I probably dived more into this section than any other because it covers some of the foundational arguments for Marxism. Unlike some of the other sections where I more or less reproduced the text with little commentary, this contains a LOT of my own commentary mixed in with the summary of the text. I haven’t bothered trying to summarize the entire thing point by point. I really just wanted to analyze the arguments.

Summary
Money, wage-labor, credit, and banking are all forms of human alienation. They transform man from a real living individual into an abstract caricature of his true self. The system of exchange transforms man from a real living individual into an abstract caricature of his true self. The system of exchange is social intercourse not between men, but between men as things of value, that is, an alienated form of social intercourse.  

Finally, Marx expounds his positive ideas on labor as the free expression of human nature, based on love and mutual affirmation.

Text
Marx questions Mill’s economic laws, which he says don’t really capture the whole. As such, the laws Mill describes aren’t really laws at all. The only true law, Marx says, is chance.

Marx says Mill correctly sums up the matter when he calls money the medium of exchange. Marx says the very fact of this medium is what estranges man from the products he makes. Money turns him into a lost, dehumanized creature. Man is no longer the mediator with other men, thus his slavery reaches a climax.

Separated from the mediator, money, objects lose their worth, because now, they only have value insofar as they represent him, whereas he used to represent them. (?)

Credit
Marx mentions two situations where credit is conceivable. The first is a rich man extends credit to a poor man whom he regards as industrious. From there, Marx says “the poor man’s life, his talent and his labors serve the rich man as a guarantee that the money he has lent will be returned. The totality of the poor man’s social  virtues, the content of his life’s activity, his very existence, represent for the rich man the repayment of his capital with interest. We should reflect on the immorality implicit in the evaluation of a man in terms of money, such as we find in the credit system."  

Except it was Marx who decided that rather than just the poor guy needing to pay back money he borrowed, it was the “totality of the poor man’s social  virtues, the content of his life’s activity, his very existence” that was wrapped up in this… and then we are told to reflect on the immorality in the system. This is fairly common in Marx’s assertions. He defines this relationship in the worst possible terms, then declares it immoral.

In the second instance, which is credit lent to a man with means, Marx asserts that credit is the “economic judgment on the morality of a man.” I find very little reason to accept that Marx’s assertions about the deeper meaning of credit are true.  

The Ideal Society
Marx has an ideal that he is after. People make products with their own hands, which makes them “human products” and exchange them directly with others, which is social activity and social enjoyment, and this is the true essence of man in true community. Man, in fact, is not truly man unless he is useful in his community.  

There is something to this, I agree. We are communal and we are meant to be in communion with others. But Marx feels that unless we do things the way he says would work best, it’s all “estrangement” and “alienation”. I don’t see any justification for this.

Private Property
Of private property, Marx says economics begins with the relations between men as relations between private property owners. If we assume that private property is man’s personal, distinguishing, and hence essential existence- then it follows that the loss of that private property is the alienation of the man as much as the property itself.

So to follow along, the private property that men own can be any commodity that is “theirs”. I own a bike, it’s my property, not community property. So what justification is there for assuming that bike is my personal, distinguishing, and essential existence? Suppose we exchange modern man for prehistoric man, and the bike the modern man bought for a canoe the prehistoric man built, which, in Marx’s ideal world, prehistoric man could exchange in a social setting and be his true human self…. why is the canoe that belongs to prehistoric man not be recast as his essential existence, while the modern man’s bike is? Of course, neither are. But there is some mystical logic going on in Marx’s mind to draw such conclusions. “If we assume…” He says… but what justification is there for assuming such a thing, which doesn’t seem to follow at all from the facts on the ground.

He follows this up with a situation where the man cedes his property to another, presumably, for example, he sells his bike. Marx calls this: externalizing or alienating the man’s private property.  

Well…. he sold it, so it isn’t his any longer… so I guess that’s one way of putting it. Marx asks, “how do I ever come to alienate my property to another?  Need. The other man has something I lack, but which I neither can, nor will, dispense with, which I need to complete my own existence and to realize my own essence.”

So, in case you haven’t guessed it, the thing the other has that I lack is money. Because I sold the bike…. and the guy paid for it. Clearly, I decided I’d rather have the money than the bike, so we traded. This simple transaction is recast in the most dire terms. I’ve alienated my private property for something that I need to complete my own existence and realize my essence. My god, that sounds monstrous, when all I did was sell my bike for a fair price.

If I were to give Marx the benefit of the doubt, maybe, in this harsh pitiless world, I was forced by hunger and need to sell my bike, in order to find my next meal. Ok. Why is that any different from prehistoric man making things and trading them to others for his subsistence? Marx, at root, seems to be taking issue with the fact that we need to provide food and shelter for ourselves by working. But when has that ever NOT been the case?

Marx sees the personally produced and traded model of society as more personal, and therefore more human. I can grant there is something to that. But none of that abolishes the need of man to work for his bread and shelter. While Marx might prefer that society be run in a more primitive way, that’s only his preference, it shouldn’t be foisted on everyone else because he feels it is better.

Consumption
In his comments on consumption, Marx writes: the fundamental premise of private property is that man produces only to have. Production has a useful aim and a selfish aim- he produces only to have something for himself and the gratification of his own needs. OMG!  

Later, Marx makes the statement that our mutual value is the value of our mutual objects. For us, therefore, man himself is worthless. C’mon, Marx. I sell my bike to a guy for $300. Our concern with each other, IN THE TRANSACTION, is the bike and the money, but that doesn’t mean we consider each other ‘worthless’.  

Wage-Labor
In his paragraphs on wage-labor, one of the most important foundations of Marxism, he makes the assertion that when products are sold for an exchange medium (money), then labor is converted to wage-labor. In wage-labor, the worker has no direct relation to the product. This should perhaps be compared to what Marx sees as the ideal. We as humans make produce something with our hands. This affirms both ourselves, as well as our neighbor, because in producing something, I used my own specific character and individuality to produce it. It is an expression of my own individual life, and in making it, I can derive pleasure. And in your use of my product, I have the satisfaction that my product is meeting a fellow human’s need. That would be labor that has a social benefit. Wage labor, on the other hand, provides the worker only with money. But he is divorced from the product and the humans that will use the product. It is this alienation that Marx sees as untenable in modern society.

Again, I will grant that there is something nice to Marx’s ideal. In fact, there are lots of small businesses within modern society that labor to produce something more personal on that level.  

Marx has the notion that we should abolish private property, have everyone work producing something they love, and then freely exchange according to needs. But of course, the problem is knowing what should be produced with the limited resources available in any community. Communism needs a central planning committee that will decide the allocation of resources, capitalism requires a free market to do so.