- 歡迎訪問欣可小說小說網
-
桌麵快捷
-
加入收藏
-
設為首頁
桌麵快捷
加入收藏
設為首頁
CHAPTER
1:
COMMODITIES
Section
1:
The
Two
Factors
of
a
Commodity:
Use-Value
and
Value
(The
Substance
of
Value
and
the
Magnitude
of
Value)
The
wealth
of
those
societies
in
which
the
capitalist
mode
of
production
prevails,
presents
itself
as
\"an
immense
accumulation
of
commodities,\"1its
unit
being
a
single
commodity.
Our
investigation
must
therefore
begin
with
the
analysis
of
a
commodity.
A
commodity
is,
in
the
first
place,
an
object
outside
us,
a
thing
that
by
its
properties
satisfies
human
wants
of
some
sort
or
another.
The
nature
of
such
wants,whether,
for
instance,
they
spring
from
the
stomach
or
from
fancy,
makes
no
difference.2Neither
are
we
here
concerned
to
know
how
the
object
satisfies
these
wants,
whether
directly
as
means
of
subsistence,
or
indirectly
as
means
of
production.
Every
useful
thing,
as
iron,
paper,
&c.,
may
be
looked
at
from
the
two
points
of
view
of
quality
and
quantity.
It
is
an
assemblage
of
many
properties,
and
may
therefore
be
of
use
in
various
ways.
To
discover
the
various
uses
of
things
is
the
work
of
history.3So
also
is
the
establishment
of
socially-recognized
standards
of
measure
for
the
quantities
of
these
useful
objects.
The
diversity
of
these
measures
has
its
origin
partly
in
the
diverse
nature
of
the
objects
to
be
measured,
partly
in
convention.
The
utility
of
a
thing
makes
it
a
use
value.4But
this
utility
is
not
a
thing
of
air.
Being
limited
by
the
physical
properties
of
the
commodity,
it
has
no
existence
apart
from
that
commodity.
A
commodity,such
as
iron,
corn,
or
a
diamond,
is
therefore,
so
far
as
it
is
a
material
thing,
a
use
value,
something
useful.This
property
of
a
commodity
is
independent
of
the
amount
of
labour
required
to
appropriate
its
useful
qualities.
When
treating
of
use
value,
we
always
assume
to
be
dealing
with
definite
quantities,
such
as
dozens
of
watches,
yards
of
linen,
or
tons
of
iron.
The
use
values
of
commodities
furnish
the
material
for
a
special
study,
that
of
the
commercial
knowledge
of
commodities.5Use
values
become
a
reality
only
by
use
or
consumption:
they
also
constitute
the
substance
of
all
wealth,
whatever
may
be
the
social
form
of
that
wealth.
In
the
form
of
society
we
are
about
to
consider,they
are,
in
addition,
the
material
depositories
of
exchange
value.
Exchange
value,
at
first
sight,
presents
itself
as
a
quantitative
relation,
as
the
proportion
in
which
values
in
use
of
one
sort
are
exchanged
for
those
of
another
sort,6a
relation
constantly
changing
with
time
and
place.
Hence
exchange
value
appears
to
be
something
accidental
and
purely
relative,
and
consequently
an
intrinsic
value,
i.e.,
an
exchange
value
that
is
inseparably
connected
with,
inherent
in
commodities,seems
a
contradiction
in
terms.7Let
us
consider
the
matter
a
little
more
closely.
A
given
commodity,
e.g.,
a
quarter
of
wheat
is
exchanged
for
x
blacking,
y
silk,
or
z
gold,
&c.
–
in
short,
for
other
commodities
in
the
most
different
proportions.
Instead
of
one
exchange
value,
the
wheat
has,
therefore,
a
great
many.
But
since
x
blacking,y
silk,
or
z
gold
&c.,
each
represents
the
exchange
value
of
one
quarter
of
wheat,
x
blacking,
y
silk,
z
gold,
&c.,
must,
as
exchange
values,
be
replaceable
by
each
other,
or
equal
to
each
other.
Therefore,
first:
the
valid
exchange
values
of
a
given
commodity
express
something
equal;
secondly,
exchange
value,
generally,is
only
the
mode
of
expression,
the
phenomenal
form,of
something
contained
in
it,
yet
distinguishable
from
it.
Let
us
take
two
commodities,
e.g.,
corn
and
iron.The
proportions
in
which
they
are
exchangeable,whatever
those
proportions
may
be,
can
always
be
represented
by
an
equation
in
which
a
given
quantity
of
corn
is
equated
to
some
quantity
of
iron:
e.g.,
1
quarter
corn
=
x
cwt.
iron.
What
does
this
equation
tell
us
It
tells
us
that
in
two
different
things
–
in
1
quarter
of
corn
and
x
cwt.
of
iron,
there
exists
in
equal
quantities
something
common
to
both.
The
two
things
must
therefore
be
equal
to
a
third,
which
in
itself
is
neither
the
one
nor
the
other.
Each
of
them,
so
far
as
it
is
exchange
value,
must
therefore
be
reducible
to
this
third.
A
simple
geometrical
illustration
will
make
this
clear.
In
order
to
calculate
and
compare
the
areas
of
rectilinear
figures,
we
decompose
them
into
triangles.But
the
area
of
the
triangle
itself
is
expressed
by
something
totally
different
from
its
visible
figure,namely,
by
half
the
product
of
the
base
multiplied
by
the
altitude.
In
the
same
way
the
exchange
values
of
commodities
must
be
capable
of
being
expressed
in
terms
of
something
common
to
them
all,
of
which
thing
they
represent
a
greater
or
less
quantity.
This
common
\"something\"
cannot
be
either
a
geometrical,
a
chemical,
or
any
other
natural
property
of
commodities.
Such
properties
claim
our
attention
only
in
so
far
as
they
affect
the
utility
of
those
commodities,
make
them
use
values.
But
the
exchange
of
commodities
is
evidently
an
act
characterised
by
a
total
abstraction
from
use
value.
Then
one
use
value
is
just
as
good
as
another,
provided
only
it
be
present
in
sufficient
quantity.
Or,
as
old
Barbon
says,
\"one
sort
of
wares
are
as
good
as
another,
if
the
values
be
equal.
There
is
no
difference
or
distinction
in
things
of
equal
value
...
An
hundred
pounds'
worth
of
lead
or
iron,
is
of
as
great
value
as
one
hundred
pounds'
worth
of
silver
or
gold.\"8
As
use
values,
commodities
are,
above
all,
of
different
qualities,
but
as
exchange
values
they
are
merely
different
quantities,
and
consequently
do
not
contain
an
atom
of
use
value.
If
then
we
leave
out
of
consideration
the
use
value
of
commodities,
they
have
only
one
common
property
left,
that
of
being
products
of
labour.
But
even
the
product
of
labour
itself
has
undergone
a
change
in
our
hands.
If
we
make
abstraction
from
its
use
value,
we
make
abstraction
at
the
same
time
from
the
material
elements
and
shapes
that
make
the
product
a
use
value;
we
see
in
it
no
longer
a
table,
a
house,
yarn,or
any
other
useful
thing.
Its
existence
as
a
material
thing
is
put
out
of
sight.
Neither
can
it
any
longer
be
regarded
as
the
product
of
the
labour
of
the
joiner,the
mason,
the
spinner,
or
of
any
other
definite
kind
of
productive
labour.
Along
with
the
useful
qualities
of
the
products
themselves,
we
put
out
of
sight
both
the
useful
character
of
the
various
kinds
of
labour
embodied
in
them,
and
the
concrete
forms
of
that
labour;
there
is
nothing
left
but
what
is
common
to
them
all;
all
are
reduced
to
one
and
the
same
sort
of
labour,
human
labour
in
the
abstract.
Let
us
now
consider
the
residue
of
each
of
these
products;
it
consists
of
the
same
unsubstantial
reality
in
each,
a
mere
congelation
of
homogeneous
human
labour,
of
labour
power
expended
without
regard
to
the
mode
of
its
expenditure.
All
that
these
things
now
tell
us
is,
that
human
labour
power
has
been
expended
in
their
production,
that
human
labour
is
embodied
in
them.
When
looked
at
as
crystals
of
this
social
substance,
common
to
them
all,
they
are
–
Values.
We
have
seen
that
when
commodities
are
exchanged,
their
exchange
value
manifests
itself
as
something
totally
independent
of
their
use
value.
But
if
we
abstract
from
their
use
value,
there
remains
their
Value
as
defined
above.
Therefore,
the
common
substance
that
manifests
itself
in
the
exchange
value
of
commodities,
whenever
they
are
exchanged,
is
their
value.
The
progress
of
our
investigation
will
show
that
exchange
value
is
the
only
form
in
which
the
value
of
commodities
can
manifest
itself
or
be
expressed.
For
the
present,
however,
we
have
to
consider
the
nature
of
value
independently
of
this,
its
form.
A
use
value,
or
useful
article,
therefore,
has
value
only
because
human
labour
in
the
abstract
has
been
embodied
or
materialised
in
it.
How,
then,
is
the
magnitude
of
this
value
to
be
measured
Plainly,by
the
quantity
of
the
value-creating
substance,
the
labour,
contained
in
the
article.
The
quantity
of
labour,however,
is
measured
by
its
duration,
and
labour
time
in
its
turn
finds
its
standard
in
weeks,
days,
and
hours.
Some
people
might
think
that
if
the
value
of
a
commodity
is
determined
by
the
quantity
of
labour
spent
on
it,
the
more
idle
and
unskilful
the
labourer,the
more
valuable
would
his
commodity
be,
because
more
time
would
be
required
in
its
production.
The
labour,
however,
that
forms
the
substance
of
value,is
homogeneous
human
labour,
expenditure
of
one
uniform
labour
power.
The
total
labour
power
of
society,
which
is
embodied
in
the
sum
total
of
the
values
of
all
commodities
produced
by
that
society,counts
here
as
one
homogeneous
mass
of
human
labour
power,
composed
though
it
be
of
innumerable
individual
units.
Each
of
these
units
is
the
same
as
any
other,
so
far
as
it
has
the
character
of
the
average
labour
power
of
society,
and
takes
effect
as
such;
that
is,
so
far
as
it
requires
for
producing
a
commodity,no
more
time
than
is
needed
on
an
average,
no
more
than
is
socially
necessary.
The
labour
time
socially
necessary
is
that
required
to
produce
an
article
under
the
normal
conditions
of
production,
and
with
the
average
degree
of
skill
and
intensity
prevalent
at
the
time.
The
introduction
of
power-looms
into
England
probably
reduced
by
one-half
the
labour
required
to
weave
a
given
quantity
of
yarn
into
cloth.
The
hand
loom
weavers,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
continued
to
require
the
same
time
as
before;
but
for
all
that,
the
product
of
one
hour
of
their
labour
represented
after
the
change
only
half
an
hour's
social
labour,
and
consequently
fell
to
one-half
its
former
value.
We
see
then
that
that
which
determines
the
magnitude
of
the
value
of
any
article
is
the
amount
of
labour
socially
necessary,
or
the
labour
time
socially
necessary
for
its
production.9Each
individual
commodity,
in
this
connexion,
is
to
be
considered
as
an
average
sample
of
its
class.10Commodities,therefore,
in
which
equal
quantities
of
labour
are
embodied,
or
which
can
be
produced
in
the
same
time,have
the
same
value.
The
value
of
one
commodity
is
to
the
value
of
any
other,
as
the
labour
time
necessary
for
the
production
of
the
one
is
to
that
necessary
for
the
production
of
the
other.
\"As
values,
all
commodities
are
only
definite
masses
of
congealed
labour
time.\"11
The
value
of
a
commodity
would
therefore
remain
constant,
if
the
labour
time
required
for
its
production
also
remained
constant.
But
the
latter
changes
with
every
variation
in
the
productiveness
of
labour.
This
productiveness
is
determined
by
various
circumstances,
amongst
others,
by
the
average
amount
of
skill
of
the
workmen,
the
state
of
science,
and
the
degree
of
its
practical
application,the
social
organisation
of
production,
the
extent
and
capabilities
of
the
means
of
production,
and
by
physical
conditions.
For
example,
the
same
amount
of
labour
in
favourable
seasons
is
embodied
in
8
bushels
of
corn,
and
in
unfavourable,
only
in
four.
The
same
labour
extracts
from
rich
mines
more
metal
than
from
poor
mines.
Diamonds
are
of
very
rare
occurrence
on
the
earth's
surface,
and
hence
their
discovery
costs,
on
an
average,
a
great
deal
of
labour
time.
Consequently
much
labour
is
represented
in
a
small
compass.
Jacob
doubts
whether
gold
has
ever
been
paid
for
at
its
full
value.
This
applies
still
more
to
diamonds.
According
to
Eschwege,
the
total
produce
of
the
Brazilian
diamond
mines
for
the
eighty
years,
ending
in
1823,had
not
realised
the
price
of
one-and-a-half
years'average
produce
of
the
sugar
and
coffee
plantations
of
the
same
country,
although
the
diamonds
cost
much
more
labour,
and
therefore
represented
more
value.With
richer
mines,
the
same
quantity
of
labour
would
embody
itself
in
more
diamonds,
and
their
value
would
fall.
If
we
could
succeed
at
a
small
expenditure
of
labour,
in
converting
carbon
into
diamonds,
their
value
might
fall
below
that
of
bricks.
In
general,
the
greater
the
productiveness
of
labour,
the
less
is
the
labour
time
required
for
the
production
of
an
article,the
less
is
the
amount
of
labour
crystallised
in
that
article,
and
the
less
is
its
value;
and
vice
versa,
the
less
the
productiveness
of
labour,
the
greater
is
the
labour
time
required
for
the
production
of
an
article,
and
the
greater
is
its
value.
The
value
of
a
commodity,
therefore,
varies
directly
as
the
quantity,and
inversely
as
the
productiveness,
of
the
labour[1]incorporated
in
it.
A
thing
can
be
a
use
value,
without
having
value.This
is
the
case
whenever
its
utility
to
man
is
not
due
to
labour.
Such
are
air,
virgin
soil,
natural
meadows,&c.
A
thing
can
be
useful,
and
the
product
of
human
labour,
without
being
a
commodity.
Whoever
directly
satisfies
his
wants
with
the
produce
of
his
own
labour,creates,
indeed,
use
values,
but
not
commodities.
In
order
to
produce
the
latter,
he
must
not
only
produce
use
values,
but
use
values
for
others,
social
use
values.(And
not
only
for
others,
without
more.
The
mediaeval
peasant
produced
quit-rent-corn
for
his
feudal
lord
and
tithe-corn
for
his
parson.
But
neither
the
quit-rent
corn
nor
the
tithe-corn
became
commodities
by
reason
of
the
fact
that
they
had
been
produced
for
others.
To
become
a
commodity
a
product
must
be
transferred
to
another,
whom
it
will
serve
as
a
use
value,
by
means
of
an
exchange.)12Lastly
nothing
can
have
value,
without
being
an
object
of
utility.
If
the
thing
is
useless,
so
is
the
labour
contained
in
it;
the
labour
does
not
count
as
labour,
and
therefore
creates
no
value.
Section
2:
The
Two-fold
Character
of
the
Labour
Embodied
in
Commodities
At
first
sight
a
commodity
presented
itself
to
us
as
a
complex
of
two
things
–
use
value
and
exchange
value.
Later
on,
we
saw
also
that
labour,
too,
possesses
the
same
two-fold
nature;
for,
so
far
as
it
finds
expression
in
value,
it
does
not
possess
the
same
characteristics
that
belong
to
it
as
a
creator
of
use
values.
I
was
the
first
to
point
out
and
to
examine
critically
this
two-fold
nature
of
the
labour
contained
in
commodities.
As
this
point
is
the
pivot
on
which
a
clear
comprehension
of
political
economy
turns,
we
must
go
more
into
detail.
Let
us
take
two
commodities
such
as
a
coat
and
10
yards
of
linen,
and
let
the
former
be
double
the
value
of
the
latter,
so
that,
if
10
yards
of
linen
=
W,
the
coat=
2W.
The
coat
is
a
use
value
that
satisfies
a
particular
want.
Its
existence
is
the
result
of
a
special
sort
of
productive
activity,
the
nature
of
which
is
determined
by
its
aim,
mode
of
operation,
subject,
means,
and
result.
The
labour,
whose
utility
is
thus
represented
by
the
value
in
use
of
its
product,
or
which
manifests
itself
by
making
its
product
a
use
value,
we
call
useful
labour.
In
this
connection
we
consider
only
its
useful
effect.
As
the
coat
and
the
linen
are
two
qualitatively
different
use
values,
so
also
are
the
two
forms
of
labour
that
produce
them,
tailoring
and
weaving.Were
these
two
objects
not
qualitatively
different,
not
produced
respectively
by
labour
of
different
quality,they
could
not
stand
to
each
other
in
the
relation
of
commodities.
Coats
are
not
exchanged
for
coats,
one
use
value
is
not
exchanged
for
another
of
the
same
kind.
To
all
the
different
varieties
of
values
in
use
there
correspond
as
many
different
kinds
of
useful
labour,classified
according
to
the
order,
genus,
species,
and
variety
to
which
they
belong
in
the
social
division
of
labour.
This
division
of
labour
is
a
necessary
condition
for
the
production
of
commodities,
but
it
does
not
follow,
conversely,
that
the
production
of
commodities
is
a
necessary
condition
for
the
division
of
labour.In
the
primitive
Indian
community
there
is
social
division
of
labour,
without
production
of
commodities.Or,
to
take
an
example
nearer
home,
in
every
factory
the
labour
is
divided
according
to
a
system,
but
this
division
is
not
brought
about
by
the
operatives
mutually
exchanging
their
individual
products.
Only
such
products
can
become
commodities
with
regard
to
each
other,
as
result
from
different
kinds
of
labour,each
kind
being
carried
on
independently
and
for
the
account
of
private
individuals.
To
resume,
then:
In
the
use
value
of
each
commodity
there
is
contained
useful
labour,
i.e.,
productive
activity
of
a
definite
kind
and
exercised
with
a
definite
aim.
Use
values
cannot
confront
each
other
as
commodities,
unless
the
useful
labour
embodied
in
them
is
qualitatively
different
in
each
of
them.In
a
community,
the
produce
of
which
in
general
takes
the
form
of
commodities,
i.e.,
in
a
community
of
commodity
producers,
this
qualitative
difference
between
the
useful
forms
of
labour
that
are
carried
on
independently
by
individual
producers,
each
on
their
own
account,
develops
into
a
complex
system,
a
social
division
of
labour.
Anyhow,
whether
the
coat
be
worn
by
the
tailor
or
by
his
customer,
in
either
case
it
operates
as
a
use
value.
Nor
is
the
relation
between
the
coat
and
the
labour
that
produced
it
altered
by
the
circumstance
that
tailoring
may
have
become
a
special
trade,
an
independent
branch
of
the
social
division
of
labour.Wherever
the
want
of
clothing
forced
them
to
it,
the
human
race
made
clothes
for
thousands
of
years,without
a
single
man
becoming
a
tailor.
But
coats
and
linen,
like
every
other
element
of
material
wealth
that
is
not
the
spontaneous
produce
of
Nature,
must
invariably
owe
their
existence
to
a
special
productive
activity,
exercised
with
a
definite
aim,
an
activity
that
appropriates
particular
nature-given
materials
to
particular
human
wants.
So
far
therefore
as
labour
is
a
creator
of
use
value,
is
useful
labour,
it
is
a
necessary
condition,
independent
of
all
forms
of
society,
for
the
existence
of
the
human
race;
it
is
an
eternal
nature
imposed
necessity,
without
which
there
can
be
no
material
exchanges
between
man
and
Nature,
and
therefore
no
life.
The
use
values,
coat,
linen,
&c.,
i.e.,
the
bodies
of
commodities,
are
combinations
of
two
elements
–matter
and
labour.
If
we
take
away
the
useful
labour
expended
upon
them,
a
material
substratum
is
always
left,
which
is
furnished
by
Nature
without
the
help
of
man.
The
latter
can
work
only
as
Nature
does,
that
is
by
changing
the
form
of
matter.13Nay
more,
in
this
work
of
changing
the
form
he
is
constantly
helped
by
natural
forces.
We
see,
then,
that
labour
is
not
the
only
source
of
material
wealth,
of
use
values
produced
by
labour.
As
William
Petty
puts
it,
labour
is
its
father
and
the
earth
its
mother.
Let
us
now
pass
from
the
commodity
considered
as
a
use
value
to
the
value
of
commodities.
By
our
assumption,
the
coat
is
worth
twice
as
much
as
the
linen.
But
this
is
a
mere
quantitative
difference,which
for
the
present
does
not
concern
us.
We
bear
in
mind,
however,
that
if
the
value
of
the
coat
is
double
that
of
10
yds
of
linen,
20
yds
of
linen
must
have
the
same
value
as
one
coat.
So
far
as
they
are
values,the
coat
and
the
linen
are
things
of
a
like
substance,objective
expressions
of
essentially
identical
labour.But
tailoring
and
weaving
are,
qualitatively,
different
kinds
of
labour.
There
are,
however,
states
of
society
in
which
one
and
the
same
man
does
tailoring
and
weaving
alternately,
in
which
case
these
two
forms
of
labour
are
mere
modifications
of
the
labour
of
the
same
individual,
and
not
special
and
fixed
functions
of
different
persons,
just
as
the
coat
which
our
tailor
makes
one
day,
and
the
trousers
which
he
makes
another
day,
imply
only
a
variation
in
the
labour
of
one
and
the
same
individual.
Moreover,
we
see
at
a
glance
that,
in
our
capitalist
society,
a
given
portion
of
human
labour
is,
in
accordance
with
the
varying
demand,
at
one
time
supplied
in
the
form
of
tailoring,at
another
in
the
form
of
weaving.
This
change
may
possibly
not
take
place
without
friction,
but
take
place
it
must.
Productive
activity,
if
we
leave
out
of
sight
its
special
form,
viz.,
the
useful
character
of
the
labour,is
nothing
but
the
expenditure
of
human
labour
power.
Tailoring
and
weaving,
though
qualitatively
different
productive
activities,
are
each
a
productive
expenditure
of
human
brains,
nerves,
and
muscles,and
in
this
sense
are
human
labour.
They
are
but
two
different
modes
of
expending
human
labour
power.Of
course,
this
labour
power,
which
remains
the
same
under
all
its
modifications,
must
have
attained
a
certain
pitch
of
development
before
it
can
be
expended
in
a
multiplicity
of
modes.
But
the
value
of
a
commodity
represents
human
labour
in
the
abstract,the
expenditure
of
human
labour
in
general.
And
just
as
in
society,
a
general
or
a
banker
plays
a
great
part,
but
mere
man,
on
the
other
hand,
a
very
shabby
part,14so
here
with
mere
human
labour.
It
is
the
expenditure
of
simple
labour
power,
i.e.,
of
the
labour
power
which,
on
an
average,
apart
from
any
special
development,
exists
in
the
organism
of
every
ordinary
individual.
Simple
average
labour,
it
is
true,
varies
in
character
in
different
countries
and
at
different
times,
but
in
a
particular
society
it
is
given.
Skilled
labour
counts
only
as
simple
labour
intensified,
or
rather,
as
multiplied
simple
labour,
a
given
quantity
of
skilled
being
considered
equal
to
a
greater
quantity
of
simple
labour.
Experience
shows
that
this
reduction
is
constantly
being
made.
A
commodity
may
be
the
product
of
the
most
skilled
labour,
but
its
value,
by
equating
it
to
the
product
of
simple
unskilled
labour,represents
a
definite
quantity
of
the
latter
labour
alone.15The
different
proportions
in
which
different
sorts
of
labour
are
reduced
to
unskilled
labour
as
their
standard,
are
established
by
a
social
process
that
goes
on
behind
the
backs
of
the
producers,
and,consequently,
appear
to
be
fixed
by
custom.
For
simplicity's
sake
we
shall
henceforth
account
every
kind
of
labour
to
be
unskilled,
simple
labour;
by
this
we
do
no
more
than
save
ourselves
the
trouble
of
making
the
reduction.
Just
as,
therefore,
in
viewing
the
coat
and
linen
as
values,
we
abstract
from
their
different
use
values,so
it
is
with
the
labour
represented
by
those
values:we
disregard
the
difference
between
its
useful
forms,
weaving
and
tailoring.
As
the
use
values,
coat
and
linen,
are
combinations
of
special
productive
activities
with
cloth
and
yarn,
while
the
values,
coat
and
linen,
are,
on
the
other
hand,
mere
homogeneous
congelations
of
undifferentiated
labour,
so
the
labour
embodied
in
these
latter
values
does
not
count
by
virtue
of
its
productive
relation
to
cloth
and
yarn,
but
only
as
being
expenditure
of
human
labour
power.Tailoring
and
weaving
are
necessary
factors
in
the
creation
of
the
use
values,
coat
and
linen,
precisely
because
these
two
kinds
of
labour
are
of
different
qualities;
but
only
in
so
far
as
abstraction
is
made
from
their
special
qualities,
only
in
so
far
as
both
possess
the
same
quality
of
being
human
labour,
do
tailoring
and
weaving
form
the
substance
of
the
values
of
the
same
articles.
Coats
and
linen,
however,
are
not
merely
values,but
values
of
definite
magnitude,
and
according
to
our
assumption,
the
coat
is
worth
twice
as
much
as
the
ten
yards
of
linen.
Whence
this
difference
in
their
valuesIt
is
owing
to
the
fact
that
the
linen
contains
only
half
as
much
labour
as
the
coat,
and
consequently,
that
in
the
production
of
the
latter,
labour
power
must
have
been
expended
during
twice
the
time
necessary
for
the
production
of
the
former.
While,
therefore,
with
reference
to
use
value,the
labour
contained
in
a
commodity
counts
only
qualitatively,
with
reference
to
value
it
counts
only
quantitatively,
and
must
first
be
reduced
to
human
labour
pure
and
simple.
In
the
former
case,
it
is
a
question
of
How
and
What,
in
the
latter
of
How
muchHow
long
a
time
Since
the
magnitude
of
the
value
of
a
commodity
represents
only
the
quantity
of
labour
embodied
in
it,
it
follows
that
all
commodities,
when
taken
in
certain
proportions,
must
be
equal
in
value.
If
the
productive
power
of
all
the
different
sorts
of
useful
labour
required
for
the
production
of
a
coat
remains
unchanged,
the
sum
of
the
values
of
the
coats
produced
increases
with
their
number.
If
one
coat
represents
x
days'
labour,
two
coats
represent
2x
days'labour,
and
so
on.
But
assume
that
the
duration
of
the
labour
necessary
for
the
production
of
a
coat
becomes
doubled
or
halved.
In
the
first
case
one
coat
is
worth
as
much
as
two
coats
were
before;
in
the
second
case,two
coats
are
only
worth
as
much
as
one
was
before,although
in
both
cases
one
coat
renders
the
same
service
as
before,
and
the
useful
labour
embodied
in
it
remains
of
the
same
quality.
But
the
quantity
of
labour
spent
on
its
production
has
altered.
An
increase
in
the
quantity
of
use
values
is
an
increase
of
material
wealth.
With
two
coats
two
men
can
be
clothed,
with
one
coat
only
one
man.Nevertheless,
an
increased
quantity
of
material
wealth
may
correspond
to
a
simultaneous
fall
in
the
magnitude
of
its
value.
This
antagonistic
movement
has
its
origin
in
the
two-fold
character
of
labour.Productive
power
has
reference,
of
course,
only
to
labour
of
some
useful
concrete
form,
the
efficacy
of
any
special
productive
activity
during
a
given
time
being
dependent
on
its
productiveness.
Useful
labour
becomes,
therefore,
a
more
or
less
abundant
source
of
products,
in
proportion
to
the
rise
or
fall
of
its
productiveness.
On
the
other
hand,
no
change
in
this
productiveness
affects
the
labour
represented
by
value.Since
productive
power
is
an
attribute
of
the
concrete
useful
forms
of
labour,
of
course
it
can
no
longer
have
any
bearing
on
that
labour,
so
soon
as
we
make
abstraction
from
those
concrete
useful
forms.
However
then
productive
power
may
vary,
the
same
labour,exercised
during
equal
periods
of
time,
always
yields
equal
amounts
of
value.
But
it
will
yield,
during
equal
periods
of
time,
different
quantities
of
values
in
use;more,
if
the
productive
power
rise,
fewer,
if
it
fall.
The
same
change
in
productive
power,
which
increases
the
fruitfulness
of
labour,
and,
in
consequence,
the
quantity
of
use
values
produced
by
that
labour,
will
diminish
the
total
value
of
this
increased
quantity
of
use
values,
provided
such
change
shorten
the
total
labour
time
necessary
for
their
production;
and
vice
versa.
On
the
one
hand
all
labouris,
speaking
physiologically,
an
expenditure
of
human
labour
power,
and
in
its
character
of
identical
abstract
human
labour,
it
creates
and
forms
the
value
of
commodities.On
the
other
hand,
all
labour
is
the
expenditure
of
human
labour
power
in
a
special
form
and
with
a
definite
aim,
and
in
this,
its
character
of
concrete
useful
labour,
it
produces
use
values.16
Section
3:
The
Form
of
Value
or
Exchange-Value
Commodities
come
into
the
world
in
the
shape
of
use
values,
articles,
or
goods,
such
as
iron,
linen,corn,
&c.
This
is
their
plain,
homely,
bodily
form.They
are,
however,
commodities,
only
because
they
are
something
two-fold,
both
objects
of
utility,
and,
at
the
same
time,
depositories
of
value.
They
manifest
themselves
therefore
as
commodities,
or
have
the
form
of
commodities,
only
in
so
far
as
they
have
two
forms,a
physical
or
natural
form,
and
a
value
form.
The
reality
of
the
value
of
commodities
differs
in
this
respect
from
Dame
Quickly,
that
we
don't
know
\"where
to
have
it.\"
The
value
of
commodities
is
the
very
opposite
of
the
coarse
materiality
of
their
substance,
not
an
atom
of
matter
enters
into
its
composition.
Turn
and
examine
a
single
commodity,by
itself,
as
we
will,
yet
in
so
far
as
it
remains
an
object
of
value,
it
seems
impossible
to
grasp
it.
If,
however,
we
bear
in
mind
that
the
value
of
commodities
has
a
purely
social
reality,
and
that
they
acquire
this
reality
only
in
so
far
as
they
are
expressions
or
embodiments
of
one
identical
social
substance,
viz.,
human
labour,
it
follows
as
a
matter
of
course,
that
value
can
only
manifest
itself
in
the
social
relation
of
commodity
to
commodity.
In
fact
we
started
from
exchange
value,
or
the
exchange
relation
of
commodities,
in
order
to
get
at
the
value
that
lies
hidden
behind
it.
We
must
now
return
to
this
form
under
which
value
first
appeared
to
us.
Every
one
knows,
if
he
knows
nothing
else,
that
commodities
have
a
value
form
common
to
them
all,
and
presenting
a
marked
contrast
with
the
varied
bodily
forms
of
their
use
values.
I
mean
their
money
form.
Here,
however,
a
task
is
set
us,
the
performance
of
which
has
never
yet
even
been
attempted
by
bourgeois
economy,
the
task
of
tracing
the
genesis
of
this
money
form,
of
developing
the
expression
of
value
implied
in
the
value
relation
of
commodities,from
its
simplest,
almost
imperceptible
outline,
to
the
dazzling
money-form.
By
doing
this
we
shall,
at
the
same
time,
solve
the
riddle
presented
by
money.
The
simplest
value-relation
is
evidently
that
of
one
commodity
to
some
one
other
commodity
of
a
different
kind.
Hence
the
relation
between
the
values
of
two
commodities
supplies
us
with
the
simplest
expression
of
the
value
of
a
single
commodity.
A.
Elementary
or
Accidental
Form
Of
Value
x
commodity
A
=
y
commodity
B,
or
x
commodity
A
is
worth
y
commodity
B.
20
yards
of
linen
=
1
coat,
or
20
Yards
of
linen
are
worth
1
coat.
1.
The
two
poles
of
the
expression
of
value.
Relative
form
and
Equivalent
form
The
whole
mystery
of
the
form
of
value
lies
hidden
in
this
elementary
form.
Its
analysis,
therefore,
is
our
real
difficulty.
Here
two
different
kinds
of
commodities
(in
our
example
the
linen
and
the
coat),
evidently
play
two
different
parts.
The
linen
expresses
its
value
in
the
coat;
the
coat
serves
as
the
material
in
which
that
value
is
expressed.
The
former
plays
an
active,
the
latter
a
passive,
part.
The
value
of
the
linen
is
represented
as
relative
value,
or
appears
in
relative
form.
The
coat
officiates
as
equivalent,
or
appears
in
equivalent
form.
The
relative
form
and
the
equivalent
form
are
two
intimately
connected,
mutually
dependent
and
inseparable
elements
of
the
expression
of
value;
but,at
the
same
time,
are
mutually
exclusive,
antagonistic
extremes
–
i.e.,
poles
of
the
same
expression.
They
are
allotted
respectively
to
the
two
different
commodities
brought
into
relation
by
that
expression.
It
is
not
possible
to
express
the
value
of
linen
in
linen.
20
yards
of
linen
=
20
yards
of
linen
is
no
expression
of
value.On
the
contrary,
such
an
equation
merely
says
that
20
yards
of
linen
are
nothing
else
than
20
yards
of
linen,a
definite
quantity
of
the
use
value
linen.
The
value
of
the
linen
can
therefore
be
expressed
only
relatively–
i.e.,
in
some
other
commodity.
The
relative
form
of
the
value
of
the
linen
presupposes,
therefore,
the
presence
of
some
other
commodity
–
here
the
coat
–under
the
form
of
an
equivalent.
On
the
other
hand,the
commodity
that
figures
as
the
equivalent
cannot
at
the
same
time
assume
the
relative
form.
That
second
commodity
is
not
the
one
whose
value
is
expressed.Its
function
is
merely
to
serve
as
the
material
in
which
the
value
of
the
first
commodity
is
expressed.
No
doubt,
the
expression
20
yards
of
linen
=
1
coat,
or
20
yards
of
linen
are
worth
1
coat,
implies
the
opposite
relation.
1
coat
=
20
yards
of
linen,
or
1
coat
is
worth
20
yards
of
linen.
But,
in
that
case,I
must
reverse
the
equation,
in
order
to
express
the
value
of
the
coat
relatively;
and
so
soon
as
I
do
that
the
linen
becomes
the
equivalent
instead
of
the
coat.A
single
commodity
cannot,
therefore,
simultaneously
assume,
in
the
same
expression
of
value,
both
forms.The
very
polarity
of
these
forms
makes
them
mutually
exclusive.
Whether,
then,
a
commodity
assumes
the
relative
form,
or
the
opposite
equivalent
form,
depends
entirely
upon
its
accidental
position
in
the
expression
of
value
–
that
is,
upon
whether
it
is
the
commodity
whose
value
is
being
expressed
or
the
commodity
in
which
value
is
being
expressed.
2.
The
Relative
Form
of
Value
(a.)
The
nature
and
import
of
this
form
In
order
to
discover
how
the
elementary
expression
of
the
value
of
a
commodity
lies
hidden
in
the
value
relation
of
two
commodities,
we
must,
in
the
first
place,
consider
the
latter
entirely
apart
from
its
quantitative
aspect.
The
usual
mode
of
procedure
is
generally
the
reverse,
and
in
the
value
relation
nothing
is
seen
but
the
proportion
between
definite
quantities
of
two
different
sorts
of
commodities
that
are
considered
equal
to
each
other.
It
is
apt
to
be
forgotten
that
the
magnitudes
of
different
things
can
be
compared
quantitatively,
only
when
those
magnitudes
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
same
unit.
It
is
only
as
expressions
of
such
a
unit
that
they
are
of
the
same
denomination,
and
therefore
commensurable.17
Whether
20
yards
of
linen
=
1
coat
or
=
20
coats
or=
x
coats
–
that
is,
whether
a
given
quantity
of
linen
is
worth
few
or
many
coats,
every
such
statement
implies
that
the
linen
and
coats,
as
magnitudes
of
value,
are
expressions
of
the
same
unit,
things
of
the
same
kind.
Linen
=
coat
is
the
basis
of
the
equation.
But
the
two
commodities
whose
identity
of
quality
is
thus
assumed,
do
not
play
the
same
part.
It
is
only
the
value
of
the
linen
that
is
expressed.
And
how
By
its
reference
to
the
coat
as
its
equivalent,
as
something
that
can
be
exchanged
for
it.
In
this
relation
the
coat
is
the
mode
of
existence
of
value,
is
value
embodied,for
only
as
such
is
it
the
same
as
the
linen.
On
the
other
hand,
the
linen's
own
value
comes
to
the
front,receives
independent
expression,
for
it
is
only
as
being
value
that
it
is
comparable
with
the
coat
as
a
thing
of
equal
value,
or
exchangeable
with
the
coat.
To
borrow
an
illustration
from
chemistry,
butyric
acid
is
a
different
substance
from
propyl
formate.
Yet
both
are
made
up
of
the
same
chemical
substances,carbon
(C),
hydrogen
(H),
and
oxygen
(O),
and
that,too,
in
like
proportions
–
namely,
C4H8O2.
If
now
we
equate
butyric
acid
to
propyl
formate,
then,
in
the
first
place,
propyl
formate
would
be,
in
this
relation,merely
a
form
of
existence
of
C4H8O2;
and
in
the
second
place,
we
should
be
stating
that
butyric
acid
also
consists
of
C4H8O2.
Therefore,
by
thus
equating
the
two
substances,
expression
would
be
given
to
their
chemical
composition,
while
their
different
physical
forms
would
be
neglected.
If
we
say
that,
as
values,
commodities
are
mere
congelations
of
human
labour,
we
reduce
them
by
our
analysis,
it
is
true,
to
the
abstraction,
value;
but
we
ascribe
to
this
value
no
form
apart
from
their
bodily
form.
It
is
otherwise
in
the
value
relation
of
one
commodity
to
another.
Here,
the
one
stands
forth
in
its
character
of
value
by
reason
of
its
relation
to
the
other.
By
making
the
coat
the
equivalent
of
the
linen,we
equate
the
labour
embodied
in
the
former
to
that
in
the
latter.
Now,
it
is
true
that
the
tailoring,
which
makes
the
coat,
is
concrete
labour
of
a
different
sort
from
the
weaving
which
makes
the
linen.
But
the
act
of
equating
it
to
the
weaving,
reduces
the
tailoring
to
that
which
is
really
equal
in
the
two
kinds
of
labour,to
their
common
character
of
human
labour.
In
this
roundabout
way,
then,
the
fact
is
expressed,
that
weaving
also,
in
so
far
as
it
weaves
value,
has
nothing
to
distinguish
it
from
tailoring,
and,
consequently,is
abstract
human
labour.
It
is
the
expression
of
equivalence
between
different
sorts
of
commodities
that
alone
brings
into
relief
the
specific
character
of
value-creating
labour,
and
this
it
does
by
actually
reducing
the
different
varieties
of
labour
embodied
in
the
different
kinds
of
commodities
to
their
common
quality
of
human
labour
in
the
abstract.18
精選分類
