Sparks Commentary: A few problems with Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” (Volume One)

“We have further seen that the capitalist buys with the same capital a greater mass of labour power, as he progressively replaces skilled labourers by less skilled, mature labour power by immature, male by female, that of adults by that of young persons or children.”

– Karl Marx, in “Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie” (“Capital: A Critique of Political Economy”), Volume 1 (published 1867), Part 1, Chapter 25

So I recently finished reading the first volume of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital.” It seemed to me that many a fallacy could be found therein. A few examples may suffice here to show how the problems with “Das Kapital” seem to begin in the very first volume. Thus, without further ado, let me launch into some of the problems with Volume One. They include faulty definitions, self-contradictions, circular arguments, and many other problems – as I will soon show.

Karl Marx

Value depends on use value, and exchange value (“social use value”) depends on use value

I’m not aware of Marx giving a precise definition of “value” anywhere in this volume. But this paragraph may be as good a place as any to start. In Marx’s words: “A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.)[footnote] Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 1, as translated by Marxists.org)

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

But exchange value is “totally independent” of use value (apparently even for others)

Thus, in order to produce commodities, one “must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values.” (as cited above). Thus, “use values for others, social use values” … seems to be a roundabout way of saying “exchange-values” (as Marx would later call it). Incidentally, in the footnote to the above, Engels adds: “I am inserting the parenthesis because its omission has often given rise to the misunderstanding that every product that is consumed by some one other than its producer is considered in Marx a commodity. [Engels, 4th German Edition]” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 1) This seems to contradict the argument in the original passage, to which Engels’ comment is footnoted (as shown in the previous paragraph). But the greater contradiction comes soon after that. Specifically, Marx says that “We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value.” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 1) This seems to contradict the argument that one “must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values.” More to the point, how can exchange value be “totally independent” of use-value in the first place? It’s gotta have use-value for somebody, before it can have exchange-value. This is one of many mysteries, in the labyrinth of “Das Kapital.”

Friedrich Engels

Things need value before they can have use-value, and use-value before they can have value

Marx then gives some circular arguments in the next passage. In Marx’s words:

“All commodities are non-use-values for their owners, and use-values for their non-owners. Consequently, they must all change hands. But this change of hands is what constitutes their exchange, and the latter puts them in relation with each other as values, and realises them as values. Hence commodities must be realised as values before they can be realised as use-values.

On the other hand, they must show that they are use-values before they can be realised as values.” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 2)

Karl Marx

The above statement is a circular argument, suggesting chicken-and-egg problems

The above statement seems a little circular, to say the least. If “commodities must be realised as values before they can be realised as use-values,” then how can they “show that they are use-values before they can be realised as values”? Apparently, each one would require the other to exist first. Thus, what came first – the chicken or the egg? Or, more literally, the “use-values” or the “values”? Marx seems to give us no helpful answer here.

Karl Marx

The function of gold as coin becomes “completely independent” of its metallic value

Marx also makes confusing statements about the relationship between the function of coin and its metallic value. In Marx’s words, “The weight of metal in the silver and copper tokens is arbitrarily fixed by law. When in currency, they wear away even more rapidly than gold coins. Hence their functions are totally independent of their weight, and consequently of all value. The function of gold as coin becomes completely independent of the metallic value of that gold.” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 2 C) In fairness, it’s true that the exchange-value of coined metals is partially dependent upon the society’s decision to officially use these coins as money. But that does not mean that their function as coin is “completely” independent of their metallic value – partially independent, yes, but not “completely” independent. The word “completely” is an overstatement that’s unworthy of a “great mind” like Karl Marx. Indeed, it casts doubt upon whether or not he has the ability to think clearly, about issues of great economic importance.

Karl Marx

“Coats are not exchanged for coats” (as if all coats were the same)

Marx also seems to assume that all items of a particular type must be homogenous. In his words, “Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value is not exchanged for another of the same kind.” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 2) Apparently, if Marx is correct, all coats must be the same (in size, color, warmth, and fanciness) and we can’t exchange one kind of coat for another. One can’t exchange a red coat for a blue coat, or a kid-size coat for an adult-size coat. A Marxist reader thus might charitably assume that this is only a typo. But, in the same chapter, Marx also says that “It is not possible to express the value of linen in linen.” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 3) Thus, if Marx is correct, all linen must be the same, too – in color and everything. Two misstatements of the same type are harder to explain as “just being typos.”

Friedrich Engels

“It is not possible to express the value of linen in linen” (as if all linen were the same)

Thus, Marx argues as if all coats were the same, as if all linen were the same, and as if all commodities of the same type must therefore be the same (as cited above). But this is contrary to some obvious facts about economics. Some coats are different from others, and some linen is different from other linen. That’s just true. Thus, these two statements remain hard for pro-Marxist scholars to explain. They seem to cast doubt upon Marxist scholarship.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

To set up his next argument, Marx quotes British prime minister William Gladstone

Now I must set up my next argument by giving the context of another Marx passage. Referring to the British prime minister William Gladstone, Karl Marx once said: “Thus spake this unctuous minister in the House of Commons of February 13th, 1843. On April 16th, 1863, 20 years later, in the speech in which he [Gladstone] introduced his Budget:

‘From 1842 to 1852 the taxable income of the country increased by 6 per cent.... In the 8 years from 1853 to 1861 it had increased from the basis taken in 1853 by 20 per cent.! The fact is so astonishing as to be almost incredible ... this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power ... entirely confined to classes of property ... must be of indirect benefit to the labouring population, because it cheapens the commodities of general consumption. While the rich have been growing richer, the poor have been growing less poor. At any rate, whether the extremes of poverty are less, I do not presume to say.’ [footnote]” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 25)

William Gladstone

Apparently, reducing absolute poverty is unimpressive, if relative poverty is going up

Karl Marx then comments upon the above passage, saying: “How lame an anti-climax! If the working class has remained ‘poor,’ only ‘less poor’ in proportion as it produces for the wealthy class ‘an intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power,’ then it has remained relatively just as poor. If the extremes of poverty have not lessened, they have increased, because the extremes of wealth have.” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 25) Thus, reducing absolute poverty seems to be “unimpressive” to Marx, if relative poverty has “increased.” That is, it doesn’t matter to Marx if people are “less poor” in absolute terms, if he believes that they are “relatively just as poor.” The upshot of this seems to be that relative poverty is far more important to him than “absolute” poverty.

Karl Marx

Thus, Marx seems to hold relative poverty to be far more important than absolute poverty

Even if everyone seems to be richer in absolute terms, he still implies them to be “worse off,” if there’s a greater “gap” between rich and poor than there was before. Thus, I freely admit that I’m having some trouble following his logic. He seems to want to “abolish” all of these class distinctions, and have everyone making the same amount of income. Or, at the very least, he would be all right with everyone having smaller incomes than before, if the gaps between their respective incomes are narrowed somewhat.

1867 edition of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital”

Whether or not communism ended relative poverty, it certainly increased absolute poverty

This kind of logic seems to have actually been applied in communist countries (as I establish here). Their result has simply been that absolute poverty has increased dramatically. Whether or not these systems did indeed abolish “relative poverty” … is a dubious and speculative enterprise. But, whatever they did or did not abolish in this area, they certainly increased absolute poverty to starvation levels. If so, that seems to reflect rather poorly on the actual track record of Marxist countries (as I show here). And, yes, communism was tried – as I show here. Further arguments on that score will soon be available in another post.

Long line for cooking oil – Soviet Romania, 1986

Conclusion: The problems with “Das Kapital” may have begun in the very first volume

Thus, the problems with “Das Kapital” seem to have begun in the very first volume of the work. When reading it, I often wonder how Marx ever came to be considered such a “great authority” on economics. His works may have been written with the trappings of scientific analysis, but they seem to resemble a religion more than a true science. Moreover, the quality of his words … seems not really to be commensurate with their considerable quantity. That is, his words continue to be empty, more than a century later.

Marx depicts capitalists as essentially comic book villains from children’s cartoon shows

In one passage, Marx seems to depict capitalists in the same way that children’s cartoon shows depict comic book villains. As Marx himself puts it:

“Let him [the capitalist] therefore console himself with the reflection that virtue is its own reward. But no, he becomes importunate. He says: ‘The yarn is of no use to me: I produced it for sale.’ In that case let him sell it, or, still better, let him for the future produce only things for satisfying his personal wants, a remedy that his physician MacCulloch has already prescribed as infallible against an epidemic of over-production. He now gets obstinate. ‘Can the labourer,’ he asks, ‘merely with his arms and legs, produce commodities out of nothing? Did I not supply him with the materials, by means of which, and in which alone, his labour could be embodied? And as the greater part of society consists of such ne’er-do-wells, have I not rendered society incalculable service by my instruments of production, my cotton and my spindle, and not only society, but the labourer also, whom in addition I have provided with the necessaries of life? And am I to be allowed nothing in return for all this service?’ Well, but has not the labourer rendered him the equivalent service of changing his cotton and spindle into yarn? Moreover, there is here no question of service. [footnote] A service is nothing more than the useful effect of a use-value, be it of a commodity, or be it of labour. [footnote] But here we are dealing with exchange-value. The capitalist paid to the labourer a value of 3 shillings, and the labourer gave him back an exact equivalent in the value of 3 shillings, added by him to the cotton: he gave him value for value. Our friend, up to this time so purse-proud, suddenly assumes the modest demeanour of his own workman, and exclaims: ‘Have I myself not worked? Have I not performed the labour of superintendence and of overlooking the spinner? And does not this labour, too, create value?’ His overlooker and his manager try to hide their smiles. Meanwhile, after a hearty laugh, he re-assumes his usual mien. Though he chanted to us the whole creed of the economists, in reality, he says, he would not give a brass farthing for it. He leaves this and all such like subterfuges and juggling tricks to the professors of Political Economy, who are paid for it. He himself is a practical man; and though he does not always consider what he says outside his business, yet in his business he knows what he is about.” (Source: Part 1, Chapter 8)

The capitalist’s monologue is even complete with an evil laugh – or “a hearty laugh,” as Marx puts it. This passage seems like it belongs in a fictional novel, where putting words into a character’s mouth would be a more accepted practice. More to the point, the role of managing workers, and organizing them towards a common goal, really does count as actual work – as actual added value. Here, Marx’s lack of real-world business experience is showing. It would be as if Marx had an argument with a straw man, and lost the argument. That’s how bad this passage is.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

A few problems with “The Communist Manifesto”

A review of “The Communist Manifesto” (audiobook)

A review of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” (audiobook)

The “labor theory of value,” as introduced in “Das Kapital” Volume One

Karl Marx contradicted himself about zero-sum games (same volume)

Are monopolies really as dangerous as Marx said they were? (other work)

Struggle over the Marxist heritage: The battle for the ivory tower

Behind the Iron Curtain: Occupation by the Soviet Union

Does communism cause poverty? (The two experiments that prove it does)

Actually, communism HAS been tried (and it doesn’t work)

Part of a series about