How we cite our quotes: (Chapter.Section.Paragraph) or (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
The mysterious character of the commodity-form consists therefore simply in the fact that the commodity reflects the social characteristics of men's own labour as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things. Hence it also reflects the social relation of the producers to the sum total of labour as a social relation between objects, a relation which exists apart from and outside the producers. Through this substitution, the products of labour become commodities, sensuous things what are at the same time supra-sensible or social. (1.4.4)
This is Marx's view of commodity fetishism. A commodity takes on, like the added meaning invested in a fetishized object, the value of the labor that went into making it. A Dr. Pepper can is no longer just a can: it's a product for sale at such-and-such price, and as such, it represents something about the work that went into it versus the work that went into a Pepsi can at a different price. It's as if the commodity bears a magical reality.
Quote #2
In other words, the labour of the private individual manifests itself as an element of the total labour of society only through the relations which the act of exchange establishes between the products, and, through their mediation, between the producers. To the producers, therefore, the social relations between their private labour appear as what they are, i.e. they do not appear as direct social relations between persons in their work, but rather as material relations between persons and social relations between things. (1.4.6)
When you go into the supermarket and look at various commodities on the shelves, you see relationships between people (the various workers) manifested as objects for sale in competition with one another. You don't typically see the workers themselves.
Quote #3
Men do not therefore bring the products of their labour into relation with each other as values because they see these objects merely as the material integuments of homogeneous human labour. The reverse is true: by equating their different products to each other in exchange as values, they equate their different kinds of labour as human labour. They do this without being aware of it. Value, therefore, does not have its description branded on its forehead; it rather transforms every product of labour into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, men try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of their own social product: for the characteristic which objects of utility have of being values is as much men's social product as is their language. The belated scientific discovery that the products of labour, in so far as they are values, are merely the material expressions of the human labour expended to produce them, marks an epoch in the history of mankind's development, but by no means banishes the semblance of objectivity possessed by the social characteristics of labor. (1.4.8)
When a shopper hands a cashier $15 of the money commodity in exchange for another commodity, say a package of paper towel rolls, the shopper generally doesn't think the commodities are tradable because they both represent labor time. That knowledge, the labor theory of value, is a secret hidden by commodity exchange. At least that's what Marx thinks.
Quote #4
The determination of the magnitude of value by labour-time is therefore a secret hidden under the apparent movements in the relative values of commodities. (1.4.9)
What's money? What's price? We use these concepts every day, but we rarely think about where they come from. The real answers are hidden, Marx says. According to him, it's totally possible for us to do something daily without understanding it much.
Quote #5
It is however precisely this finished form of the world of commodities—the money form—which conceals the social character of private labour and the social relations between the individual workers, by making those relations appear as relations between material objects, instead of revealing them plainly. If I state that coats or boots stand in a relation to linen because the latter is the universal incarnation of abstract human labour, the absurdity of the statement is self-evident. Nevertheless, when the producers of coats and boots bring these commodities into a relation with linen, or with gold or silver (and this makes no difference here), as the universal equivalent, the relation between their own private labour and the collective labour of society appears to them in exactly this absurd form. (1.4.10)
Marx is admitting it's kind of crazy to see commodities as tradable specifically because they all contain labor time. But that's his theory of how capitalism functions.
Quote #6
The religious reflections of the real world can, in any case, vanish only when the practical relations of everyday life between man and man, and man and nature, generally present themselves to him in a transparent and rational form. The veil is not removed from the countenance of the social life-process, i.e. the process of material production, until it becomes production by freely associated men, and stands under their conscious and planned control. (1.4.16)
Marx is saying religion vanishes when everyday life becomes more rational—and that the fetishism of commodities will only disappear once production is owned by everyone and takes place according to a plan. Long story short, according to Marx, the fetishism of commodities will only disappear under communism.
Quote #7
The value-form of the product of labour is the most abstract, but also the most universal form of the bourgeois mode of production; by that fact it stamps the bourgeois mode of production as a particular kind of social production of a historical and transitory character. If then we make the mistake of treating it as the eternal natural form of social production, we necessarily overlook the specificity of the value-form, and consequently of the commodity-form together with its further developments, the money form, the capital form, etc. (1.4.17)
It often seems as if capitalism has always been here and will always be here, but in this passage, Marx is saying that this is false, and that this erroneous interpretation of reality prevents us from correctly analyzing the true reality of capitalism.
Quote #8
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)
What causes what? Marx says that economic reality determines the rest of life. This is sometimes called his base-superstructure argument: economics is the base, and all the other ideas are the superstructure on top.
Quote #9
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)
Capitalism isn't forever, Marx says. It isn't a permanent reality. But what would happen if you went around saying that buying and selling should be abolished? Would people think you're not living in reality, because reality is always about capitalist economics?
Quote #10
For 'protection' against the serpent of their agonies, the workers have to put their heads together and, as a class, compel the passing of a law, an all-powerful social barrier by which they can be prevented from selling themselves and their families into slavery and death by voluntary contract with capital. (10.7.7)
We take the 9-5 workday and the 40-hour workweek for granted. We assume it's a reality that has always been here. But the truth is, the length of the working day is the outcome of long-lasting, ongoing class struggle.