For instance, 40 yards of linen are worth — what? 2 coats. Because the commodity coat here plays the part of equivalent, because the use-value cca\ as opposed to the linen, figures as an embodiment of value, therefore a definite number of coats suffices to express the definite quantity of value in the linen. Two coats may therefore express the quantity of value of 40 yards of linen, but they can never express the quantity of their own value. A superficial observation of this fact, namely, that relatively to the mimbers 20, 50, 100, &c., continually diminishes. Therefore the great principle that the magnitude of a whole number, such as 10, is " regulated " by the number of times unity is contained in it, falls to the ground. — [The author ex- plains in section 4 of this chapter, p. 62, note 2, what he understands by "Vulgar Economy."— Ed.]
Com modules. 2 5 in the equation of value, the equivalent figures exclusively as a simple quantity of some article, of some use-value, has misled Bailey, as also many others, both before and after him, into vseeing, in the expression of value, merely a quantitative relation. The truth being, that when a commodity acts as equivalent, no quantitative determination of its value is expressed.
The first peculiarity that strikes us, in considering the form of the equivalent, is this: use- value becomes the form of mani- festation, the phenomenal form of its opposite, value.
The bodily form of the commodity becomes its value form. But, mark well, that this quid pro quo exists in the case of any commodity B, only when some other commodity A enters into a value relation with it, and then only within the limits of this relation. Since no commodity can stand in the relation of equivalent to itself, and thus turn its own bodily shape into the expression of its own value, every commodity is compelled to choose some other commodity for its equivalent, and to accept the use-value, that is to say, the bodily shape of that other commodity as the form of its own value.
One of the measures that we apply to commodities as material substances, as use-values, will serve to illustrate this point. A •sugar-loaf being a body, is heavy, and therefore has weight: but we can neither see nor touch this weight. We then take various pieces of iron, whose weight has been determined beforehand. The iron, as iron, is no more the form of manifes- tation of weight, than is the sugar-loaf. Nevertheless, in order to express the sugar-loaf as so much weight, we put it into a weight-relation with the iron. In this relation, the iron officiates as a body representing nothing but weight. A certain quantity of iron therefore serves as the measure of the weight of the sugar, and represents, in relation to the sugar-loaf, weight embodied, the form of manifestation of weight. This part is played by the iron only within this relation, into which the sugar or any other body, whose weight has to be determined, enters with the iron. Were they not both heavy, they could not enter into this relation, and the one could therefore not serve as the expression of the weight of the other. When we throw both into the scales, we see in reality, that as weight 26 Capitalist Prodtiction.
they are both the same, and that, therefore, when taken in proper proportions, they have the same weight. Just as the substance iron, as a measure of weight, represents in relation to the sugar-loaf weight alone, so, in our expression of value^ the material object, coat, in relation to the linen, represents value alone.
Here, however, the analogy ceases. The iron, in the ex- pression of the weight of the sugar-loaf, represents a natural pro- perty common to both bodies, namely their weight; but the coat, in the expression of value of the linen, represents a non-natural property of both, something purely social, namely, their value.
Since the relative form of value of a commodity — the linen, for example — expresses the value of that commodity, as being something wholly different from its substance and properties, as being, for instance, coat-like, we see that this expression itself indicates that some social relation lies at the bottom of it. With the equivalent form it is just the contrary. The very essence of this form is that the material commodity itself — the coat — ^just as it is, expresses value, and is endowed with the form of value by Nature itself. Of course this holds good only so long as the value relation exists, in which the coat stands in the position of equivalent to the linen.^ Since, however, the properties of a thing are not the result of its relations to other things, but only manifest themselves in such relations, the coat seems to be endowed with its equivalent form, its property of being directly exchangeable, just as much by Nature as it is endowed with the property of being heavy, or the capacity to keep us warm. Hence the enigmatical character of the equiva- lent form which escapes the notice of the bourgeois political economist, until this form, completely developed, confronts him in the shape of money. He then seeks to explain away the mystical character of gold and silver, by substituting for them less dazzling commodities, and by reciting, with ever renewed satisfaction, the catalogue of all possible commodities which at one time or another have plaj^ed the part of equivalent. He has 1 Such expressions of relations in general, called by Hegel reflex-categories, form a very curious class. For instance, one man is king only because other men stand in the relation of subjects to him. They, on the contrary, imagine that they are sub- jects because he is king.
Commodities. 27 not the least suspicion that the most simple expression of value, such as 20 yds. of linen = 1 coat, already propounds the riddle of the equivalent form for our solution.
The body of the commodity that serves as the equivalent, figures as the materialisation of human labour in the abstract, and is at the same time the product of some specifically useful concrete labour. This concrete labour becomes, therefore, the medium for expressing abstract human labour. If on the one hand the coat ranks as nothing but the embodiment of abstract human labour, so, on the other hand, the tailoring which is actually embodied in it, counts as nothing but the form under which that abstract labour is realised. In the ex- pression of value of the linen, the utility of the tailoring con- sists, not in making clothes, but in making an object, which we at once recognise to be Value, and therefore to be a congelation of labour, but of labour indistinguishable from that realised in the value of the linen. In order to act as such a mirror of value, the labour of tailoring must reflect nothing besides its own abstract quality of being human labour generally.
In tailoring, as well as in weaving, human labour-power is expended. Both, therefore, possess the general property of being human labour, and may, therefore, in certain cases, such as in the production of value, have to be considered under this aspect alone. There is nothing mysterious in this. But in the expression of value there is a complete turn of the tables. For instance, how is the fact to be expressed that weaving creates the value of the linen, not by virtue of being- weaving, as such, but by reason of its general property of being human labour? Simply by opposing to weaving that other particular form of concrete labour (in this instance tailoring)^ which produces the equivalent of the product of weaving. Just as the coat in its bodily form became a direct expression of value, so now does tailoring, a concrete form of labour, appear as the direct and palpable embodiment of human labour generally.
Hence, the second peculiarity of the equivalent form is, that concrete labour becomes the form under which its opposite, abstract human labour, manifests itself.
28 Capitalist Production.
But befjause this concrete labour, tailoring in our case, ranks as, and is directly identified with, undifferentiated human labour, it also ranks as identical with any other sort of labour, and therefore with that embodied in the linen. Consequently, although, like all other commodity-producing labour, it is the labour of private individuals, yet, at the same time, it ranks as labour directly social in its character. This is the reason why it results in a product directly exchangeable with other com- modities. We have then a third peculiarity of the Equivalent form, namely, that the labour of private individuals takes the form of its opposite, labour directly social in its form.
The two latter peculiarities of the Equivalent form will become more intelligible if we go back to the great thinker who was the first to analyse so many forms, whether of thought, society, or nature, and amongst them also the form of value. I mean Aristotle.
In the first place, he clearly enunciates that the money form of commodities is only the further development of the simple form of value — i.e.y of the expression of the value of one com- modity in some other commodity taken at random; for he says — 5 beds = 1 house {>t\hcti T^n ktri oUtas) is not to be distinguished from 5 beds = so much money.
{xXiven 'Tivrt 6.vtI...ofou aX Tivrt KXlvai') He further sees that the value relation which gives rise to this expression makes it necessary that the house should quali- tatively be made the equal of the bed, and that, Avithout such an equalisation, these two clearly different things could not be compared with each other as commensurable quantities. " Ex- change," he says, "cannot take place without equality, and equality not without commensurability " (oiir itrerni /^h oiitrns evfjt.fjurp'ias). Hcrc, howcvcr, he comes to a stop, and gives up the further analysis of the form of value. " It is, however, in reality, impossible (rl^ f^h olv aXnhU a.'^vvarov), that such unlike things can be commensurable " — i.e., qualita- tively equal. Such an equalisation can only be something foreign to their real nature, consequently only " a make-shift for practical purposes."
Commodities, 29 Commodities, 29 Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us, what barred the way to his further analysis; it was the absence of anj' concept of value. What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And why not? Compared with the beds, the house does re- present something equal to them, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is — human labour.
There was, however, an important fact which prevented Aristotle from seeing that, to attribute value to commodities, is merely a mode of expressing all labour as equal human labour, and consequently as labour of equal quality. Greek society was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its natural basis, the inequality of men and of their labour powers. The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities. The brilliancy of Aristotle's genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, '* in truth," was at the bottom of this equality.
4. The Elementary fovm of value considered as a whole.
The elementary form of value of a commodity is contained in the equation, expressing its value relation to another com- modity of a different kind, or in its exchange relation to the same. The value of commodity A, is qualitatively expressed, by the fact that commodity B is directly exchangeable with it. Its value is quantitatively expressed by the fact, that a definite quantity of B is exchangeable with a definite quantity of A. Iq other words, the value of a commodity obtains independent 30 Capitalist Prodtiction.
and definite expression, by taking the form of exchange value. When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said, in common parlance, that a commodity is both a use-value and an ex- change value, we were, accurately speaking, wrong. A com- modity is a use- value or object of utility, and a value. It manifests itself as this two-fold thing, that it is, as soon as its value assumes an independent form — viz., the form of exchange value. It never assumes this form when isolated, but only when placed in a value or exchange relation with another commodity of a different kind. When once we know this, such a mode of expression does no harm; it simply serves as an abbreviation.
Our analysis has shown, that the form or expression of the value of a commodity originates in the nature of value, and not that value and its magnitude originate in the mode of their expression as exchange value. This, however, is the delusion as well of the mercantilists and their recent revivors, Ferrier, Ganilh,^ and others, as also of their antipodes, the modern bagmen of Free Trade, such as Bastiat. The mercan- tilists lay special stress on the qualitative aspect of the expression of value, and consequently on the equivalent form of commodities, which attains its full perfection in money. The modern hawkers of Free Trade, who must get rid of their article at any price, on the other hand, lay most stress on the quantitative aspect of the relative form of value. For them there consequently exists neither value, nor magnitude of value, anywhere except in its expression by means of the exchange relation of commodities, that is, in the daily list of prices current. MacLeod, who has taken upon himself to dress up the confused ideas of Lombard Street in the most learned finery, is a successful cross between the superstitious mercantilists, and the enlightened Free Trade bagmen.
A close scrutiny of the expression of the value of A in terms of B, contained in- the equation expressing the value relation of A to B, has shown us that, within that relation, the bodily form 1 F. L. A. Ferrier, sous-inspecteur des douanes, "Du gouvernement consider^ dans ses rapports avec le commerce," Paris, 1805; and Charles Ganilh, "Des Systdmes d'Economie politique," 2nd ed., Paris, 1821.
Commodities. 31 of A figures only as a use- value, the bodily form of B only as the form or aspect of value. The opposition or contrast existing internally in each commodity between use- value and value, is, therefore, made evident externally by two com- modities being placed in such relation to each other, that the commodity whose value it is sought to express, figures directly as a mere use-value, while the commodity in which that value is to be expressed, figures directly as mere exchange value. Hence the elementary form of value of a commodity is the elementary form in which the contrast contained in that ■commodity, between use- value and value, becomes apparent.
Every product of labour is, in all states of society, a use- value; but it is only at a definite historical epoch in a society's development that such a product becomes a commodity, viz., at the epoch when the labour spent on the production of a useful article becomes expressed as one of the objective qualities of that article, i.e., as its value. It therefore follows that the elementary value-form is also the primitive form under which a product of labour appears historically as a -commodity, and that the gradual transformation of such products into commodities, proceeds pari passu with the development of the value form.
We perceive, at first sight, the deficiencies of the elementary form of value: it is a mere germ, which must undergo a series of metamorphoses before it can ripen into the Price-form.
The expression of the value of commodity A in terms of any other commodity B, merely distinguishes the value from the use-value of A, and therefore places A merely in a relation of exchange with a single different commodity, B; but it is still far from expressing A's qualitative equality, and quantitative proportionality, to all commodities. To the elementary relative value-form of a commodity, there corresponds the single equi- valent form of one other commodity. Thus, in the relative expression of value of the linen, the coat assumes the form of equivalent, or of being directly exchangeable, only in relation to a single commodity, the linen.
Nevertheless, the elementary form of value passes by an easy transition into a more comolete form. It is true that by means 32 Capitalist Production.
of the elementary form, the value of a commodity A, becomes expressed in terms of one, and only one, other commodity^ But that one may be a commodity of any kind, coat, iron, com^ or anything else. Therefore, according as A is placed in rela- tion with one or the other, we get for one and the same com- modity, different elementary expressions of value.^ The number of such possible expressions is limited only by the number of the different kinds of commodities distinct from it. The isolated expression of A's value, is therefore convertible into a series, prolonged to any length, of the different elementary ex- pressions of that value.
B. Total or Expanded form of valite.
E or=&c.
(20 yards of linen=l coat or=10 lb tea or=40 lb coffee or= 1 quarter corn or=2 ounces gold or=| ton iron or=&c.)
1. The Expanded Relative form of value.
The value of a single commodity, the linen, for example, is now expressed in terms of numberless other elements of the world of commodities. Every other commodity now becomes a mirror of the linen's value.^ It is thus, that for the first time, 1 In Homer, for instance, the value of an article is expressed in a series of different 2 For this reason, we can speak of the coat-value of the linen when its value is ex- pressed in coats, or of its corn-value when expressed in corn, and so on. Every such expression tells us, that what appears in the use-values, coat, corn, &c., is the value of the linen. " The value of any commodity denoting its relation in exchange, we may si^eak of it as...corn-value, cloth-value, according to the commodity with which it is compared; and hence there are a tliousand different kinds of value, as many kinds of value as there are commodities in existence, and all are equally real and equally nominal." (A Critical Dissertation on the Nature, Measure and Causes of Value: chiefly in reference to the writings of Mr. Ricardo and his followers. By the author of " Essays on the Formation, &c., of Opinions." London, 1825, p. 39). S. Bailey, the author of this anonymous work, a work which in its day created much stir in England, fancied that, by thus pointing out the various relative expressions of one and the same value, he had proved the impossibility of any determination of the concept of value. However narrow his own views may have been, yet, that he laid his finger on some serious defects in the Ricardian Theory, is proved by the animosity with which he was attacked by Ricardo's followers. See the Westminster Review for example.
Commodities. 33 this value shows itself in its true light as a congelation of un- differentiated human labour. For the labour that creates it, now stands expressly revealed, as labour that ranks equally with every other sort of human labour, no matter what its form, whether tailoring, ploughing, mining, &c., and no matter, therefore, whether it is realised in coats, corn, iron, or gold. The linen, by virtue of the form of its value, now stands in a social relation, no longer with only one other kind of com- modity, but with the whole world of commodities. As a commodity, it is a citizen of that world. At the same time, the interminable series of value equations implies, that as re- gards the value of a commodity, it is a matter of in- difference under what particular form, or kind, of use-value it appears.
In the first form, 20 yds. of linen = 1 coat, it might, for ought that otherwise appears, be pure accident, that these two com- modities are exchangeable in definite quantities. In the second form, on the contrary, we perceive at once the background that determines, and is essentially different from, this accidental appearance. The value of the linen remains unaltered in mag- nitude, whether expressed in coats, coffee, or iron, or in num- berless different commodities, the property of as many different owners. The accidental relation between two in- dividual commodity-owners disappears. It becomes plain, that it is not the exchange of commodities which regulates the magnitude of their value; but, on the contrary, that it is the magnitude of their value which controls their exchange proportions.
2. The 'particular Equivalent form.
Each commodity, such as, coat, tea, corn, iron, &c., figures in the expression of value of the linen, as an equivalent, and, con- sequently, as a thing that is value. The bodily form of each of these commodities figures now as a particular equivalent form, one out of many. In the same way the manifold concrete useful kinds of labour, embodied in these different commodities,, rank now as so many different forms of the realisation, or mani-^ festation, of undifferentiated human labour.
0 34 Capitalist Production.
3. Defects of the Total or Expanded forrri of value.
In the first place, the relative expression of value is incomplete because the series representing it is interminable. The chain of which each equation of value is a link, is liable at any moment to be lengthened by each new kind of commodity that comes into existence and furnishes the material for a fresh expression of value. In the second place, it is a many- coloured mosaic of disparate and independent expressions of value. And lastly, if, as must be the case, the relative value of each commodity in turn, becomes expressed in this ex- panded form, we get for each of them a relative value-form, different in every case, and consisting of an interminable series of expressions of value. The defects of the expanded relative-value form are reflected in the corresponding equiva- lent form. Since the bodily form of each single commodity is one particular equivalent form amongst numberless others, we have, on the whole, nothing but fragmentary equivalent forms, each excluding the others. In the same way, also, the special, concrete, useful kind of labour embodied in each particular equivalent, is presented only as a particular kind of labour, and therefore not as an exhaustive representative of human labour generally. The latter, indeed, gains adequate manifestation in the totality of its manifold, particular, concrete forms. But, in that case, its expression in an infinite series is ever incomplete and deficient in unity.
The expanded relative value-form is, however, nothing but the sum of the elementary relative expressions or equations of the first kind, such as 20 yards of linen = 1 coat 20 yards of linen = 10 lbs. of tea, etc.
Each of these implies the corresponding inverted equation, 1 coat = 20 yards of linen 10 lbs. of tea = 20 yards of linen, etc.
In fact, when a person exchanges his linen for many other commodities, and thus expresses its value in a series of other commodities, it necessarily follows, that the various owners of the latter exchange them for the linen, and consequently express Commodities, 35 the value of their various commodities in one and the same third commodity, the linen. If then, we reverse the series, 20 yards of linen:= 1 coat or = 10 lbs. of tea, etc., that is to say, if we give expression to the converse relation already implied in the series, we get, (7. The General form of value, 1 coat 10 lbs. of tea 40 lbs. of coffee 1 quarter of corn )> — 20 yards of linen 2 ounces of gold •i- a ton of iron X com. A., etc.
1. l^he altered cliaracter of the form of value.
All commodities now express their value (1) in an elementary form, because in a single commodity; (2) with unity, because in one and the same commodity. This form of value is elementary and the same for all, therefore general.
The forms A and B were fit only to express the value of a commodity as something distinct from its use-value or material form.
The first form. A, furnishes such equations as the following: — 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, 10 lbs. of tea = | ton of iron. The value of the coat is equated to linen, that of the tea to iron. But to be equated to linen, and again to iron, is to be as difierent as are linen and iron. This form, it is plain, occurs practically only in the first beginning, when the products of labour are converted into commodities by accidental and occasional exchanges.
The second form, B, distinguishes, in a more adequate manner than the first, the value of a commodity from its use- value; for the value of the coat is there placed in contrast under all possible shapes with the bodily form of the coat; it is equated to linen, to iron, to tea, in short, to everything else, only not to itself, the coat. On the other hand, any general expression of value common to all is directly excluded; for, in the equation of value of each commodity, all other commodities now appear 36 Capitalist Production, only under the form of equivalents. The expanded form of value comes into actual existence for the first time so soon as a particular product of labour, such as cattle, is no longer exceptionally, but habitually, exchanged for various other commodities.