Karl Marx 
 
                             INTRODUCTION TO  
             A CONTRIBUTION TO A CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 
          Written between end of August and middle September 1857. 
 
          Marx intended this to be the Introduction to his  
          _Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy_ (1859), 
          but, as his Preface to that work notes, he decided to  
          omit it. 
 
          The unfinished rough draft, which was found among Marx's 
          papers after his death.  First published 1903, in _Die  
          Neue Zeit_.  Would become the first manuscript in the 
          _Grundrisse_.  
 
 
    I. PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, DISTRIBUTION, EXCHANGE (CIRCULATION) 
 
 
                2.  The General Relations of Production to 
                  Distribution, Exchange and Consumption  
 
Before starting upon a further analysis of production, it is necessary 
to consider the various sections which economists place alongside it.  
 
The quite obvious conception is this: In the process of production, 
members of society appropriate (produce, fashion) natural products in 
accordance with human requirements; distribution determines the share 
the individual receives of these products; exchange supplies him with 
the particular products into which he wants to convert the portion 
accruing to him as a result of distribution; finally, by consumption, 
the products becomes objects of use -- i.e., they are appropriated by 
individuals.  Production creates articles corresponding to requirements; 
distribution allocates them according to social laws; exchange, in its 
turn, distributes the goods, which have already been allocated, in 
conformity with individual needs; finally, in consumption, the product 
leaves this social movement and it becomes the direct object and servant 
of an individual need, which use it satisfies.  Production thus appears 
as the point of departure, consumption as the goal, distribution and 
exchange as the middle -- which has a dual form since, according to the 
definition, distribution is actuated by society and exchange is actuated 
by individuals.  In production, p[persons acquire an objective aspect, 
and in consumption objects acquire a subjective aspect; in distribution, 
it is society which, by means of dominant general rules, mediates 
between production and consumption; in exchange, this mediation occurs 
as a result of random decisions of individuals.  
 
Distribution determines the proportion (the quantity) of the products 
accruing to the individual, exchange determines the products in which 
the individual claims to make up the share assigned to him by 
distribution.  
 
Production, distribution, exchange and consumption, thus, form a proper 
syllogism; production represents the general, distribution and exchange 
the particular, and consumption the individual case, which sums up the 
whole.  This is indeed a sequence, but a very superficial one.  
Production is determined by general laws of nature; distribution by 
random social factors, it may therefore exert a more-or-less beneficial 
influence on production; exchange, a formal social movement, lies 
between these two; and consumption, as the concluding act, which is 
regarded not only as the final aim but as the ultimate purpose, falls 
properly outside the sphere of economy -- except insofar as it in turn 
exerts a reciprocal action on the point of departure, thus once again 
initiating the whole process.  
 
The opponents of the economists, who accuse the latter of crudely 
separating interconnected elements, either argue from the same 
standpoint or even from a lower one -- no matter whether these opponents 
come from within or without the domain of political economy.  Nothing is 
more common that the reproach that the economists regard production as a 
goal in itself, and that distribution is equally important.  This 
argument is based on the concept of the economists that distribution is 
a separate and independent sphere alongside production.  Another 
argument is that the different factors are not considered as a single 
whole; as though this separation had forced its way from the textbook 
into real life and not, on the contrary, from real life into the 
textbooks; and as though it were a question of the dialectic 
reconciliation of concepts, and not of the resolution of actually 
existing conditions.  
 
     (a) Production and Consumption 
 
Production is simultaneously consumption as well.  It is consumption in 
a dual form -- subjective and objective consumption.  Firstly, the 
individual, who develops his abilities while producing, expends them as 
well, using them up in the act of production, just as in natural 
procreation, vital energy is consumed.  Secondly, it is consumption of 
the means of production -- which are used and used up and in part (as 
for instance fuel) are broken down into simpler components.  It 
similarly involves consumption of raw material, which is absorbed and 
does not retain its original shape and quality.  The act of production 
itself is thus, in all its phases, also an act of consumption.  The 
economists concede this.  They call productive consumption, production 
that is simultaneously identical with consumption, and consumption which 
is directly concurrent with production.  The identity of production and 
consumption amounts to Spinoza's proposition: _Determinatio est 
negatio_.  
 
But this definition of productive consumption is only advanced in order 
to separate consumption that is identical with production from 
consumption in the proper sense, which is regarded by contrast as the 
destructive antithesis or production.  Let us therefore consider 
consumption proper.  
 
Consumption is simultaneously also production -- just as in nature, the 
production of a plant involves the consumption of elemental forces and 
chemical materials.  It is obvious that man produces his own body (e.g., 
through feeding, one form of consumption).  But the same applies to any 
other kind of consumption which in one way or another contributes to the 
production of some aspect of man.  Hence, this is consumptive 
production.  Nevertheless, says political economy, this type of 
production that is identical with consumption is a secondary phase 
arising from the destruction of the first product.  In the first type of 
production, the producer assumes an objective aspect; in the second 
type, the objects created by him assume a personal aspect.  Hence, this 
consuming production -- although it represents a direct unity of 
production and consumption -- is essentially different from production 
proper.  The direct unity, in which production is concurrent with 
consumption and consumption with production, does not affect their 
simultaneous duality.  
 
Production is, thus, at the same time consumption, and consumption is at 
the same time production.  Each is simultaneously its opposite.  But an 
intermediary movement takes place between the two at the same time.  
Production leads to consumption, for which it provides the material; 
consumption without production would have no object.  But consumption 
also leads to production by providing for its products the subject for 
whom they are products.  The product attains its final consummation in 
consumption.  A railway on which no one travels (which is therefore not 
used up, not consumed) is potentially, but not actually, a railway.  
Without production, there is no consumption; but without consumption, 
there is no production, either -- since in that case production would be 
useless.  Consumption produces production in two ways.  
 
  1.  Because a product becomes a real product only through consumption.  
      For example, a dress really becomes a dress only by being worn, a 
      house which is uninhabited is indeed not really a house -- in 
      other words, a product (as distinct from a simple natural object) 
      manifest itself as a product, becomes a product, only in 
      consumption.  It is only consumption which, by destroying the 
      product, gives it the finishing touch -- for the product is a 
      product not because it is materialized activity, but only in so 
      far as it is an object for the active subject.  
 
  2.  Because consumption creates the need for _new_ production, and 
      therefore provides production with the conceptual, intrinsically 
      actuating reason for production, which is the precondition for 
      production.  Consumption furnishes the impulse to produce, as well 
      as providing the object, which acts as the determining purpose of 
      production.  If it is evident that, externally, production 
      supplies the object of production as a _concept_, an internal 
      image, a need, a motive, a purpose.  Consumption furnishes the 
      object or production in a form that is still subjective.  There is 
      no production without a need, but consumption re-creates the need.  
 
  This is matched on the side of production.  
 
  1.  By the fact that production supplies the material, the object of 
      consumption.  Consumption without an object is no consumption; in 
      this respect, therefore, production creates, produces consumption.  
 
  2.  But production provides not only the object of consumption, it 
      also gives the consumption a distinct form, a character, a finish.  
      Just as consumption puts the finishing touch on the product as a 
      product, so production puts the finishing touch to consumption.  
      The object is not simply an object in general, but a particular 
      object which must be consumed in a particular way, a way 
      determined by production.  Hunger is hunger; but the hunger that 
      is satisfied by cooked meat eaten with a knife and fork differs 
      from hunger that devours raw meat with the help of hands, nails 
      and teeth.  Production this produces not only the object of 
      consumption but also the mode of consumption, not only objectively 
      but also subjectively.  Production therefore creates the consumer.  
 
  3.  Production not only provides the material to satisfy a need, but 
      it also provides the need for the material.  When consumption 
      emerges from its original primitive crudeness and immediacy -- and 
      its remaining in that state would be due to the fact that 
      production was still primitively crude -- then it is itself, as a 
      desire, brought about by the object.  The need felt for the object 
      is induced by the perception of the object.  An _objet d'art_ 
      creates a public that has artistic taste and is able to enjoy 
      beauty -- and the same can be said of any other product.  
      Production accordingly produces not only an object for the 
      subject, but also a subject for the object.  
 
Hence production produces consumption:  
 
     1.  by providing the material of consumption;  
 
     2.  by determining the mode of consumption;  
 
     3.  by creating in the consumer a need for the objects which it 
         first presents as products.   
 
It therefore produces the object of consumption, the mode of consumption 
and the urge to consume.  Similarly, consumption produces the 
_predisposition_ of the producer by positing him as a purposive 
requirement.  
 
The identity of consumption and production has three aspects: 
 
  1.  Direct identity:  Production is consumption and consumption is 
      production.  Consumptive production and productive consumption.  
      Economists call both productive consumption, but they still make a 
      distinction.  The former figures in their work as reproduction, 
      the latter as productive consumption.  All investigations 
      concerning the former are concerned with productive and 
      unproductive labor, concerning the latter with productive and 
      non-productive consumption.  
 
  2.  Each appears as a means of the other, as being induced by it; this 
      is called their mutual dependence; they are thus brought into 
      mutual relation and appear to be indispensable to each other, but 
      nevertheless remain extrinsic to each other.  Production provides 
      the material which is the external object of consumption, 
      consumption provides the need -- i.e., the internal object, the 
      purpose of production.  There is no consumption without 
      production, and no production without consumption.  This 
      proposition appears in various forms in political economy.  
 
  3.  Production is not only simultaneously consumption, and consumption 
      simultaneously production; nor is production only a means of 
      consumption and consumption the purpose of production -- i.e., 
      each provides the other with its objects, production supplying the 
      external object of consumption, and consumption the conceptual 
      object of production -- in other words, each of them is not only 
      simultaneously the other, and not merely the cause of the other, 
      but each of them by being carried through creates the other, it 
      creates itself as the other.  it is only consumption that 
      consummates the process of production, since consumption completes 
      the product as a product by destroying it, by consuming its 
      independent concrete form.  Moreover, by its needs for repetition, 
      consumption leads to the perfection of abilities evolved during 
      the first process of production and converts them into skills.  
      Consumption is therefore the concluding act which turns not only 
      the product into a product, but also the producer into a producer.  
      Production, on the other hand, produces consumption by creating a 
      definite mode of consumption, and by providing an incentive to 
      consumption it thereby creates the capability to consume as a 
      requirement.  The last kind of identity, which is defined in point 
      3, has been variously interpreted by economists when discussing 
      the relation of demand and supply, of objects and needs, of needs 
      created by society and natural needs.  
 
After this, nothing is simpler for a Hegelian than to assume that 
production and consumption are identical.  And this has been done not 
only by socialist _belletrists_ but also by prosaic economists, such as 
Say, in declaring that if one considers a nation -- or mankind _in 
abstracto_ -- then its production is its consumption.  Storch has shown 
that this proposition of Say's is wrong, since a nation, for instance, 
does not consume its entire product, but must also provide means of 
production, fixed capital, etc.  It is, moreover, wrong to consider 
society as a single individual, as in speculative reasoning.  With an 
individual, production and consumption appear as different aspects of 
one act.  The important point to be emphasized here is that if 
production and consumption be considered as activities of one 
individual, or of separate individuals, they appear at any rate as 
aspects of one process in which production forms the actual 
starting-point and is, therefore, the predominating factor.  
Consumption, as a natural necessity, as a want, constitutes an internal 
factor of productive activity, but the latter is the starting-point of 
realization and, therefore, its predominating factor, the act into which 
the entire process resolves itself in the end.  The individual produces 
a certain article and turns again into himself by consuming it; but he 
returns as a productive and self-reproducing individual.  Consumption 
thus appears as a factor of production.  
 
In society, however, the relation of the producer to his product, as 
soon as it is completed, is an outward one, and the return of the 
product to the individual depends on his relations to other individuals.  
He does not take immediate possession of it.  Nor does the direct 
appropriation of the product constitute his purpose, when he produces in 
society.  Between the producer and the product, distribution steps in, 
which determines (by social laws) his share in the world of products; 
that is to say, distribution steps in between production and 
consumption.  
 
Does distribution form an independent sector alongside and outside 
production? 
 
     (b) Production and distribution 
 
When looking through the ordinary run of economic works, one's attention 
is attracted forthwith by the fact that everything is mentioned twice -- 
e.g., rent, wages, interest and profit figure under the heading 
distribution, while under the heading of production, land, labor and 
capital.  As to capital, it is evident from the outset that this is 
counted twice: first as a factor of production, and secondly as a source 
of income (i.e., as a determining and determinate form of distribution).  
Interest and profit appear therefore in production as well, since they 
are forms in which capital increases and grows, and are thus phases of 
its production.  As forms of distribution, interest and capital 
presuppose capital as a factor of production.  They are forms of 
distribution whose precondition is the existence of capital as a factor 
of production.  They are likewise modes of production of capital.  
 
Wages represent also wage-labor, which is examined in a different 
section; the particular function that labor performs as a factor of 
production in the one case appears as a function of distribution in the 
other.  If labor did not have the distinct form of wage-labor, then its 
share in the product would not appear as wages, as for instance in 
slavery.  Finally, rent -- if we take the most advanced form of 
distribution by which landed property obtains a share in the products -- 
presupposes large-scale landed property (strictly speaking, large-scale 
agriculture) as a factor of production, and not land in general; just as 
wages do not presuppose labor in general.  The relations and modes of 
distribution are thus merely the reverse aspect of the factors of 
production.  An individual whose participation in production takes the 
form of wage-labor will receive a share in the product, the result of 
production, in the form of wages.  The structure of distribution is 
entirely determined by the structure of production.  distribution itself 
is a product of production, not only with regard to the content, for 
only the results of production can be distributed, but also with regard 
to the form, since the particular mode of men's participation in 
production determines the specific form of distribution, the form in 
which they share in distribution.  It is altogether an illusion to speak 
of land in the section of production, and of rent in the section on 
distribution, etc.  
 
Economists like Ricardo, who are mainly accused of having paid exclusive 
attention to production, have accordingly regarded distribution as the 
exclusive subject of political economy -- for they have instinctively 
treated the forms of distribution as the most precise expression in 
which factors of production manifest themselves in a given society.  
 
To the single individual, distribution naturally appears as a social 
law, which determines his position within the framework of production, 
and within which he produces; distribution thus being antecedent to 
production.  An individual who has neither capital nor landed property 
of his own is dependent on wage-labor from his birth as a consequence of 
social distribution.  But this dependence is itself the result of the 
existence of capital and landed property as independent factors of 
production.  
 
When one considers whole societies, still another aspect of distribution 
appears to be antecedent to production and to determine it, as though it 
were an ante-economic factor.  
 
     - A conquering nation may divide the land among the conquerors and, 
       in this way, impose a distinct mode of distribution and for of 
       landed property (thus determining production).  Or, 
 
     - it may turn the population into slaves, thus making slave-labor 
       the basis of production.  Or, 
 
     - in the course of a revolution, a nation may divide large estates 
       into plots, thus altering the character of production in 
       consequence of the new distribution.  Or,  
 
     - legislation may perpetuate land ownership in certain families, or 
       allocate labor as a hereditary privilege, thus consolidating it 
       into a caste system. 
 
In all these cases (and they have all occurred in history) it seems that 
distribution is not regulated and determined by production but, on the 
contrary, production by distribution.  
 
Distribution, according to the most superficial interpretation, is 
distribution of products; it is thus removed farther from production and 
made quasi-independent of it.  But, before distribution becomes 
distribution of products, it is 
 
      (1) distribution of the means of production, and 
 
      (2) (which is another aspect of the same situation) distribution 
          of the members of society among the various types of 
          production (the subsuming of the individuals under definite 
          relations of production).  
 
It is evident that the distribution of products is merely a result of 
this distribution -- which is comprised in the production process and 
determines the structure of production.  To examine production divorced 
from this distribution which is a constituent part of it, is obviously 
idle abstraction; whereas conversely the distribution of products is 
automatically determined by that distribution which forms a primary 
factor of production.  Ricardo, the economist of production _par 
excellence_, whose object was the understanding of modern production and 
of its distinct social structure, for this very reason declares that 
distribution, _not_ production, is the proper subject of contemporary 
political economy.  This is a witness to the banality of those 
economists who proclaim production as an eternal truth, and confine 
history to the domain of distribution.  
 
The question as to the relation between that form of distribution that 
determines production and production itself, belongs obviously to the 
sphere of production.  If it should be said that, in this case at least, 
since production must proceed from a specific distribution of the means 
of production, distribution is to this extent antecedent to, and a 
prerequisite of, production, then the reply would be as follows.  
Production has indeed its conditions and prerequisites which are 
constituent elements of it.  At the very outset, these may have seemed 
to be naturally evolved.  In the course of production, however, they are 
transformed from naturally evolved factors into historical ones, and, 
although they may appear as natural preconditions for any one period, 
they are the historical result of another period.  For example, the 
employment of machinery led to changes in the distribution of both the 
means of production and the product.  Modern, large-scale landed 
property has been brought about not only by modern trade and modern 
industry, but also by the application of the latter to agriculture.  
 
The above-mentioned questions can be ultimately resolved into this: what 
role do general historical conditions play in production and the 
relations of production to the historical development as a whole? This 
question clearly belongs to the analysis and discussion of production.  
 
In the trivial form, however, in which these questions have been raised 
above, they can be dealt with quite briefly.  Conquests may lead to 
either of three results.  
 
     - The conquering nation may impose its own mode of production upon 
       the conquered people (this was done, for example, by the English 
       in Ireland during this century, and to some extent in India); or, 
 
     - it may refrain from interfering in the old mode of production and 
       be content with tribute (e.g., Turks and Romans); or, 
 
     - interaction may take place between the two, giving rise to a new 
       system as a synthesis (this occurred partly in the Germanic 
       conquests).  
 
In any case, it is the mode of production -- whether that of the 
conquering nation, or of the conquered, or the new system brought about 
by a merging of the two -- that determines the new mode of distribution 
employed.  Although the latter appears to be a precondition of the new 
period of production, it is in its turn a result of production, a result 
not simply occassioned by the historical evolution of production in 
general, but by a specific historical form of production.  
 
The Mongols, for example, who caused devastation in Russia, acted in 
accordance with their mode of production (cattle breeding) for which 
large, uninhabited tracts are a fundamental requirement.  The Germanic 
barbarians, whose traditional mode of production was agriculture with 
the aid of serfs, and who lived scattered over the countryside, could 
more easily adapt the Roman provinces to their requirements because the 
concentration of landed property carried out there had already uprooted 
the older agricultural relations.  It is a long-established view that 
over certain epochs, people lived by plunder.  But in order to be able 
to plunder, there must be something to be plundered, and this implies 
production.  Moreover, the manner of plunder depends itself on the 
manner of production -- e.g., a stock-jobbing nation cannot be robbed in 
the same way as a nation of cowherds.  
 
The means of production may be robbed directly in the form of slaves.  
But in that case, it is necessary that the structure of production in 
the country to which the slave is abducted admits of slave labor, or (as 
in South America, etc.) a mode of production appropriate to slave labor 
has to be evolved.  
 
Laws may perpetuate a particular means of production -- e.g., land, in 
certain families.  These laws acquire economic significance only if 
large-scale landed property is in keeping with the social mode of 
production -- as for instance in Britain.  Agriculture was carried on in 
France on a small scale, despite the existence of large estates, which 
were therefore parcelled out by the Revolution.  But is it possible 
(e.g., by law) to perpetuate the division of land into small lots? 
Landed property tends to become concentrated again, despite these laws.  
The influence exercised by laws on the preservation of existing 
conditions of distribution, and the effect they thereby exert on 
production has to be examined separately.  
 
 
     (c) Lastly, Exchange and Circulation 
     
Circulation is merely a particular phase of exchange, or of exchange 
regarded in its totality.  
 
Since exchange is simply an intermediate phase between production and 
distribution, which is determined by production, and consumption; since 
consumption is moreover itself an aspect of production, the latter 
obviously comprises also exchange as one of its aspects.  
 
Firstly, it is evident that exchange of activities and skills, which 
takes place in production itself, is a direct and essential part of 
production.  Secondly, the same applies to the exchange of products in 
so far as this exchange is a means to manufacture the finished product 
intended for immediate consumption.  The action of exchange in this 
respect is comprised in the concept of production.  Thirdly, what is 
known as exchange between dealer and dealer, both with respect to its 
organization and as a productive activity, is entirely determined by 
production.  Exchange appears to exist independently alongside 
production and detached from it only in the last stage, when the product 
is exchanged for immediate consumption.  But, 
 
     (1) no exchange is possible without division of labor, whether this 
         is naturally evolved or is already the result of an historical 
         process; 
 
     (2) private exchange presupposes private production; 
 
     (3) the intensity of exchange, its extent and nature, are 
         determined by the development and structure of production -- 
         e.g., exchange between town and country, exchange in the 
         countryside, in the town, etc.  All aspects of exchange to this 
         extent appear either to be directly comprised in production or 
         else determined by it.  
 
The conclusion which follows from this is, not that production, 
distribution, exchange and consumption are identical, but that they are 
links, or sections, of a single whole, different aspect of one unit.  
Production is the decisive phase both with regard to the contradictory 
aspects of production and with regard to the other phases.  The process 
always starts afresh with production.  That exchange and consumption 
cannot be the decisive elements, is obvious, and the same applies to 
distribution in the sense of distribution of products.  distribution of 
the factors of production thus determines the specific mode of 
consumption, distribution, exchange and the _specific relations of these 
different phases to one another_.  Production, _in the narrow sense_, 
however, is in its turn also determined by the other aspects.  For 
example, if the market, or the sphere of exchange, expands, then the 
volume of production grows and tends to become more differentiated.  
Production also changes in consequence to changes in distribution -- 
e.g., concentration of capital, different distribution of the population 
in town and countryside, and the like.  Production is, finally, 
determined by the demands of consumption.  There is an interaction 
between the various aspects.  Such interaction takes place in any 
organic entity.  
 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
                                            transcribed by zodiac@io.org 
                                           report errors to that address