Wealth's (n.) accumulation at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole.
Wealth (n.) is such that the true wealthy man is the man who is much, not the one who has much.
Wealth (n.) began as surplus — whatever was not immediately needed — and found its adequate form in gold and silver.
Wealth (n.) can be had in its universal form only by abstaining from it in its material reality.
Wealth (n.) under capital grows too large for the conditions of bourgeois society that created it.
Wealth (n.) is never produced in excess; what is periodically produced in excess is wealth in its capitalist, antagonistic forms.
Wealth (n.) is potential capital because its antithesis — wage-labour — is already present wherever capitalist production is assumed.
Wealth (n.) can be ruinously illiquid: firms with large means, all locked up in Mauritius estates and indigo factories, found themselves entirely dependent on credit to pay their bills.
Wealth (n.) that is social is just the wealth of private proprietors, proving itself social only when it passes through money.
Wealth (n.) depends, for a society, not on how long its surplus labour lasts but on how productive it is.
Wealth (n.) as enrichment is the aim of capitalist production, and far from excluding a growth in the capitalist's consumption with his surplus-value, it absolutely includes it.
Wealth (n.) is mostly nominal: not ships, houses and cotton, but mere demands on the future productive powers of society.
Wealth (n.) as a motive — enrichment — lives in opposition to its twin, consumption: inside every expanding capital the urge to spend the loot fights the urge to pile it up.