INTP KARL MARX (Das Kapital, Volume One: The Production Process of Capital)

CHAPTER 1

THE PRODUCT

I. The Two Factors of the Product:

Use-Value and Worth (Substance and Size of Value)

In societies where the capitalist mode of production dominates, wealth appears as a "tremendous accumulation of commodities"; the single commodity is its basic unit. Therefore, our examination starts by analyzing the commodity.

The commodity presents itself first as an external entity, a thing, whose properties gratify human wants of whatever variety. The nature of these needs, no matter if they originate from, for instance, the stomach or the imagination, makes no difference. Admittedly, in this matter, it is not a question of exactly how the thing satisfies the human need, whether directly as foodstuff, that is as a means of consumption, or indirectly, as a means of production.

Every useful thing, such as iron, paper, etc., must be viewed from a twofold perspective, in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Every such object is a composite of many qualities and therefore usable from different aspects. The act of discovering these different aspects and therefore the numerous ways things can be used is a historical achievement. Such as the invention of social standards for measuring the quantity of useful things. The difference in the measures of commodities stems in part from the various natures of the objects to be measured, and in part from agreement.

The utility of a thing, that is, its property of satisfying human needs of whatever kind, constitutes it as a use-value. But this usefulness is not floating in the air. Conditioned by the traits of the commodity-body, it does not exist without it. The physical commodity itself, like iron, wheat, diamond, etc., is thus a use-value or good. Its character in this respect is not determined by whether acquiring its useful properties requires much or little labor from humans. In examining use-values, their quantitative specification is always taken for granted--like a dozen clocks, a yard of linen, or a ton of iron. The utility of goods supplies the basis for an independent discipline of commodity science. A use-value becomes real only through its use or application. Use-values make up the material content of wealth, regardless of their societal configuration. In the society we are looking at, they also serve as the tangible vehicles of exchange-value.

Exchange-value is initially seen as a numerical proportion, the ratio by which use-values of one sort are exchanged for those of another--an arbitrary ratio that changes constantly over time and across locations. Exchange-value thus appears to be something contingent and entirely relative; an inner, immanent exchange-value of the commodity, therefore, would be absurd. Let's analyze the issue further.

The Twofold Nature of the Commodity: Use-Value and Value

In capitalist society, the fundamental building block of wealth is the commodity. As Karl Marx begins Capital, he emphasizes that understanding the nature of commodities is key to understanding capitalism itself. Chapter 1 opens with a foundational insight: every commodity has a dual nature, consisting of both use-value and exchange-value. This dual character reflects the commodity's role both as a material object that fulfills needs and as a social object that participates in economic exchange.

Use-value refers to a commodity's practical utility--its capacity to satisfy some human need or desire. This usefulness may be related to physical needs, such as hunger, or to more abstract desires, such as aesthetic pleasure. Importantly, Marx notes that it does not matter what kind of need is fulfilled, nor whether the commodity serves as a tool for further production or a finished good for direct consumption. A use-value is always specific and qualitative, tied to the physical characteristics of the object. It is also historical: different societies discover and develop different ways to use materials, and thus the realm of use-values evolves over time.

Yet while use-value is rooted in the physical and qualitative realm, exchange-value moves us into the social and quantitative domain. Exchange-value is the ratio at which one use-value is traded for another. At first glance, this might seem arbitrary, varying across time and place. But beneath this surface fluctuation, Marx insists there lies a deeper structure. What allows two qualitatively different items--say, a ton of iron and a yard of linen--to be exchanged is not their usefulness, but a common quantitative element: the amount of socially necessary labor time embodied in each.

This distinction is central. A thing can be a use-value without being a commodity (for instance, a homemade meal not intended for trade). What makes a thing a commodity is that it is produced not merely for use, but for exchange in the market. In this context, its exchange-value becomes paramount. Value, in Marx's analysis, is not a natural property but a social one: it emerges only in a society organized around production for exchange. It is this value, as the substance underpinning exchange-value, that ultimately governs commodity circulation in capitalist economies.

Thus, in the commodity we see a contradiction: a unity of opposites. On one side, it is a material object with specific uses; on the other, it is a bearer of abstract value determined by labor. This contradiction becomes the thread through which Marx begins to unravel the dynamics of capitalist production. Commodities are not merely things but crystallizations of human labor in material form. To understand how capitalism works, we must begin here--with the simple yet elusive commodity.

Conclusion

The commodity's dual nature--as use-value and value--is the cornerstone of Marx's critique of political economy. By dissecting this contradiction, we uncover the essence of capitalist wealth: a system where material utility disguises exploitative social relations, and where the labor theory of value demystifies the apparent randomness of exchange.

Key Terms Clarified:

• Use-value: The practical utility of a thing; its qualitative aspect.
• Exchange-value: The proportional rate at which commodities trade; their quantitative aspect.
• Value: The socially necessary labor-time embodied in a commodity, the hidden substance behind exchange-value.

This framework sets the stage for analyzing money, capital, and the fetishism of commodities--themes that unravel capitalism's inner workings.

Commodities, Capitalism, and the Invisible Magic of Stuff: Marx's Opening Scene in Today's World

Let's begin not with Marx, but with a scene.

Picture a character in a movie--let's say Neo from The Matrix. He lives in a world saturated with products: computers, phones, pills, black trench coats, cheap noodles. But there's a question under the surface: what is all this stuff? What does it mean? Why does it matter--or more importantly, why does it feel like it matters too much?

Marx opens Capital with this same question. He zooms in on the most basic unit of our everyday economic lives: the commodity. Not just a product, but something deeper. A commodity is anything that can be bought or sold--whether it's an iPhone, a can of Coke, or a digital skin in a video game. Marx is saying: if you want to understand the monster called capitalism, don't start with banks or billionaires. Start with the object in your hand.

Two Faces of a Thing: Use and Exchange

Marx tells us that every commodity has two sides. On one side, there's its use-value--what it does for you. A hammer hammers. A burrito feeds. A hoodie keeps you warm or stylish. Use-values are grounded in human needs. And those needs can come from the body or the mind--whether hunger or fashion, survival or fantasy.

The second side is trickier. It's the exchange-value. This isn't about what a thing does, but what it's worth compared to other things. A diamond and and a bottle of water: which is more useful? Probably the water. But which is worth more in the market? Usually the diamond. Strange, right?

Exchange-value isn't about survival. It's about the social logic of the market: how many burritos is this hoodie worth? How many hours of someone's labor does this iPhone represent? And here's Marx's kicker: these ratios (this-for-that) change all the time. They're not set by nature, but by society.

The Human Behind the Thing

Here's where Marx starts pulling back the curtain like Toto in The Wizard of Oz. Commodities seem like self-contained things. But they're soaked with human activity--especially labor. A product isn't just an object; it's a frozen history of work. Someone mined the metal, someone programmed the code, someone packed the box, someone stocked the shelf.

But in capitalist society, this labor is hidden. We don't see the hands behind the hoodie--we just see the price tag. In fact, in capitalist culture, the product becomes more important than the person who made it. Think of how brands like Apple or Nike sell us feelings, identities, even a sense of self. But where are the workers in this picture?

This illusion--that the commodity has value all by itself, apart from human work--is one of the key tricks Marx wants us to notice. It's not magic, but it sure feels like it.

From Marx to Marvel (and McDonald's)

Let's come back to our world. Consider Marvel movies. They're global commodities: high-budget, slickly produced, designed to thrill and sell. But beyond the capes and CGI lies a labor force of writers, animators, stunt people, and overworked VFX [visual effects] teams. Yet we're often more familiar with the face of Iron Man than with the thousands of people who helped produce him. Marvel is a brand, not a workshop. But behind every superhero is a super-exploited production schedule.

Or think about fast food. A Big Mac satisfies hunger (use-value), but also has a specific price (exchange-value). That price can shift depending on location, time, inflation, and supply chains. The real mystery isn't the burger--it's how its value is constructed, how many hours of minimum wage labor it's worth, and how it fits into a system that's not about food but about profit.

Reading Fiction Through Marx's Eyes

Marxist literary criticism looks for these hidden systems in novels, films, and poems. Take The Great Gatsby. The green light, Gatsby's parties, his mansion--they're all commodities meant to express love, status, longing. But they also reveal how people become obsessed with objects instead of human connection. The novel, like Marx, explores how things can take on lives of their own in a capitalist society.

Or consider dystopian fiction like The Hunger Games. Districts produce commodities (coal, luxury goods, etc.), while the Capitol consumes them. Labor is invisible, value is enforced by violence, and people are reduced to functions. It's Marx's theory, but with arrows and televised death.

Conclusion: Starting Where We Are

Marx doesn't ask us to memorize jargon. He asks us to notice. To see that the everyday world of stuff--shoes, songs, smartphones--isn't neutral. It's shaped by history, labor, and inequality. Use-values satisfy needs. Exchange-values drive profit. Commodities connect us, but also mystify us.

Understanding this is the first step to asking deeper questions: Who makes what we consume? What do our desires serve? Can we imagine a world where things serve people--not the other way around?

You don't have to be a Marxist to ask these questions. You just have to be curious about how the world works.

And maybe, like Neo, start to see the code behind the illusion.

The personality function that has the most in common with the Karl Marx excerpt that opened this article is introverted Thinking (Ti).

Here's why:

1. Structured Conceptual Analysis: The excerpt methodically dissects the concept of the commodity into two core abstract categories: use-value and exchange-value. This kind of structural, internal differentiation is a hallmark of Ti, which focuses on building coherent internal frameworks and systems.

2. Emphasis on Definitions and Internal Consistency: Marx's text seeks to define terms rigorously (e.g., what is a use-value, what is exchange-value) and clarify how these ideas interrelate, rather than just how they function externally in the world. This is Ti's bread and butter--understanding the logical coherence of of abstract categories.

3. Detachment from Practicality or Emotion: There's little to no appeal to emotion (which would be Fe) or to practical outcomes or productivity (which would be Te). The focus is on precise, philosophical categorization and deduction.

4. Layered Conceptual Depth: The style of reasoning builds from basic observations to deeper logical principles--exactly how introverted Thinking often works when exploring theoretical foundations.

Other functions and why they are less fitting here:

• Te (extroverted Thinking): Would focus more on practical application, utility, and results--less on abstract definitions.
• Ne/Ni (iNtuition): While Ni might play a secondary role in sensing abstract patterns, it lacks Ti's formal logical parsing of categories. Ne is more about idea generation and connections, not analytical dissection.

The second-strongest function in the excerpt after introverted Thinking (Ti) is introverted iNtuition (Ni).

Here's why Ni stands out:

1. Focus on Abstract, Temporal Structures: The excerpt isn't just categorizing commodities; it's tracing their significance through time and societal change. For example:

"The act of discovering these different aspects... is a historical achievement."

This reflects Ni's orientation toward internal, abstract patterns unfolding over time, such as how the concept of value evolves within a historical process.

2. Seeking Deeper, Underlying Meaning: The movement from superficial exchange ratios to the "immanent value" of the commodity is a move from appearance to essence--a very Ni-style deep dive into latent realities beneath surface-level variation.

3. Teleological Direction: The excerpt hints at a developing conceptual journey--starting from how commodities appear, then breaking down the underlying logic of value, and pointing toward a more complete understanding. That's a hallmark of Ni's visionary, integrative quality.

Why not the other?

Ne (extroverted iNtuition): Ne is more exploratory, playful, and divergent in its ideas; Marx here is narrowing toward core essence, not branching outward.

In summary:

• Ti dominates due to its focus on internal logical structure.
• Ni follows closely behind, guiding the deep, time-sensitive analysis of abstract patterns like value, use, and social history.

The personality type that has the most in common with the excerpt is INTj / LII (Logical Intuitive Introvert) -- Ti + Ne.

Here's why the LII (INTj) best fits:

1. Dominant Ti:

As discussed earlier, the excerpt revolves around analyzing abstract structures--defining use-value and exchange-value, and deducing their relationship. This is core Ti behavior: seeking internal logical consistency, building systemic definitions, and clarifying categories.

2. Supportive Ne:

While not dominant, Ne plays a supporting role in the way the text opens up conceptual space (e.g., "wants of whatever variety," "whether from the stomach or the imagination," etc.). This hints at a broad mental framework that explores the implications and variety of abstract concepts. Ne complements Ti by feeding it possibilities, perspectives, and implications.

Together, Ti and Ne create a personality inclined toward conceptual precision and systematic exploration, which matches Marx's tone in this passage. It reflects a desire to build a coherent theory from abstract principles.

Why not the other types?

• INTp / ILI (Ni + Te): The ILI focuses on visionary insight and external efficiency--more speculative, less concerned with rigorous system-building than the LII. While Ni is present in the excerpt; it's not the leading function.
• ENTp / ILE (Ne + Ti): The ILE is idea-rich, exploratory, and associative -- more scattered and dynamic than the methodical, focused tone of the excerpt. The structure here is too precise and disciplined for an ILE's typical mode of expression.