exists for the other person as the other exists for him, insofar as each becomes a means for the other. The political economist reduces everything (just as does politics in its Rights of Man) to man, i.e., to the individual whom he strips of all determinateness so as to class him as capitalist or worker.

The division of labour is the economic expression of the social character of labour within the estrangement. Or, since labour is only an expression of human activity within alienation, of the manifestation of life as the alienation of life, the division of labour, too, is therefore nothing else but the estranged, alienated positing of human activity as a real activity of the species or as activity of man as a species-being.

As for the essence of the division of labour - and of course the division of labour had to be conceived as a major driving force in the production of wealth as soon as labour was recognised as the essence of private property--i.e., as for the estranged and alienated form of human activity as an activity of the species--the political economists are very vague and self-contradictory about it.

Adam Smith:
"This division of labour [...] is not originally the effect of any human wisdom […] It is the necessary, [...] slow and gradual consequence of [...] the propensity to truck, bane; and exchange one thing for another. [...] -"his propensity" to trade is probably a "necessary consequence of the use of reason and of speech [...]. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals." The animal, when it is grown up, is entirely independent "Man has almost constant occasion for the help of others, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can appeal to their personal interest, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. [...] We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. [...]"

"As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase that we obtain from one another the greater part of those mutual good offices which we stand in need of, so it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion to the division of labour.


In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows, etc., grows to be his chief business [. . .]."

"The difference of natural talents in different men […] is not [...] so much the cause as the effect of the division of labour.... Without the disposition to truck [...] and exchange, every man must have procured to himself every necessary and convenience of life [...] All must have had [...] the same work to do, and there could have been no such difference of employment as could alone give occasion to any great difference of talents."

"As it is this disposition which forms that difference of talents [...] among men [...] so it is this same disposition which renders that difference useful. Many tribes of animals [...] of the same species derive from nature a much more remarkable distinction of genus, than what, antecedent to custom and education, appears to take place among men. By nature a philosopher is not in talent and in intelligence half so different from a street porter, as a mastiff is from a greyhound, or a greyhound from a spaniel, or this last from a shepherd's dog. Those different tribes of animals, however, though all of the same species, are of scarce a use to one another. The mastiff cannot add to the advantages of his strength -


Send comments to:, The Hypertext Manuscripts of Karl Marx, Paris 1844, Copyright Gary Tedman 2001-3