How we cite our quotes: (Chapter.Section.Paragraph) or (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
My view is that each particular mode of production, and the relations of production corresponding to it at each given moment, in short 'the economic structure of society', is 'the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness', and that 'the mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life'. (1.4.17)
According to Marx, tradition and customs derive from economic life. For example, the custom of going out on Thursday night—because entertainment venues are open late then—derives from the weekend arriving on Friday. And that derives from Henry Ford in 1926 initiating the five-day workweek in order to increase productivity by having better-rested workers.
Quote #2
One thing, however, is clear: nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money or commodities, and on the other hand men possessing nothing but their own labour-power. This relation has no basis in natural history, nor does it have a social basis common to all periods of human history. It is clearly the result of a past historical development, the product of many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of older formations of social production. (6.7)
Marx says the existence of a capitalist class that hires workers depends on the extinction of past ways society has organized production. The tradition and customs arising from those past modes of production are largely forgotten now, so much so that Marx felt he had to make a point of saying that capitalism is just a historical phase, not a permanent condition of existence.
Quote #3
The appearance of products as commodities requires a level of development of the division of labour within society such that the separation of use-value from exchange-value, a separation which first begins with barter, has already been completed. But such a degree of development is common to many economic formations of society, with the most diverse historical characteristics [...] The historical conditions of [capital's] existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It arises only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence finds the free worker available, on the market, as the seller of his own labour-power. And this one historical pre-condition comprises a world's history. Capital, therefore, announces from the outset a new epoch in the process of social production. (6.8-9)
Many modes of production, not just capitalism, have commodities and money. What sets capitalism apart is the existence of a proletariat, that is, people who can sell their labor-power to employers. That one change caused unique traditions and customs to spring up over time.
Quote #4
The sphere of circulation or commodity exchange, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. It is the exclusive realm of Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, let us say of labour-power, are determined only by their own free will. [...] The only force bringing them together, and putting them into relation with each other, is the selfishness, the gain and the private interest of each. Each pays heed to himself only, and no one worries about the others. And precisely for that reason, either in accordance with the pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an omniscient providence, they all work together to their mutual advantage, for the common weal, and in the common interest. (6.22)
Okay, Marx is being totally sarcastic here. He's criticizing other economists who presented the selfishness and exploitation of capitalism as benefits to the common good. Their slogans about property, the freedom of enterprise, and the equality inherent in the idea of a contract became hallmarks of capitalist culture and sources of tradition.
Quote #5
Relics of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economic formations of society as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not what is made but how, and by what instruments of labour, that distinguishes different economic epochs. Instruments of labour not only supply a standard of the degree of development which human labour has attained, but they also indicate the social relations within which men work. (7.1.5)
Here, Marx is handing out a recommendation to anthropologists, telling them to study past societies' tools for insight into their cultures. According to him, it's a concrete way to look at the differences in economic modes of production.
Quote #6
In this connection, nothing is more characteristic than the designation of the workers who work full time as 'full-timers', and the children under 13 who are only allowed to work six hours as 'half-timers'. The worker is here nothing more than personified labour-time. All individual distinctions are obliterated in that between 'full-timers' and 'half-timers'. (10.2.16)
Today, we take for granted the terms "full-time" or "part-time" to describe types of work. But Marx is pointing out that such language indicates the priority we give to time when we determine who we are. Think of all our traditions and customs that revolve around how capitalism organizes time. Universities feature clock towers with prominent bells, as if education is factory-work, for example, with everyone cycling from one classroom to the next.
Quote #7
Hence it is self-evident that the worker is nothing other than labour-power for the duration of his whole life, and that therefore all his disposable time is by nature and by right labour-time, to be devoted to the self-valorization of capital. Time for education, for intellectual development, for the fulfillment of social functions, for social intercourse, for the free play of the vital forces of his body and his mind, even the rest time of Sunday (and that in a country of Sabbatarians!)—what foolishness! (10.5.1)
This is Marx getting angry. The fight over the length of the working day in 19th-century Europe convinced him that capitalists try to make workers slave away as much as possible without time for education or rest. The next century, however, saw what could be termed welfare capitalism—business interests investing in the population, such as subsidizing the public school system. He'd simply say they were doing so because it was cheaper to have the government train workers than to have their businesses do it. According to Marx, any tradition or custom boils down to economics.
Quote #8
But in its blind and measureless drive, its insatiable appetite for surplus labour, capital oversteps not only the moral but even the merely physical limits of the working day. It usurps the time for growth, development and healthy maintenance of the body. It steals the time required for the consumption of fresh air and sunlight. It haggles over the meal-times, where possible incorporating them into the production process itself. [...] It reduces the sound sleep needed for the restoration, renewal and refreshment of the vital forces to the exact amount of torpor essential to the revival of an absolutely exhausted organism. (10.5.1)
This is again Marx preaching against the working conditions of the 19th century. Terrible working conditions still exist worldwide, such as in the maquiladoras of Mexico or mines in Africa where children work. What traditions and customs encourage improving the plight of workers, and is Marx right that even these practices ultimately derive from our economic system?
Quote #9
On the other hand, the conversion of a partial task into the life-long destiny of a man corresponds to the tendency shown by earlier societies towards making trades hereditary. The trades either became petrified into castes, or, in cases where definite historical conditions produced a variability in the individual which was incompatible with a caste system, they hardened into guilds. Castes and guilds arise from the action of the same natural law that regulates the differentiation of plants and animals into species and varieties, except that, when a certain degree of development has been reached, the heredity of castes and the exclusiveness of guilds are ordained as a law of society. (14.2.2)
Here Marx argues that the division of labour under capitalism—which he says makes workers too specialized—tends to make trades into traditions passed down by families. If a parent knows a certain trade, his or her children have a learning advantage if they pursue that same type of job. It's another example of life being based on economics.
Quote #10
Some crippling of body and mind is inseparable even from the division of labour in society as a whole. However, since manufacture carries this social separation of branches of labour much further, and also, by its peculiar division, attacks the individual at the very roots of his life, it is the first system to provide the materials and the impetus for industrial pathology. (14.5.7)
Marx says any division of labor is going to cause over-specialization, but under industrial capitalism, the over-specialization becomes so pronounced that it should be considered a disease. Think about it. Are your financial realities forcing you to become too specialized? Are you defining yourself as a certain type of worker, who takes part in traditions and customs ordinary to that line of work? Would it be possible to adopt traditions and customs that go against your economic self-interest?