distinguish it as capitalistic wealth, is an aggregation of exchange-values. In other words: our wealth, in so far as it is not merely used for consumption, but retains its capitalistic properties, is capital, is an aggregation of exchange-values. We have already seen that exchange-value is not something inherent in the thing itself as an element or condition of its natural existence. We have also seen that it bears no subjective relation to the person who uses it as such, that it does not depend on anything he does or omits to do, but is an objective attribute derived from some social relation of the individuals within the society in which it is produced. We must therefore conclude that capital, which is an aggregation of exchange-values, is nothing more than a social relation of individuals, and that its properties, which it can only possess by virtue of its being such an aggregation of exchange-values, are merely the result of the social relations of which it is the expression.
What are the social relations represented by exchange-value, and its composite—capital? What are the properties of exchange-value and capital and the laws governing their existence, and how are they derived from and governed by those social relations? The answering of these questions is, according to Marx, the object of political economy, and to their critical examination his life-work was devoted.
Before entering, however, upon this examination we must put before ourselves clearly the problem which confronts us, and define clearly the questions which we are called upon to answer. We have already pointed out some characteristics of our wealth which make it different from the wealth possessed under any previous social system and which show clearly that our form of wealth is the product of our peculiar social relations. These characteristics are, however, not the only ones which require explanation. Even a cursory examination of our economic system will reveal the fact that our value-wealth is full of mysteries
