Das Kapital

Two core concepts in Marx’s analysis that are introduced here are the means of production and the alienation of the worker. Marx asserts that the relationship between a worker and their employer, or “capitalist” (254), is completely lopsided. This is because the capitalist controls the “means of production” (272). In Capital, Marx never offers a precise definition of the phrase “means of production.” However, throughout the text, it is used to refer to a variety of things that the worker uses during their work shift: mainly tools, machines, and raw materials but also the building, the workspace, and any food and drink that might be provided by the employer. The important point is that all of these things that the worker needs to perform their tasks are owned completely by the capitalist. For the most part (but not always), when Marx discusses the means of production, he is describing factory or workshop workers.

However, one could apply means of production more broadly to other professions as well. For example, a college professor does not own the lecture hall, their office computer, or the resources to advertise the courses they teach. In certain cases, the university may also have a claim to some of their intellectual property on the basis that the professor used their labs and other scientific and technological resources. This contradiction between what a worker produces or what services they provide and the actual value given to that work is part of Marx’s understanding of The Contradictions of Capitalism.

The second concept is the “alienation […] of labour-power” (277). The alienation takes several forms. First, it comes from the worker not being able to control the means of production to make their own commodities. For example, a worker at a deli may make sandwiches for sale to customers, but they may not be allowed to eat the food they produce themselves without paying a full or a discounted price for it; oftentimes, a worker may not be able to buy a single sandwich from one hour’s pay, while in that hour they may create dozens of sandwiches they are forbidden from eating. Another example of alienation would be that a worker who helps make cars may not be able to afford one of the cars they help produce themselves.

Second, because money can obscure the value of other commodities in relation to The Labor Theory of Value, money is “the absolutely alienable commodity, the other way is that the worker is not usually paid immediately for their labor, because it is all other commodities divested of their shape” (205). Finally, wages are instead paid at the end of a set period, such as a week or a month. As Marx describes the situation, “Everywhere the worker gives credit to the capitalist” (278). These factors all prevent workers from producing their own commodities to make enough of a profit to provide their own means of subsistence, forcing them to rely on the social arrangements created by capitalists. They also obscure the real value of the workers’ labor and set the situation of compensating workers to the advantage of the capitalist.

Marx also begins to define the role of a capitalist. Essentially, the capitalist is a middleman who places themselves between the exchange of commodities that takes place with the producer and the buyer. By playing the role of middleman, the capitalist is able to extract additional value from the C-M-Cexchange and create capital. This is the “contradiction” Marx refers to (231), where somehow “money […] is exchanged for more money” (267). Marx elaborates on this concept later as he discusses surplus value more at length. Here, Marx just notes that it is this process of generating additional value out of a C-M-C exchange that defines a capitalist (254-55).