- 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
There
is,
however,
something
else
required
beyond
the
expression
of
the
specific
character
of
the
labour
of
which
the
value
of
the
linen
consists.
Human
labour
power
in
motion,
or
human
labour,
creates
value,but
is
not
itself
value.
It
becomes
value
only
in
its
congealed
state,
when
embodied
in
the
form
of
some
object.
In
order
to
express
the
value
of
the
linen
as
a
congelation
of
human
labour,
that
value
must
be
expressed
as
having
objective
existence,
as
being
a
something
materially
different
from
the
linen
itself,and
yet
a
something
common
to
the
linen
and
all
other
commodities.
The
problem
is
already
solved.
When
occupying
the
position
of
equivalent
in
the
equation
of
value,
the
coat
ranks
qualitatively
as
the
equal
of
the
linen,
as
something
of
the
same
kind,because
it
is
value.
In
this
position
it
is
a
thing
in
which
we
see
nothing
but
value,
or
whose
palpable
bodily
form
represents
value.
Yet
the
coat
itself,
the
body
of
the
commodity,
coat,
is
a
mere
use
value.
A
coat
as
such
no
more
tells
us
it
is
value,
than
does
the
first
piece
of
linen
we
take
hold
of.
This
shows
that
when
placed
in
value-relation
to
the
linen,
the
coat
signifies
more
than
when
out
of
that
relation,
just
as
many
a
man
strutting
about
in
a
gorgeous
uniform
counts
for
more
than
when
in
mufti.
In
the
production
of
the
coat,
human
labour
power,in
the
shape
of
tailoring,
must
have
been
actually
expended.
Human
labour
is
therefore
accumulated
in
it.
In
this
aspect
the
coat
is
a
depository
of
value,
but
though
worn
to
a
thread,
it
does
not
let
this
fact
show
through.
And
as
equivalent
of
the
linen
in
the
value
equation,
it
exists
under
this
aspect
alone,
counts
therefore
as
embodied
value,
as
a
body
that
is
value.A,
for
instance,
cannot
be
\"your
majesty\"
to
B,
unless
at
the
same
time
majesty
in
B's
eyes
assumes
the
bodily
form
of
A,
and,
what
is
more,
with
every
new
father
of
the
people,
changes
its
features,
hair,
and
many
other
things
besides.
Hence,
in
the
value
equation,
in
which
the
coat
is
the
equivalent
of
the
linen,
the
coat
officiates
as
the
form
of
value.
The
value
of
the
commodity
linen
is
expressed
by
the
bodily
form
of
the
commodity
coat,the
value
of
one
by
the
use
value
of
the
other.
As
a
use
value,
the
linen
is
something
palpably
different
from
the
coat;
as
value,
it
is
the
same
as
the
coat,
and
now
has
the
appearance
of
a
coat.
Thus
the
linen
acquires
a
value
form
different
from
its
physical
form.
The
fact
that
it
is
value,
is
made
manifest
by
its
equality
with
the
coat,
just
as
the
sheep's
nature
of
a
Christian
is
shown
in
his
resemblance
to
the
Lamb
of
God.
We
see,
then,
all
that
our
analysis
of
the
value
of
commodities
has
already
told
us,
is
told
us
by
the
linen
itself,
so
soon
as
it
comes
into
communication
with
another
commodity,
the
coat.
Only
it
betrays
its
thoughts
in
that
language
with
which
alone
it
is
familiar,
the
language
of
commodities.
In
order
to
tell
us
that
its
own
value
is
created
by
labour
in
its
abstract
character
of
human
labour,
it
says
that
the
coat,
in
so
far
as
it
is
worth
as
much
as
the
linen,
and
therefore
is
value,
consists
of
the
same
labour
as
the
linen.
In
order
to
inform
us
that
its
sublime
reality
as
value
is
not
the
same
as
its
buckram
body,
it
says
that
value
has
the
appearance
of
a
coat,
and
consequently
that
so
far
as
the
linen
is
value,
it
and
the
coat
are
as
like
as
two
peas.
We
may
here
remark,
that
the
language
of
commodities
has,
besides
Hebrew,
many
other
more
or
less
correct
dialects.
The
German
\"Wertsein,\"
to
be
worth,
for
instance,
expresses
in
a
less
striking
manner
than
the
Romance
verbs
\"valere,\"
\"valer,\"
\"valoir,\"that
the
equating
of
commodity
B
to
commodity
A,is
commodity
A's
own
mode
of
expressing
its
value.Paris
vaut
bien
une
messe.
[Paris
is
certainly
worth
a
mass]
By
means,
therefore,
of
the
value-relation
expressed
in
our
equation,
the
bodily
form
of
commodity
B
becomes
the
value
form
of
commodity
A,
or
the
body
of
commodity
B
acts
as
a
mirror
to
the
value
of
commodity
A.19By
putting
itself
in
relation
with
commodity
B,
as
value
in
propria
persona,
as
the
matter
of
which
human
labour
is
made
up,
the
commodity
A
converts
the
value
in
use,
B,
into
the
substance
in
which
to
express
its,
A's,
own
value.
The
value
of
A,
thus
expressed
in
the
use
value
of
B,
has
taken
the
form
of
relative
value.
(b.)
Quantitative
determination
of
Relative
value
Every
commodity,
whose
value
it
is
intended
to
express,
is
a
useful
object
of
given
quantity,
as
15
bushels
of
corn,
or
100
lbs
of
coffee.
And
a
given
quantity
of
any
commodity
contains
a
definite
quantity
of
human
labour.
The
value
form
must
therefore
not
only
express
value
generally,
but
also
value
in
definite
quantity.
Therefore,
in
the
value
relation
of
commodity
A
to
commodity
B,
of
the
linen
to
the
coat,
not
only
is
the
latter,
as
value
in
general,
made
the
equal
in
quality
of
the
linen,
but
a
definite
quantity
of
coat
(1
coat)
is
made
the
equivalent
of
a
definite
quantity
(20
yards)
of
linen.
The
equation,
20
yards
of
linen
=
1
coat,
or
20
yards
of
linen
are
worth
one
coat,
implies
that
the
same
quantity
of
value
substance
(congealed
labour)
is
embodied
in
both;
that
the
two
commodities
have
each
cost
the
same
amount
of
labour
of
the
same
quantity
of
labour
time.
But
the
labour
time
necessary
for
the
production
of
20
yards
of
linen
or
1
coat
varies
with
every
change
in
the
productiveness
of
weaving
or
tailoring.
We
have
now
to
consider
the
influence
of
such
changes
on
the
quantitative
aspect
of
the
relative
expression
of
value.
I.
Let
the
value
of
the
linen
vary,20that
of
the
coat
remaining
constant.
If,
say
in
consequence
of
the
exhaustion
of
flax-growing
soil,
the
labour
time
necessary
for
the
production
of
the
linen
be
doubled,the
value
of
the
linen
will
also
be
doubled.
Instead
of
the
equation,
20
yards
of
linen
=
1
coat,
we
should
have
20
yards
of
linen
=
2
coats,
since
1
coat
would
now
contain
only
half
the
labour
time
embodied
in
20
yards
of
linen.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
in
consequence,say,
of
improved
looms,
this
labour
time
be
reduced
by
one-half,
the
value
of
the
linen
would
fall
by
one-half.Consequently,
we
should
have
20
yards
of
linen
=
coat.
The
relative
value
of
commodity
A,
i.e.,
its
value
expressed
in
commodity
B,
rises
and
falls
directly
as
the
value
of
A,
the
value
of
B
being
supposed
constant.
II.
Let
the
value
of
the
linen
remain
constant,while
the
value
of
the
coat
varies.
If,
under
these
circumstances,
in
consequence,
for
instance,
of
a
poor
crop
of
wool,
the
labour
time
necessary
for
the
production
of
a
coat
becomes
doubled,
we
have
instead
of
20
yards
of
linen
=
1
coat,
20
yards
of
linen=
coat.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
the
value
of
the
coat
sinks
by
one-half,
then
20
yards
of
linen
=
2
coats.Hence,
if
the
value
of
commodity
A
remain
constant,its
relative
value
expressed
in
commodity
B
rises
and
falls
inversely
as
the
value
of
B.
If
we
compare
the
different
cases
in
I
and
II,
we
see
that
the
same
change
of
magnitude
in
relative
value
may
arise
from
totally
opposite
causes.
Thus,
the
equation,
20
yards
of
linen
=
1
coat,
becomes
20
yards
of
linen
=
2
coats,
either,
because
the
value
of
the
linen
has
doubled,
or
because
the
value
of
the
coat
has
fallen
by
one-half;
and
it
becomes
20
yards
of
linen=
coat,
either,
because
the
value
of
the
linen
has
fallen
by
one-half,
or
because
the
value
of
the
coat
has
doubled.
III.
Let
the
quantities
of
labour
time
respectively
necessary
for
the
production
of
the
linen
and
the
coat
vary
simultaneously
in
the
same
direction
and
in
the
same
proportion.
In
this
case
20
yards
of
linen
continue
equal
to
1
coat,
however
much
their
values
may
have
altered.
Their
change
of
value
is
seen
as
soon
as
they
are
compared
with
a
third
commodity,whose
value
has
remained
constant.
If
the
values
of
all
commodities
rose
or
fell
simultaneously,
and
in
the
same
proportion,
their
relative
values
would
remain
unaltered.
Their
real
change
of
value
would
appear
from
the
diminished
or
increased
quantity
of
commodities
produced
in
a
given
time.
IV.
The
labour
time
respectively
necessary
for
the
production
of
the
linen
and
the
coat,
and
therefore
the
value
of
these
commodities
may
simultaneously
vary
in
the
same
direction,
but
at
unequal
rates
or
in
opposite
directions,
or
in
other
ways.
The
effect
of
all
these
possible
different
variations,
on
the
relative
value
of
a
commodity,
may
be
deduced
from
the
results
of
I,
II,
and
III.
Thus
real
changes
in
the
magnitude
of
value
are
neither
unequivocally
nor
exhaustively
reflected
in
their
relative
expression,
that
is,
in
the
equation
expressing
the
magnitude
of
relative
value.
The
relative
value
of
a
commodity
may
vary,
although
its
value
remains
constant.
Its
relative
value
may
remain
constant,
although
its
value
varies;
and
finally,simultaneous
variations
in
the
magnitude
of
value
and
in
that
of
its
relative
expression
by
no
means
necessarily
correspond
in
amount.21
3.
The
Equivalent
Form
of
Value
We
have
seen
that
commodity
A
(the
linen),
by
expressing
its
value
in
the
use
value
of
a
commodity
differing
in
kind
(the
coat),
at
the
same
time
impresses
upon
the
latter
a
specific
form
of
value,
namely
that
of
the
equivalent.
The
commodity
linen
manifests
its
quality
of
having
a
value
by
the
fact
that
the
coat,without
having
assumed
a
value
form
different
from
its
bodily
form,
is
equated
to
the
linen.
The
fact
that
the
latter
therefore
has
a
value
is
expressed
by
saying
that
the
coat
is
directly
exchangeable
with
it.Therefore,
when
we
say
that
a
commodity
is
in
the
equivalent
form,
we
express
the
fact
that
it
is
directly
exchangeable
with
other
commodities.
When
one
commodity,
such
as
a
coat,
serves
as
the
equivalent
of
another,
such
as
linen,
and
coats
consequently
acquire
the
characteristic
property
of
being
directly
exchangeable
with
linen,
we
are
far
from
knowing
in
what
proportion
the
two
are
exchangeable.
The
value
of
the
linen
being
given
in
magnitude,
that
proportion
depends
on
the
value
of
the
coat.
Whether
the
coat
serves
as
the
equivalent
and
the
linen
as
relative
value,
or
the
linen
as
the
equivalent
and
the
coat
as
relative
value,
the
magnitude
of
the
coat's
value
is
determined,
independently
of
its
value
form,
by
the
labour
time
necessary
for
its
production.But
whenever
the
coat
assumes
in
the
equation
of
value,
the
position
of
equivalent,
its
value
acquires
no
quantitative
expression;
on
the
contrary,
the
commodity
coat
now
figures
only
as
a
definite
quantity
of
some
article.
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
coat,
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
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
seeing,
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
manifestation,
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
manifestation
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
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
expression
of
the
weight
of
the
sugar-loaf,
represents
a
natural
property
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.22Since,
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
equivalent
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
played
the
part
of
equivalent.
He
has
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
expression
of
value
of
the
linen,
the
utility
of
the
tailoring
consists,
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.
But
because
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
commodities.
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.,
of
the
expression
of
the
value
of
one
commodity
in
some
other
commodity
taken
at
random;
for
he
says:
He
further
sees
that
the
value
relation
which
gives
rise
to
this
expression
makes
it
necessary
that
the
house
should
qualitatively
be
made
the
equal
of
the
bed,
and
that,
without
such
an
equalisation,
these
two
clearly
different
things
could
not
be
compared
with
each
other
as
commensurable
quantities.
\"Exchange,\"he
says,
\"cannot
take
place
without
equality,
and
equality
not
without
commensurability\".
(out
isothmh
oush
snmmetria).
Here,
however,
he
comes
to
a
stop,
and
gives
up
the
further
analysis
of
the
form
of
value.
\"It
is,
however,
in
reality,
impossible
(th
men
oun
alhqeia
adunaton),
that
such
unlike
things
can
be
commensurable\"
–
i.e.,
qualitatively
equal.
Such
an
equalisation
can
only
be
something
foreign
to
their
real
nature,
consequently
only
\"a
makeshift
for
practical
purposes.\"
Aristotle
therefore,
himself,
tells
us
what
barred
the
way
to
his
further
analysis;
it
was
the
absence
of
any
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
notCompared
with
the
beds,
the
house
does
represent
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
Form
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
commodity
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.
In
other
words,
the
value
of
a
commodity
obtains
independent
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
exchange
value,
we
were,
accurately
speaking,
wrong.
A
commodity
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
revivers,
Ferrier,
Ganilh,23and
others,as
also
of
their
antipodes,
the
modern
bagmen
of
Free
trade,
such
as
Bastiat.
The
mercantilists
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
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
commodities
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
equivalent
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
complete
form.
It
is
true
that
by
means
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,
corn,
or
anything
else.
Therefore,
according
as
A
is
placed
in
relation
with
one
or
the
other,
we
get
for
one
and
the
same
commodity,
different
elementary
expressions
of
value.24The
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
expressions
of
that
value.
B.
Total
or
Expanded
Form
of
Value
z
Com.
A
=
u
Com.
B
or
=
v
Com.
C
or
=w
Com.
D
or
=
Com.
E
or
=
&c.
(20
yards
of
linen
=
1
coat
or
=
10
lbs
tea
or
=40
lbs.
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.25It
is
thus,
that
for
the
first
time,
this
value
shows
itself
in
its
true
light
as
a
congelation
of
undifferentiated
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
commodity,
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
regards
the
value
of
a
commodity,
it
is
a
matter
of
indifference
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
commodities
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
magnitude,
whether
expressed
in
coats,
coffee,or
iron,
or
in
numberless
different
commodities,
the
property
of
as
many
different
owners.
The
accidental
relation
between
two
individual
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,
consequently,
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
manifestation,
of
undifferentiated
human
labour.
3.
Defects
of
the
Total
or
Expanded
Form
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
expanded
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
equivalent
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
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,
C.
The
General
Form
of
Value
1.
The
Altered
Character
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=
a
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
different
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
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.
The
third
and
lastly
developed
form
expresses
the
values
of
the
whole
world
of
commodities
in
terms
of
a
single
commodity
set
apart
for
the
purpose,
namely,the
linen,
and
thus
represents
to
us
their
values
by
means
of
their
equality
with
linen.
The
value
of
every
commodity
is
now,
by
being
equated
to
linen,
not
only
differentiated
from
its
own
use
value,
but
from
all
other
use
values
generally,
and
is,
by
that
very
fact,expressed
as
that
which
is
common
to
all
commodities.By
this
form,
commodities
are,
for
the
first
time,
effectively
brought
into
relation
with
one
another
as
values,
or
made
to
appear
as
exchange
values.
The
two
earlier
forms
either
express
the
value
of
each
commodity
in
terms
of
a
single
commodity
of
a
different
kind,
or
in
a
series
of
many
such
commodities.
In
both
cases,
it
is,
so
to
say,
the
special
business
of
each
single
commodity
to
find
an
expression
for
its
value,
and
this
it
does
without
the
help
of
the
others.
These
others,
with
respect
to
the
former,
play
the
passive
parts
of
equivalents.The
general
form
of
value,
C,
results
from
the
joint
action
of
the
whole
world
of
commodities,
and
from
that
alone.
A
commodity
can
acquire
a
general
expression
of
its
value
only
by
all
other
commodities,simultaneously
with
it,
expressing
their
values
in
the
same
equivalent;
and
every
new
commodity
must
follow
suit.
It
thus
becomes
evident
that
since
the
existence
of
commodities
as
values
is
purely
social,this
social
existence
can
be
expressed
by
the
totality
of
their
social
relations
alone,
and
consequently
that
the
form
of
their
value
must
be
a
socially
recognised
form.
精選分類
