnature as making his life unreal, his production as the production of his\nnullity, his power over an object as the power of the object over him,\nand he himself, the lord of his creation, as the servant of this creation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"033\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003ecommunity of men\u003c/em\u003e, or the manifestation of the nature\nof \u003cem\u003emen\u003c/em\u003e, their mutual complementing the result of which is species-life,\ntruly human life \u0026#8211; this community is conceived by political economy in\nthe form of \u003cem\u003eexchange\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003etrade. Society\u003c/em\u003e, says Destutt de\nTracy, is a \u003cem\u003eseries of mutual exchanges\u003c/em\u003e. It is precisely this process\nof mutual integration. \u003cem\u003eSociety\u003c/em\u003e, says Adam Smith, is a \u003cem\u003ecommercial\nsociety\u003c/em\u003e. Each of its members is a \u003cem\u003emerchant\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"034\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is seen that political economy \u003cem\u003edefines\u003c/em\u003e the \u003cem\u003eestranged\u003c/em\u003e\nform of social intercourse as the \u003cem\u003eessential\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eoriginal\u003c/em\u003e\nform corresponding to man\u0027s nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"035\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePolitical economy \u0026#8211; like the real process \u0026#8211; starts\nout from the \u003cem\u003erelation of man to man\u003c/em\u003e as that of \u003cem\u003eproperty owner\nto property owner\u003c/em\u003e. If man is presupposed as \u003cem\u003eproperty owner\u003c/em\u003e,\ni.e., therefore as an exclusive owner, who proves his personality and both\ndistinguishes himself from, and enters into relations with, other men through\nthis exclusive ownership \u0026#8211; private property is his personal, \u003cem\u003edistinctive\u003c/em\u003e,\nand therefore essential mode of existence \u0026#8211; then the \u003cem\u003eloss\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003esurrender\u003c/em\u003e\nof private property is an \u003cem\u003ealienation of man\u003c/em\u003e, as it is of \u003cem\u003eprivate\nproperty\u003c/em\u003e, itself. Here we shall only be concerned with the latter definition.\nIf I give up my private property to someone else, it ceases to be \u003cem\u003emine;\u003c/em\u003e\nit becomes something independent of me, lying \u003cem\u003eoutside\u003c/em\u003e my sphere,\na thing \u003cem\u003eexternal\u003c/em\u003e to me. Hence I \u003cem\u003ealienate\u003c/em\u003e my private property.\nWith regard to me, therefore, I turn it into \u003cem\u003ealienated\u003c/em\u003e private property.\nBut I only turn it into an \u003cem\u003ealienated\u003c/em\u003e thing in general, I abolish\nonly my \u003cem\u003epersonal\u003c/em\u003e relation to it, I give it back to the \u003cem\u003eelementary\u003c/em\u003e\npowers of nature if I alienate it only with regard to myself. It becomes\nalienated \u003cem\u003eprivate property\u003c/em\u003e only if, while ceasing to be \u003cem\u003emy\u003c/em\u003e\nprivate property, it on that account does not cease to be \u003cem\u003eprivate property\u003c/em\u003e\nas such, that is to say, if it enters into the same relation to \u003cem\u003eanother\u003c/em\u003e\nman, \u003cem\u003eapart\u003c/em\u003e from me, as that which it had to myself; in short, if\nit becomes the \u003cem\u003eprivate property\u003c/em\u003e of \u003cem\u003eanother\u003c/em\u003e man. The case\nof \u003cem\u003eviolence\u003c/em\u003e excepted \u0026#8211; what causes me to alienate \u003cem\u003emy\u003c/em\u003e private\nproperty to another man? Political economy replies correctly: \u003cem\u003enecessity,\nneed\u003c/em\u003e. The other man is also a property owner, but he is the owner of\n\u003cem\u003eanother\u003c/em\u003e thing, which I lack and cannot and will not do without,\nwhich seems to me a \u003cem\u003enecessity\u003c/em\u003e for the completion of my existence\nand the realisation of my nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"036\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bond which connects the two property owners with each other\nis the \u003cem\u003especific kind of object\u003c/em\u003e that constitutes the substance of\ntheir private property. The desire for these two objects, i.e., the need\nfor them, shows each of the property owners, and makes him conscious of\nit, that he has yet another \u003cem\u003eessential\u003c/em\u003e relation to objects besides\nthat of private ownership, that he is not the particular being that he\nconsiders himself to be, but a \u003cem\u003etotal\u003c/em\u003e being whose needs stand in\nthe relationship of \u003cem\u003einner\u003c/em\u003e ownership to all products, including those\nof another\u0027s labour. For the need of a thing is the most evident, irrefutable\nproof that the thing belongs \u003cem\u003eto my\u003c/em\u003e essence, that its being is for\nme, that its \u003cem\u003eproperty\u003c/em\u003e is the property, the peculiarity, of my essence.\nThus both property owners are impelled to give up their private property,\nbut to do so in such a way that at the same time they confirm private ownership,\nor to give up the private property within that relationship of private\nownership. Each therefore alienates a part of his private property to the\nother.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"037\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e connection or \u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e relationship between\nthe two property owners is therefore that of \u003cem\u003ereciprocity\u003c/em\u003e in \u003cem\u003ealienation\u003c/em\u003e,\npositing the relationship of alienation on both sides, or \u003cem\u003ealienation\u003c/em\u003e\nas the relationship of both property owners, whereas in simple private\nproperty, \u003cem\u003ealienation\u003c/em\u003e occurs only in relation to oneself, one-sidedly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"038\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExchange\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ebarter\u003c/em\u003e is therefore the social act,\nthe species-act, the community, the social intercourse and integration\nof men within \u003cem\u003eprivate ownership\u003c/em\u003e, and therefore the external, \u003cem\u003ealienated\u003c/em\u003e\nspecies-act. It is just for this reason that it appears as \u003cem\u003ebarter\u003c/em\u003e.\nFor this reason, likewise, it is the opposite of the \u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"039\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough the reciprocal alienation or estrangement of private property,\n\u003cem\u003eprivate property\u003c/em\u003e, itself falls into the category of \u003cem\u003ealienated\u003c/em\u003e\nprivate property.\u003csup\u003e\u003ca href=\"#n2\"\u003e[2]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e For, in the first place, it has\nceased to be the product of the labour of its owner, his exclusive, distinctive\npersonality. For he has alienated it, it has moved away from the owner\nwhose product it was and has acquired a personal significance for someone\nwhose product it is \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e. It has lost its personal significance for\nthe owner. Secondly, it has been brought into relation with another private\nproperty, and placed on a par with the latter. Its place has been taken\nby a private property of a \u003cem\u003edifferent\u003c/em\u003e kind, just as it itself takes\nthe place of a private property of a \u003cem\u003edifferent\u003c/em\u003e kind. On both sides,\ntherefore, private property appears as the representative of a different\nkind of private property, as the \u003cem\u003eequivalent\u003c/em\u003e of a \u003cem\u003edifferent\u003c/em\u003e\nnatural product, and both sides are related to each other in such a way\nthat each represents the mode of existence of the \u003cem\u003eother\u003c/em\u003e, and both\nrelate to each other as \u003cem\u003esubstitutes\u003c/em\u003e for themselves and the other.\nHence the mode of existence of private property as such has become that\nof a \u003cem\u003esubstitute\u003c/em\u003e, of an \u003cem\u003eequivalent\u003c/em\u003e. Instead of its immediate\nunity with itself, it exists now only as a relation to \u003cem\u003esomething else\u003c/em\u003e.\nIts mode of existence as an \u003cem\u003eequivalent\u003c/em\u003e is no longer its specific\nmode of existence. It has thus become a \u003cem\u003evalue\u003c/em\u003e, and immediately an\n\u003cem\u003eexchange-value\u003c/em\u003e. Its mode of existence as \u003cem\u003evalue is\u003c/em\u003e an \u003cem\u003ealienated\u003c/em\u003e\ndesignation \u003ca name=\"040\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e \u003cem\u003eof itself\u003c/em\u003e, different from its immediate\nexistence, external to its specific nature, a merely \u003cem\u003erelative\u003c/em\u003e mode\nof existence of this.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"041\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHow this \u003cem\u003evalue is\u003c/em\u003e more precisely determined must be described\nelsewhere, as also how it becomes \u003cem\u003eprice\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"042\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe relationship of exchange being presupposed, labour becomes\n\u003cem\u003edirectly labour to earn a living\u003c/em\u003e. This relationship of alienated\nlabour reaches its highest point only when 1) on one side \u003cem\u003elabour to\nearn a living\u003c/em\u003e and the product of the worker have no \u003cem\u003edirect\u003c/em\u003e relation\nto his need or his \u003cem\u003efunction as worker\u003c/em\u003e, but both aspects are determined\nby social combinations alien to the worker; 2) he who \u003cem\u003ebuys\u003c/em\u003e the product\nis not himself a producer, but gives in exchange what someone else has\nproduced. In the crude form of \u003cem\u003ealienated\u003c/em\u003e private property, \u003cem\u003ebarter\u003c/em\u003e,\neach of the property owners has produced what his immediate need, his talents\nand the available raw material have impelled him to make. Each, therefore,\nexchanges with the other only the surplus of his production. It is true\nthat labour was his immediate \u003cem\u003esource of subsistence\u003c/em\u003e, but it was\nat the same time also the manifestation of his \u003cem\u003eindividual existence\u003c/em\u003e.\nThrough exchange his \u003cem\u003elabour\u003c/em\u003e has become partly a \u003cem\u003esource of income\u003c/em\u003e.\nIts purpose differs now from its mode of existence. The product is produced\nas \u003cem\u003evalue\u003c/em\u003e, as \u003cem\u003eexchange-value\u003c/em\u003e, as an \u003cem\u003eequivalent\u003c/em\u003e, and\nno longer because of its direct, personal relation to the producer. The\nmore diverse production becomes, and therefore the more diverse the needs\nbecome, on the one hand, and the more one-sided the activities of the producer\nbecome, on the other hand, the more does his labour fall into the category\nof \u003cem\u003elabour to earn a living\u003c/em\u003e, until finally it has only this significance\nand it becomes quite \u003cem\u003eaccidental\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003einessential\u003c/em\u003e whether the\nrelation of the producer to his product is that of immediate enjoyment\nand personal need, and also whether his \u003cem\u003eactivity\u003c/em\u003e, the act of labour\nitself, is for him the enjoyment of his personality and the realisation\nof his natural abilities and spiritual aims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"043\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLabour to earn a living\u003c/em\u003e involves: 1) estrangement and fortuitous\nconnection between labour and the subject who labours; 2) estrangement\nand fortuitous connection between labour and the object of labour; 3) that\nthe worker\u0027s role is determined by social needs which, however, are alien\nto him and a compulsion to which he submits out of egoistic need and necessity,\nand which have for him only the significance of a means of satisfying his\ndire need, just as for them he exists only as a slave of their needs; 4)\nthat to the worker the maintenance of his individual existence appears\nto be the \u003cem\u003epurpose\u003c/em\u003e of his activity and what he actually does is regarded\nby him only as a means; that he carries on his life\u0027s activity in order\nto earn means of \u003cem\u003esubsistence\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"044\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHence the greater and the more developed the social power appears\nto be within the private property relationship, the more \u003cem\u003eegoistic\u003c/em\u003e,\nasocial and estranged from his own nature does man become.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"045\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJust as the mutual exchange of the products of \u003cem\u003ehuman activity\u003c/em\u003e\nappears as \u003cem\u003ebarter\u003c/em\u003e, as trade, so the mutual completion and exchange\nof the activity itself appears as \u003cem\u003edivision of labour\u003c/em\u003e, which turns\nman as far as possible into an abstract being, a machine tool, etc., and\ntransforms him into a spiritual and physical monster.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"046\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is precisely the \u003cem\u003eunity\u003c/em\u003e of human labour that is regarded\nmerely as \u003cem\u003edivision\u003c/em\u003e of labour, because social nature only comes into\nexistence as its opposite, in the form of estrangement. \u003cem\u003eDivision of\nlabour\u003c/em\u003e increases with civilisation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"047\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the presupposition of division of labour, the product,\nthe material of private property, acquires for the individual more and\nmore the significance of an \u003cem\u003eequivalent\u003c/em\u003e, and as he no longer exchanges\nonly his \u003cem\u003esurplus\u003c/em\u003e, and the object of his production can be simply\na \u003cem\u003ematter of indifference\u003c/em\u003e to him, so too he no longer exchanges his\nproduct for something directly \u003cem\u003eneeded\u003c/em\u003e by him. The equivalent comes\ninto existence as an equivalent in \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e, which is now the immediate\nresult of labour to gain a living and the \u003cem\u003emedium\u003c/em\u003e of exchange (see\nabove).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"048\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe complete domination of the estranged thing \u003cem\u003eover\u003c/em\u003e man\nhas become evident in \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e, which is completely indifferent both\nto the nature of the material, i.e., to the specific nature of the private\nproperty, and to the personality of the property owner. What was the domination\nof person over person is now the general domination of the \u003cem\u003ething\u003c/em\u003e\nover the \u003cem\u003eperson\u003c/em\u003e, of the product over the producer. Just as the concept\nof the \u003cem\u003eequivalent\u003c/em\u003e, the value, already implied the \u003cem\u003ealienation\u003c/em\u003e\nof private property, so \u003cem\u003emoney\u003c/em\u003e is the sensuous, even objective existence\nof this \u003cem\u003ealienation\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"049\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeedless to say that political economy is only able\nto grasp this whole development as a fact, as the outcome of fortuitous\nnecessity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"050\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe separation of work from itself \u0026#8211; separation of the worker\nfrom the capitalist \u0026#8211; separation of labour and capital, the original form\nof which is made up of \u003cem\u003elanded property\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003emovable property…\u003c/em\u003e.\nThe original determining feature of private property is monopoly; hence\nwhen it creates a political constitution, it is that of monopoly. The perfect\nmonopoly is competition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"051\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo the economist, \u003cem\u003eproduction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003econsumption\u003c/em\u003e and, as\nthe mediator of both, \u003cem\u003eexchange\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003edistribution\u003c/em\u003e, are separate\n[activities].\u003csup\u003e\u003ca href=\"#n3\"\u003e[3]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The separation of production and consumption,\nof action and spirit, in different individuals and in the same individual,\nis the \u003cem\u003eseparation of labour\u003c/em\u003e from its \u003cem\u003eobject\u003c/em\u003e and from itself\nas something spiritual. \u003cem\u003eDistribution\u003c/em\u003e is the power of private property\nmanifesting itself.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"052\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe separation of labour, capital and landed property from one\nanother, like that of labour from labour, of capital from capital, and\nlanded property from landed property, and finally the separation of labour\nfrom wages, of capital from profit, and profit from interest, and, last\nof all, of landed property from land rent, demonstrate self-estrangement\nboth in the form of self-estrangement and in that of mutual estrangement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"053\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\n\u0026#8220;We have next to examine the effects which take place by the attempts\nof government to control the increase or diminution of money [….] When\nit endeavours to keep the quantity of money less than it would be, if things\nwere left in freedom, it raises the value of the metal in the coin, and\nrenders it the interest of every body, [who can,] to convert his bullion\ninto money.\u0026#8221; People \u0026#8220;have recourse to private coining. This the government\nmust […] prevent by punishment. On the other hand, were it the object\nof government to keep the quantity of money \u003cem\u003egreater\u003c/em\u003e than it would\nbe, if left in freedom, it would reduce the value of the metal in money,\nbelow its value in bullion, and make it the interest of every body to melt\nthe coins. This, also, the government would have only one expedient for\npreventing, namely, punishment. But the prospect of punishment will prevail\nover the prospect of profit [, only if the profit is small].\u0026#8221; Pp. 101,\n102 (pp. 137, 138).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"054\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection IX. \u0026#8220;If there were two individuals one of whom owed to\nthe other \u0026pound;100, and the other owed to him \u0026pound;100,\u0026#8221; instead of\npaying each other this sum \u0026#8220;all they had to do was to exchange their mutual\nobligations. The case\u0026#8221; is the same between two nations…. Hence \u003cem\u003ebills\nof exchange\u003c/em\u003e. \u0026#8220;The use of them was recommended by a still stronger necessity\n[…], because the coarse polity of those times prohibited the \u003cem\u003eexportation\u003c/em\u003e\nof the precious metals, and punished with the greatest severity any infringement … .\u0026#8221;\nPp. 104-05, 106 (p. 142 et seq.).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"055\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection X. Saving of \u003cem\u003eunproductive\u003c/em\u003e consumption by paper\nmoney. P. 108 et seq. (p. 146 et seq.).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"056\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection XI. \u0026#8220;The inconveniencies\u0026#8221; of paper money are … \u0026#8220;First,\n\u0026#8211; The \u003cem\u003efailure\u003c/em\u003e of the parties, by whom the notes are issued, to\nfulfil their engagements. Second, \u0026#8211; Forgery. Third, \u0026#8211; The alteration\nof the value of the currency.\u0026#8221; P. 110 (p. 149).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"057\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection XII. \u0026#8220;… the precious metals, are […] that commodity\n[which is the most generally bought and sold…]. Those commodities alone\ncan be exported, which are cheaper in the country from which they go, than\nin the country to which they are sent; and that those commodities alone\ncan be imported, which are dearer in the country to which they come, than\nin the country from which they are sent.\u0026#8221; Accordingly it depends on the\nvalue of the precious metals in a country whether they are imported or\nexported. Pp. 128, 129 [p. 175 et seq.].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"058\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection XIII. \u0026#8220;When we speak of the value of the precious metal,\nwe mean the quantity of other things for which it will exchange.\u0026#8221; This\nrelation is different in different countries and even in different parts\nof the country. \u0026#8220;We say that \u003cem\u003eliving is more cheap;\u003c/em\u003e in other words,\ncommodities may be purchased with a smaller quantity of money.\u0026#8221; P. 131\n[p. 177].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"059\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection XVI. The relation between nations is like that between\nmerchants…. \u0026#8220;The merchants […] will always buy in the cheapest market,\nand sell in the dearest.\u0026#8221; P. 159 (p. 215).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"060\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIV. \u003cem\u003eConsumption.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"061\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cP\u003e\u0026#8220;\u003cem\u003eProduction, Distribution, Exchange\u003c/em\u003e […] are \u003cem\u003emeans\u003c/em\u003e.\nNo man produces for the sale of producing [….] distribution and exchange\nare only the intermediate operations [for bringing the things which have\nbeen produced into the hands of those who are] to \u003cem\u003econsume\u003c/em\u003e them.\u0026#8221; \nP. 177 (p. 237),\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"062\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection I. \u0026#8220;Of Consumption, there are two species.\u0026#8221; 1) \u003cem\u003eProductive\u003c/em\u003e. It includes everything \u0026#8220;expended for the sake of something to be produced\u0026#8221; and comprise \u0026#8220;the necessaries of the labourer….\u0026#8221; The second class then\n[…] \u0026#8220;machinery; including tools […], the buildings necessary for the\nproductive operations, and even the cattle. The third is, the material\nof which the commodity to be produced must be formed, or from which it\nmust be derived\". Pp. 178, 179 (pp. 238, 239). \u0026#8220;[Of these three classes\nof things,] it is only the second, the consumption of which is not completed\nin the course of the productive operations.\u0026#8221; P. 179 (loc. cit.).\n\n\u003ca name=\"063\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) \u003cem\u003eUnproductive\u003c/em\u003e consumption. \u0026#8220;The wages\u0026#8221; given to a \u0026#8220;footman\u0026#8221; and \u0026#8220;all consumption, which does not take place to the end that something, which may be an equivalent for it, may be produced by means of it, is unproductive\nconsumption\". Pp. 179, 180 (p. 240). \u0026#8220;Productive consumption is itself\na \u003cem\u003emeans;\u003c/em\u003e it is a mean to production. Unproductive consumption […]\nis not a means.\u0026#8221; It \u0026#8220;is the end. This or the \u003cem\u003eenjoyment\u003c/em\u003e which is\ninvolved in it, is the good which constituted the \u003cem\u003emotive\u003c/em\u003e to all\nthe operations by which it was preceded.\u0026#8221; P. 180 (p. 241). \u0026#8220;By productive\nconsumption, nothing is lost [….] Whatever is unproductively consumed,\nis lost.\u0026#8221; P. 180 (loc. cit.). \u0026#8220;That which is \u003cem\u003eproductively\u003c/em\u003e consumed\nis always \u003cem\u003ecapital\u003c/em\u003e. This is a property of productive consumption\nwhich deserves to be particularly remarked [….] Whatever is consumed\nproductively\u0026#8221; is capital and \u003cem\u003e\"become\u003c/em\u003e capital.\u0026#8221; P. 181 (p. [241,]\n242). \u0026#8220;The whole of what the productive powers of the country have brought\ninto existence in the course of a year, is called the gross annual produce.\nOf this the greater part is required to replace the capital which has been\nconsumed [….] What remains of the gross produce, after replacing the\ncapital which has been consumed, is called the net produce; and is always\ndistributed either as profits of stock, or as rent.\u0026#8221; Pp. 181, 182 (pp.\n242, 243). \u0026#8220;This net produce is the fund from which all addition to the\nnational capital is commonly made.\u0026#8221; (loc. cit.) \u0026#8220;… the two species of\n\u003cem\u003econsumption\u003c/em\u003e\u0026#8221; are matched by \u0026#8220;the two species of labour, \u003cem\u003eproductive\u003c/em\u003e\nand \u003cem\u003eunproductive\u003c/em\u003e….\u0026#8221; P. 182 (p. 244).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"064\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection II. \u0026#8220;… the whole of what is annually produced, is annually\nconsumed; or […] what is produced in one year, is consumed in the next.\u0026#8221; \nEither productively or unproductively. P. 184 (p. 246).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"065\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection III. \u0026#8220;Consumption is co-extensive with production.\u0026#8221; \u0026#8220;A\nman produces, only because he wishes to \u003cem\u003ehave\u003c/em\u003e. If the commodity which\nhe produces is the commodity which he wishes to have, he stops when he\nhas produced as much as he wishes to have [….] When a man produces a\ngreater quantity […] than he desires for himself, it can only be on one\naccount; namely, that he desires some other commodity, which he can obtain\nin exchange for the surplus of what he himself has produced…. If a man\ndesires one thing, and produces another, it can only be because the thing\nwhich he desires can be obtained by means of the thing which he produces,\nand better obtained than if he had endeavoured to produce it himself. After\nlabour has been divided […] each producer confines himself to some one\ncommodity or part of a commodity, a small portion only of what he produces\nis used for his own consumption. The remainder he destines for the purpose\nof supplying him with all the other commodities which he desires; and when\neach man confines himself to one commodity, and exchanges what he produces\nfor what is produced by other people, it is found that each obtains more\nof the several things which he desires, than he would have obtained had\nhe endeavoured to produce them all for himself.\u0026#8221; \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"066\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cP\u003e\u0026#8220;In the case of the man who produces for himself, there is\nno \u003cem\u003eexchange\u003c/em\u003e. He neither offers to buy any thing, nor to sell any\nthing. He has the property; he has produced it; and does not mean to part\nwith it. If we apply, by a sort of metaphor, the terms demand and supply\nto this case, it is implied […] that the demand and supply are exactly\nproportioned to one another. As far then as regards the demand and supply\nof the market, we may leave that portion of the annual produce, which each\nof the owners consumes in the shape in which he produces or receives it,\naltogether out of the question.\u0026#8221; Pp. 186, 187\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"067\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\"In speaking here of demand and supply, it is evident that we\nspeak of aggregates. When we say of any particular nation, at any particular\ntime, that its supply is equal to its demand, we do not mean in any one\ncommodity, or any two commodities. We mean, that the amount of its demand\nin all commodities taken together, is equal to the amount of its supply\nin all commodities taken together. It may very well happen, notwithstanding\nthis equality in the general sum of demands and supplies, that some one\ncommodity or commodities may have been produced in a quantity either above\nor below the demand for those particular commodities.\u0026#8221; P. 188 (pp. 251,\n252). \u0026#8220;Two things are necessary to constitute a \u003cem\u003edemand\u003c/em\u003e. These are\n\u0026#8211; A Wish for the commodity, and An Equivalent to give for it. A demand\nmeans, the \u003cem\u003ewill\u003c/em\u003e to purchase, and the \u003cem\u003emeans\u003c/em\u003e of purchasing.\nIf either is wanting, the purchase does not take place. An equivalent is\nthe necessary foundation of all demand. It is in vain that a man wishes\nfor commodities, if he has nothing to give for them. The equivalent which\na man brings is the instrument of demand. The extent of his demand is measured\nby the extent of his equivalent. The demand and the equivalent are convertible\nterms, and the \u003cem\u003eone\u003c/em\u003e may be substituted \u003cem\u003efor the other\u003c/em\u003e. […]\nWe have already seen, that every man, who produces, has a wish for other\ncommodities, than those which he has produced, to the \u003cem\u003eextent\u003c/em\u003e of\nall that he has produced beyond what he wishes to keep for his own consumption.\nAnd it is evident, that whatever a man has produced and does not wish to\nkeep for his own consumption, is a stock which he may give in exchange\nfor other commodities. His \u003cem\u003ewill\u003c/em\u003e, therefore, \u003cem\u003eto purchase\u003c/em\u003e,\nand his \u003cem\u003emeans of purchasing\u003c/em\u003e \u0026#8211; in other words, his demand, is exactly\nequal to the amount of what he has produced and does not mean to consume.\"\nPp. 188-89 (pp. 252, 253).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"068\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\nWith his customary cynical acumen and clarity, Mill here analyses exchange\non the basis of private property.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"069\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMan \u003cem\u003eproduces\u003c/em\u003e only in order to \u003cem\u003ehave\u003c/em\u003e \u0026#8211; this is the\nbasic presupposition of private property. The aim of production is \u003cem\u003ehaving\u003c/em\u003e.\nAnd not only does production have this kind of \u003cem\u003euseful\u003c/em\u003e aim; it has\nalso a \u003cem\u003eselfish\u003c/em\u003e aim; man produces only in order to \u003cem\u003epossess\u003c/em\u003e\nfor himself; the object he produces is the objectification of his \u003cem\u003eimmediate\u003c/em\u003e,\nselfish \u003cem\u003eneed\u003c/em\u003e. For man himself \u0026#8211; in a savage, barbaric condition\n\u0026#8211; therefore, the amount of his production is determined by the \u003cem\u003eextent\u003c/em\u003e\nof his immediate need, the content of which is \u003cem\u003edirectly\u003c/em\u003e the object\nproduced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"070\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnder these conditions, therefore, man produces \u003cem\u003eno more\u003c/em\u003e\nthan he immediately requires. The \u003cem\u003elimit of his need\u003c/em\u003e forms the \u003cem\u003elimit\nof his production\u003c/em\u003e. Thus demand and supply exactly coincide. The extent\nof his production is \u003cem\u003emeasured\u003c/em\u003e by his need. In this case no exchange\ntakes place, or exchange is reduced to the exchange of his labour for the\nproduct of his labour, and this exchange is the latent form, the germ,\nof real exchange.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"071\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs soon as exchange takes place, a surplus is produced beyond\nthe immediate limit of possession. But this surplus production does not\nmean rising above selfish need. On the contrary, it is only an \u003cem\u003eindirect\u003c/em\u003e\nway of satisfying a need which finds its objectification not in \u003cem\u003ethis\u003c/em\u003e\nproduction but in the production of someone else. Production has become\na \u003cem\u003emeans of gaining a living\u003c/em\u003e, labour to gain a living. Whereas under\nthe first state of affairs, therefore, need is the measure of production,\nunder the second state of affairs production, or rather \u003cem\u003eownership of\nthe product\u003c/em\u003e, is the measure of how far needs can be satisfied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"072\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI have produced for myself and not for you, just as you have produced\nfor yourself and not for me. In itself, the result of my production has\nas little connection with you as the result of your production has directly\nwith me. That is to say, our production is not man\u0027s production for man\nas a man, i.e., it is not \u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e production. Neither of us, therefore,\nas a man stands in a relation of enjoyment to the other\u0027s product. As men,\nwe do not exist as far as our respective products are concerned. Hence\nour exchange, too, cannot be the mediating process by which it is confirmed\nthat my product\u0026nbsp;\u003ca name=\"073\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e is [for] you, because it is an \u003cem\u003eobjectification\u003c/em\u003e\nof your own nature, your need. For it is not \u003cem\u003eman\u0027s nature\u003c/em\u003e that forms\nthe link between the products we make for one another. Exchange can only\nset in \u003cem\u003emotion\u003c/em\u003e, only confirm, the \u003cem\u003echaracter\u003c/em\u003e of the relation\nwhich each of us has in regard to his own product, and therefore to the\nproduct of the other. Each of us sees in his product only the objectification\nof his \u003cem\u003eown\u003c/em\u003e selfish need, and therefore in the product of the other\nthe objectification of a \u003cem\u003edifferent\u003c/em\u003e selfish need, independent of\nhim and alien to him.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"074\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a man you have, of course, a human relation to my product:\nyou have \u003cem\u003eneed\u003c/em\u003e of my product. Hence it exists for you as an object\nof your desire and your will. But your need, your desire, your will, are\npowerless as regards my product. That means, therefore, that your \u003cem\u003ehuman\u003c/em\u003e\nnature, which accordingly is bound to stand in intimate relation to my\nhuman production, is not your \u003cem\u003epower\u003c/em\u003e over this production, your possession\nof it, for it is not the \u003cem\u003especific character\u003c/em\u003e, not the \u003cem\u003epower\u003c/em\u003e,\nof man\u0027s nature that is recognised in my production. They [your need, your\ndesire, etc.] constitute rather the \u003cem\u003etie\u003c/em\u003e which makes you dependent\non me, because they put you in a position of dependence on my product.\nFar from being the \u003cem\u003emeans\u003c/em\u003e which would give you \u003cem\u003epower\u003c/em\u003e over\nmy production, they are instead the \u003cem\u003emeans\u003c/em\u003e for giving me power over\nyou.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"075\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen I produce \u003cem\u003emore\u003c/em\u003e of an object than I myself can directly\nuse, my \u003cem\u003esurplus\u003c/em\u003e production is cunningly \u003cem\u003ecalculated\u003c/em\u003e for your\nneed. It is only in \u003cem\u003eappearance\u003c/em\u003e that I produce a surplus of this\nobject. In reality I produce a \u003cem\u003edifferent\u003c/em\u003e object, the object of your\nproduction, which I intend to exchange against this surplus, an exchange\nwhich in my mind I have already completed. The \u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e relation in\nwhich I stand to you, my labour for your need, is therefore also a mere\n\u003cem\u003esemblance\u003c/em\u003e, and our complementing each other is likewise a mere \u003cem\u003esemblance\u003c/em\u003e,\nthe basis of which is mutual plundering. The intention of \u003cem\u003eplundering\u003c/em\u003e,\nof \u003cem\u003edeception\u003c/em\u003e, is necessarily present in the background, for since\nour exchange is a selfish one, on your side as on mine, and since the selfishness\nof each seeks to get the better of that of the other, we necessarily seek\nto deceive each other. It is true though, that the power which I attribute\nto my object over yours requires your \u003cem\u003erecognition\u003c/em\u003e in order to become\na real power. Our mutual recognition of the respective powers of our objects,\nhowever, is a struggle, and in a struggle the victor is the one who has\nmore energy, force, insight, or adroitness. If I have sufficient physical\nforce, I plunder you directly. If physical force cannot be used, we try\nto impose on each other by bluff, and the more adroit overreaches the other.\nFor the \u003cem\u003etotality\u003c/em\u003e of the relationship, it is a matter of chance who\noverreaches whom. The \u003cem\u003eideal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eintended\u003c/em\u003e overreaching takes\nplace on both sides, i.e., each in his own judgment has overreached the\nother.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"076\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn both sides, therefore, exchange is necessarily mediated by\nthe \u003cem\u003eobject\u003c/em\u003e which each side produces and possesses. The ideal relationship\nto the respective objects of our production is, of course, our mutual need.\nBut the \u003cem\u003ereal, true\u003c/em\u003e relationship, which \u003cem\u003eactually\u003c/em\u003e occurs and\ntakes effect, is only the mutually \u003cem\u003eexclusive possession\u003c/em\u003e of our respective\nproducts. What gives your need of my article its \u003cem\u003evalue\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eworth\u003c/em\u003e\nand \u003cem\u003eeffect\u003c/em\u003e for me is solely your \u003cem\u003eobject\u003c/em\u003e, the \u003cem\u003eequivalent\u003c/em\u003e\nof my object. Our respective products, therefore, are the \u003cem\u003emeans\u003c/em\u003e,\nthe \u003cem\u003emediator\u003c/em\u003e, the \u003cem\u003einstrument\u003c/em\u003e, the \u003cem\u003eacknowledged power\u003c/em\u003e\nof our mutual needs. Your \u003cem\u003edemand\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eequivalent of your possession\u003c/em\u003e,\ntherefore, are for me terms that are \u003cem\u003eequal in significance\u003c/em\u003e and validity,\nand your demand only acquires a \u003cem\u003emeaning\u003c/em\u003e, owing to having an effect,\nwhen it has meaning and effect in relation to me As a mere human being\nwithout this instrument your demand is an unsatisfied aspiration on your\npart and an idea that does not exist for me. As a human being, therefore,\nyou stand in no relationship to my object, because I \u003cem\u003emyself\u003c/em\u003e have\nno human relationship to it. But the \u003cem\u003emeans is\u003c/em\u003e the \u003cem\u003etrue power\u003c/em\u003e\nover an object and therefore we mutually regard our products as the \u003cem\u003epower\u003c/em\u003e\nof each of us over the other and over himself. That is to say, our own\nproduct has risen up against us; it seemed to be our property, but in fact\nwe are its property. We ourselves are excluded from \u003cem\u003etrue\u003c/em\u003e property\nbecause our \u003cem\u003eproperty\u003c/em\u003e excludes other men.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"077\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe only intelligible language in which we converse with one another\nconsists of our objects in their relation to each other. We would not understand\na human language and it would remain without effect. By one side it would\nbe recognised and felt as being a request, an entreaty,\u0026nbsp;\u003ca name=\"078\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\nand therefore a \u003cem\u003ehumiliation\u003c/em\u003e, and consequently uttered with a feeling\nof shame, of degradation. By the other side it would be regarded as \u003cem\u003eimpudence\u003c/em\u003e\nor \u003cem\u003elunacy\u003c/em\u003e and rejected as such. We are to such an extent estranged\nfrom man\u0027s essential nature that the direct language of this essential\nnature seems to us a \u003cem\u003eviolation of human dignity\u003c/em\u003e, whereas the estranged\nlanguage of material values seems to be the well-justified assertion of\nhuman dignity that is self-confident and conscious of itself.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"079\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough in your eyes your product is an \u003cem\u003einstrument\u003c/em\u003e, a\n\u003cem\u003emeans\u003c/em\u003e, for taking possession of my product and thus for satisfying\nyour need; yet in my eyes it is the \u003cem\u003epurpose\u003c/em\u003e of our exchange. For\nme, you are rather the means and instrument for producing this object that\nis my aim, just as conversely you stand in the same relationship to my\nobject. But 1) each of us actually \u003cem\u003ebehaves\u003c/em\u003e in the way he is regarded\nby the other. You have actually made yourself the means, the instrument,\nthe producer of \u003cem\u003eyour\u003c/em\u003e own object in order to gain possession of mine;\n2) your own object is for you only the \u003cem\u003esensuously perceptible covering\u003c/em\u003e,\nthe \u003cem\u003ehidden shape\u003c/em\u003e, of my object; for its production \u003cem\u003esignifies\u003c/em\u003e\nand seeks to \u003cem\u003eexpress\u003c/em\u003e the \u003cem\u003eacquisition\u003c/em\u003e of my object. In fact,\ntherefore, you have become for yourself a \u003cem\u003emeans\u003c/em\u003e, an \u003cem\u003einstrument\u003c/em\u003e\nof your object, of which your desire is the \u003cem\u003eservant\u003c/em\u003e, and you have\nperformed menial services in order that the object shall never again do\na favour to your desire. If then our mutual thraldom to the object at the\nbeginning of the process is now seen to be in reality the relationship\nbetween \u003cem\u003emaster\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eslave\u003c/em\u003e, that is merely the \u003cem\u003ecrude\u003c/em\u003e\nand \u003cem\u003efrank\u003c/em\u003e expression of our \u003cem\u003eessential\u003c/em\u003e relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"080\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur \u003cem\u003emutual\u003c/em\u003e value is for us the \u003cem\u003evalue\u003c/em\u003e of our mutual\nobjects. Hence for us man himself is mutually of \u003cem\u003eno value\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"081\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLet us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings.\nEach of us would have \u003cem\u003ein two ways affirmed\u003c/em\u003e himself and the other\nperson. 1) In my \u003cem\u003eproduction\u003c/em\u003e I would have objectified my \u003cem\u003eindividuality,\nits specific character\u003c/em\u003e, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual\n\u003cem\u003emanifestation of my life\u003c/em\u003e during the activity, but also when looking\nat the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality\nto be \u003cem\u003eobjective, visible to the senses\u003c/em\u003e and hence a power \u003cem\u003ebeyond\nall doubt\u003c/em\u003e. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the\n\u003cem\u003edirect\u003c/em\u003e enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a \u003cem\u003ehuman\u003c/em\u003e\nneed by my work, that is, of having objectified \u003cem\u003eman\u0027s\u003c/em\u003e essential\nnature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need\nof another \u003cem\u003eman\u0027s\u003c/em\u003e essential nature. 3) I would have been for you\nthe \u003cem\u003emediator\u003c/em\u003e between you and the species, and therefore would become\nrecognised and felt by you yourself as a completion of your own essential\nnature and as a necessary part of yourself, and consequently would know\nmyself to be confirmed both in your thought and your love. 4) In the individual\nexpression of my life I would have directly created your expression of\nyour life, and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly\n\u003cem\u003econfirmed\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003erealised\u003c/em\u003e my true nature, my \u003cem\u003ehuman\u003c/em\u003e nature,\nmy \u003cem\u003ecommunal nature\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"082\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cP\u003eOur products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our\nessential nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"083\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis relationship would moreover be reciprocal; what occurs on\nmy side has also to occur on yours.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"084\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLet us review the various factors as seen in our supposition:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"085\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMy work would be a \u003cem\u003efree manifestation of life\u003c/em\u003e, hence an\n\u003cem\u003eenjoyment of life\u003c/em\u003e. Presupposing private property, my work is an\n\u003cem\u003ealienation of life\u003c/em\u003e, for I work \u003cem\u003ein order to live\u003c/em\u003e, in order\nto obtain for myself the \u003cem\u003emeans\u003c/em\u003e of life. My work is \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e my\nlife.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"086\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecondly, the \u003cem\u003especific nature\u003c/em\u003e of my individuality, therefore,\nwould be affirmed in my labour, since the latter would be an affirmation\nof my \u003cem\u003eindividual\u003c/em\u003e life. Labour therefore would be \u003cem\u003etrue, active\nproperty\u003c/em\u003e. Presupposing private property, my individuality is alienated\nto such a degree that this \u003cem\u003eactivity is\u003c/em\u003e instead \u003cem\u003ehateful\u003c/em\u003e to\nme, a \u003cem\u003etorment\u003c/em\u003e, and rather the \u003cem\u003esemblance\u003c/em\u003e of an activity. Hence,\ntoo, it is only a \u003cem\u003eforced\u003c/em\u003e activity and one imposed on me only through\nan \u003cem\u003eexternal\u003c/em\u003e fortuitous need, \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e through an \u003cem\u003einner, essential\u003c/em\u003e\none.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"087\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMy labour can appear in my object only as what it is. It cannot\nappear as something which by its nature it is \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e. Hence it appears\nonly as the expression of my \u003cem\u003eloss of self\u003c/em\u003e and of my \u003cem\u003epowerlessness\u003c/em\u003e\nthat is objective, sensuously perceptible, obvious and therefore put beyond\nall doubt.\u003csup\u003e\u003ca href=\"#n4\"\u003e[4]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003ca name=\"088\"\u003e \u003c/a\u003e\n\n\u003chr /\u003e\n\n\u003ch3\u003eNOTES\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"n1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1.\u003c/span\u003e Translated as \u0026#8220;Monetary System\": This was a\nspecific belief among early Mercantilists. They contended that wealth consisted\nin money itself, in building bullion reserves. It\u0027s because of this that\nthe export of gold or silver was not allowed, forcing active trade balances\nbetween nations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"n2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2.\u003c/span\u003e This passage reads, in the original\nGerman: \u0026#8220;Durch die wechselseitige Ent\u0026auml;usserung oder Entfremdung des\nPrivateigentums ist das \u003cem\u003ePrivateignetum\u003c/em\u003e selbst in die Bestimmung\ndes \u003cem\u003eent\u0026auml;usserten\u003c/em\u003e Privateigentums geraten.\u0026#8221; It demonstrates\nthat, when using the terms \u0026#8220;Ent\u0026auml;usserung\u0026#8221; and \u0026#8220;Entfremdung\u0026#8221; to denote\nalienation, Marx imparted to them an identical, or nearly identical, meaning.\nIn all translations from early Marx, the Collected Works translates Ent\u0026auml;usserung\nas \u0026#8220;alienation\u0026#8221; and Entfremdung as \u0026#8220;estrangement.\u0026#8221; They made this decision\nbased on the fact that Marx would later (\u003cem\u003eTheories of Surplus-Value\u003c/em\u003e\n) directly employ the word alienation as the English equivalent of Ent\u0026auml;usserung.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"n3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3.\u003c/span\u003e This refers primarily to James Mill,\nwho divided his system of political economy into four independent sections:\nProduction, Distribution, Exchange and Consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"n4\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003c/span\u003e The rest of the conspectus contains further excerpts from Mill\u0027s book. After the excerpts dealing with the\nquestion of land rent, capital profit and wages as sources of taxation\nand state revenues, Marx wrote:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e \u0026#8220;Needless to say, Mill, like Ricardo, denies that he wishes to\nimpress on any government the idea that land rent should be made the sole\nsource of taxes, since this would be a partisan measure placing an unfair\nburden on a particular class of individuals. \u003cem\u003eBut\u003c/em\u003e \u0026#8211; and this is\na momentous, insidious but \u0026#8211; but the tax on land rent is the only tax\nthat is not \u003cem\u003eharmful\u003c/em\u003e from the standpoint of political economy, hence\nthe only \u003cem\u003ejust tax from the point of view of political economy\u003c/em\u003e. Indeed,\nthe one doubt raised by political economy is rather an attraction than\na cause for apprehension, namely, that even in a country with an ordinary\nnumber of population and or ordinary size the amount yielded by land rent\nwould exceed the needs of the government.\u0026#8221; \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026#160;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003chr\u003e\r\n\n \u003c/article\u003e"},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Core Thesis","Paragraphs":["Marx uses notes on James Mill to develop claims about money, exchange, alienation, recognition, and social relations."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Classification","Fields":[{"Label":"Alternate Titles","Value":"Notes on James Mill; Comments on James Mill\u0027s Elements of Political Economy"},{"Label":"Key Concepts","Value":"James Mill; money; exchange; alienation; recognition; needs; social relation; political economy"},{"Label":"Methodology","Value":"Historical-materialist analysis, critique of political economy, dialectical critique, philosophical polemic, archival manuscript work, journalism, and social theory."},{"Label":"Structure","Value":"The page records an approved Marx work with explicit year, source evidence, and visible coauthorship, manuscript, posthumous, or Engels-edited status where needed."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Arguments","Paragraphs":["Marx uses notes on James Mill to develop claims about money, exchange, alienation, recognition, and social relations."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Influence","Fields":[{"Label":"Influenced By","Value":"Hegel, Feuerbach, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Aristotle, Epicurus, French socialism, British political economy, and nineteenth-century revolutionary politics."},{"Label":"Influence On","Value":"Marxism, socialism, communism, critical theory, labor movements, political economy, sociology, social philosophy, philosophy of history, and twentieth-century continental thought."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Significance","Paragraphs":["Included as one of the twenty-seven direct Karl Marx work pages approved for the Karl Marx full-process repair.","The work anchors Marx\u0027s continuing relevance for capitalism, labor, alienation, class, ideology, religion critique, political economy, state power, social transformation, and historical explanation."]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Evidence Note","Paragraphs":["Accepted through Marxists archive and manuscript/scholarship evidence; HasFullText remains false."]}],"SectionSequence":["Back Link","Work Title","Deck","Author","Period","Era","Composition","Date Note","Region","Terra Avita","Terra Avita Region","Modern Country","Original Title","Language","Primary Discipline","Secondary Discipline","Tradition","Full Text","Core Thesis","Classification","Arguments","Influence","Significance","Evidence Note"],"Counts":{"ContextCards":3,"GeoCards":4,"DisciplineCards":2,"Links":11,"Sections":24,"Styles":2,"Scripts":1}}