- 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
All
commodities
being
equated
to
linen
now
appear
not
only
as
qualitatively
equal
as
values
generally,but
also
as
values
whose
magnitudes
are
capable
of
comparison.
By
expressing
the
magnitudes
of
their
values
in
one
and
the
same
material,
the
linen,
those
magnitudes
are
also
compared
with
each
other.
For
instance,
10
lbs
of
tea
=
20
yards
of
linen,
and
40
lbs
of
coffee
=
20
yards
of
linen.
Therefore,
10
lbs
of
tea=
40
lbs
of
coffee.
In
other
words,
there
is
contained
in
1
lb
of
coffee
only
one-fourth
as
much
substance
of
value
–
labour
–
as
is
contained
in
1
lb
of
tea.
The
general
form
of
relative
value,
embracing
the
whole
world
of
commodities,
converts
the
single
commodity
that
is
excluded
from
the
rest,
and
made
to
play
the
part
of
equivalent
–
here
the
linen
–
into
the
universal
equivalent.
The
bodily
form
of
the
linen
is
now
the
form
assumed
in
common
by
the
values
of
all
commodities;
it
therefore
becomes
directly
exchangeable
with
all
and
every
of
them.The
substance
linen
becomes
the
visible
incarnation,the
social
chrysalis
state
of
every
kind
of
human
labour.
Weaving,
which
is
the
labour
of
certain
private
individuals
producing
a
particular
article,linen,
acquires
in
consequence
a
social
character,
the
character
of
equality
with
all
other
kinds
of
labour.The
innumerable
equations
of
which
the
general
form
of
value
is
composed,
equate
in
turn
the
labour
embodied
in
the
linen
to
that
embodied
in
every
other
commodity,
and
they
thus
convert
weaving
into
the
general
form
of
manifestation
of
undifferentiated
human
labour.
In
this
manner
the
labour
realised
in
the
values
of
commodities
is
presented
not
only
under
its
negative
aspect,
under
which
abstraction
is
made
from
every
concrete
form
and
useful
property
of
actual
work,
but
its
own
positive
nature
is
made
to
reveal
itself
expressly.
The
general
value
form
is
the
reduction
of
all
kinds
of
actual
labour
to
their
common
character
of
being
human
labour
generally,
of
being
the
expenditure
of
human
labour
power.
The
general
value
form,
which
represents
all
products
of
labour
as
mere
congelations
of
undifferentiated
human
labour,
shows
by
its
very
structure
that
it
is
the
social
resumé
of
the
world
of
commodities.
That
form
consequently
makes
it
indisputably
evident
that
in
the
world
of
commodities
the
character
possessed
by
all
labour
of
being
human
labour
constitutes
its
specific
social
character.
2.
The
Interdependent
Development
of
the
Relative
Form
of
Value,
and
of
the
Equivalent
Form
The
degree
of
development
of
the
relative
form
of
value
corresponds
to
that
of
the
equivalent
form.But
we
must
bear
in
mind
that
the
development
of
the
latter
is
only
the
expression
and
result
of
the
development
of
the
former.
The
primary
or
isolated
relative
form
of
value
of
one
commodity
converts
some
other
commodity
into
an
isolated
equivalent.
The
expanded
form
of
relative
value,
which
is
the
expression
of
the
value
of
one
commodity
in
terms
of
all
other
commodities,endows
those
other
commodities
with
the
character
of
particular
equivalents
differing
in
kind.
And
lastly,a
particular
kind
of
commodity
acquires
the
character
of
universal
equivalent,
because
all
other
commodities
make
it
the
material
in
which
they
uniformly
express
their
value.
The
antagonism
between
the
relative
form
of
value
and
the
equivalent
form,
the
two
poles
of
the
value
form,
is
developed
concurrently
with
that
form
itself.
The
first
form,
20
yds
of
linen
=
one
coat,
already
contains
this
antagonism,
without
as
yet
fixing
it.According
as
we
read
this
equation
forwards
or
backwards,
the
parts
played
by
the
linen
and
the
coat
are
different.
In
the
one
case
the
relative
value
of
the
linen
is
expressed
in
the
coat,
in
the
other
case
the
relative
value
of
the
coat
is
expressed
in
the
linen.
In
this
first
form
of
value,
therefore,
it
is
difficult
to
grasp
the
polar
contrast.
Form
B
shows
that
only
one
single
commodity
at
a
time
can
completely
expand
its
relative
value,
and
that
it
acquires
this
expanded
form
only
because,
and
in
so
far
as,
all
other
commodities
are,
with
respect
to
it,equivalents.
Here
we
cannot
reverse
the
equation,
as
we
can
the
equation
20
yds
of
linen
=
1
coat,
without
altering
its
general
character,
and
converting
it
from
the
expanded
form
of
value
into
the
general
form
of
value.
Finally,
the
form
C
gives
to
the
world
of
commodities
a
general
social
relative
form
of
value,
because,
and
in
so
far
as,
thereby
all
commodities,
with
the
exception
of
one,
are
excluded
from
the
equivalent
form.
A
single
commodity,
the
linen,
appears
therefore
to
have
acquired
the
character
of
direct
exchangeability
with
every
other
commodity
because,
and
in
so
far
as,
this
character
is
denied
to
every
other
commodity.26
The
commodity
that
figures
as
universal
equivalent,is,
on
the
other
hand,
excluded
from
the
relative
value
form.
If
the
linen,
or
any
other
commodity
serving
as
universal
equivalent,
were,
at
the
same
time,
to
share
in
the
relative
form
of
value,
it
would
have
to
serve
as
its
own
equivalent.
We
should
then
have
20
yds
of
linen
=
20
yds
of
linen;
this
tautology
expresses
neither
value,
nor
magnitude
of
value.
In
order
to
express
the
relative
value
of
the
universal
equivalent,we
must
rather
reverse
the
form
C.
This
equivalent
has
no
relative
form
of
value
in
common
with
other
commodities,
but
its
value
is
relatively
expressed
by
a
never
ending
series
of
other
commodities.
Thus,the
expanded
form
of
relative
value,
or
form
B,
now
shows
itself
as
the
specific
form
of
relative
value
for
the
equivalent
commodity.
3.
Transition
from
the
General
Form
of
Value
to
the
Money
Form
The
universal
equivalent
form
is
a
form
of
value
in
general.
It
can,
therefore,
be
assumed
by
any
commodity.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
commodity
be
found
to
have
assumed
the
universal
equivalent
form(form
C),
this
is
only
because
and
in
so
far
as
it
has
been
excluded
from
the
rest
of
all
other
commodities
as
their
equivalent,
and
that
by
their
own
act.
And
from
the
moment
that
this
exclusion
becomes
finally
restricted
to
one
particular
commodity,
from
that
moment
only,
the
general
form
of
relative
value
of
the
world
of
commodities
obtains
real
consistence
and
general
social
validity.
The
particular
commodity,
with
whose
bodily
form
the
equivalent
form
is
thus
socially
identified,
now
becomes
the
money
commodity,
or
serves
as
money.
It
becomes
the
special
social
function
of
that
commodity,and
consequently
its
social
monopoly,
to
play
within
the
world
of
commodities
the
part
of
the
universal
equivalent.
Amongst
the
commodities
which,
in
form
B,
figure
as
particular
equivalents
of
the
linen,
and,in
form
C,
express
in
common
their
relative
values
in
linen,
this
foremost
place
has
been
attained
by
one
in
particular
–
namely,
gold.
If,
then,
in
form
C
we
replace
the
linen
by
gold,
we
get,
D.
The
Money-Form
In
passing
from
form
A
to
form
B,
and
from
the
latter
to
form
C,
the
changes
are
fundamental.
On
the
other
hand,
there
is
no
difference
between
forms
C
and
D,
except
that,
in
the
latter,
gold
has
assumed
the
equivalent
form
in
the
place
of
linen.
Gold
is
in
form
D,
what
linen
was
in
form
C
–
the
universal
equivalent.
The
progress
consists
in
this
alone,
that
the
character
of
direct
and
universal
exchangeability
–
in
other
words,
that
the
universal
equivalent
form
–
has
now,
by
social
custom,
become
finally
identified
with
the
substance,
gold.
Gold
is
now
money
with
reference
to
all
other
commodities
only
because
it
was
previously,
with
reference
to
them,
a
simple
commodity.
Like
all
other
commodities,
it
was
also
capable
of
serving
as
an
equivalent,
either
as
simple
equivalent
in
isolated
exchanges,
or
as
particular
equivalent
by
the
side
of
others.
Gradually
it
began
to
serve,
within
varying
limits,
as
universal
equivalent.
So
soon
as
it
monopolises
this
position
in
the
expression
of
value
for
the
world
of
commodities,
it
becomes
the
money
commodity,
and
then,
and
not
till
then,
does
form
D
become
distinct
from
form
C,
and
the
general
form
of
value
become
changed
into
the
money
form.
The
elementary
expression
of
the
relative
value
of
a
single
commodity,
such
as
linen,
in
terms
of
the
commodity,
such
as
gold,
that
plays
the
part
of
money,is
the
price
form
of
that
commodity.
The
price
form
of
the
linen
is
therefore
20
yards
of
linen
=
2
ounces
of
gold,
or,
if
2
ounces
of
gold
when
coined
are
￡2,
20
yards
of
linen
=
￡2.
The
difficulty
in
forming
a
concept
of
the
money
form,
consists
in
clearly
comprehending
the
universal
equivalent
form,
and
as
a
necessary
corollary,
the
general
form
of
value,
form
C.
The
latter
is
deducible
from
form
B,
the
expanded
form
of
value,
the
essential
component
element
of
which,
we
saw,
is
form
A,
20
yards
of
linen
=
1
coat
or
x
commodity
A
=
y
commodity
B.
The
simple
commodity
form
is
therefore
the
germ
of
the
money
form.
Section
4:
The
Fetishism
of
Commodities
and
the
Secret
Thereof
A
commodity
appears,
at
first
sight,
a
very
trivial
thing,
and
easily
understood.
Its
analysis
shows
that
it
is,
in
reality,
a
very
queer
thing,
abounding
in
metaphysical
subtleties
and
theological
niceties.
So
far
as
it
is
a
value
in
use,
there
is
nothing
mysterious
about
it,
whether
we
consider
it
from
the
point
of
view
that
by
its
properties
it
is
capable
of
satisfying
human
wants,
or
from
the
point
that
those
properties
are
the
product
of
human
labour.
It
is
as
clear
as
noon
day,
that
man,
by
his
industry,
changes
the
forms
of
the
materials
furnished
by
Nature,
in
such
a
way
as
to
make
them
useful
to
him.
The
form
of
wood,
for
instance,
is
altered,
by
making
a
table
out
of
it.
Yet,
for
all
that,
the
table
continues
to
be
that
common,
every
day
thing,
wood.
But,
so
soon
as
it
steps
forth
as
a
commodity,
it
is
changed
into
something
transcendent.It
not
only
stands
with
its
feet
on
the
ground,
but,
in
relation
to
all
other
commodities,
it
stands
on
its
head,and
evolves
out
of
its
wooden
brain
grotesque
ideas,far
more
wonderful
than
\"table-turning\"
ever
was.
26a
The
mystical
character
of
commodities
does
not
originate,
therefore,
in
their
use
value.
Just
as
little
does
it
proceed
from
the
nature
of
the
determining
factors
of
value.
For,
in
the
first
place,
however
varied
the
useful
kinds
of
labour,
or
productive
activities,
may
be,
it
is
a
physiological
fact,
that
they
are
functions
of
the
human
organism,
and
that
each
such
function,whatever
may
be
its
nature
or
form,
is
essentially
the
expenditure
of
human
brain,
nerves,
muscles,&c.
Secondly,
with
regard
to
that
which
forms
the
ground-work
for
the
quantitative
determination
of
value,
namely,
the
duration
of
that
expenditure,
or
the
quantity
of
labour,
it
is
quite
clear
that
there
is
a
palpable
difference
between
its
quantity
and
quality.In
all
states
of
society,
the
labour
time
that
it
costs
to
produce
the
means
of
subsistence,
must
necessarily
be
an
object
of
interest
to
mankind,
though
not
of
equal
interest
in
different
stages
of
development.27And
lastly,
from
the
moment
that
men
in
any
way
work
for
one
another,
their
labour
assumes
a
social
form.
Whence,
then,
arises
the
enigmatical
character
of
the
product
of
labour,
so
soon
as
it
assumes
the
form
of
commodities
Clearly
from
this
form
itself.
The
equality
of
all
sorts
of
human
labour
is
expressed
objectively
by
their
products
all
being
equally
values;the
measure
of
the
expenditure
of
labour
power
by
the
duration
of
that
expenditure,
takes
the
form
of
the
quantity
of
value
of
the
products
of
labour;
and
finally
the
mutual
relations
of
the
producers,
within
which
the
social
character
of
their
labour
affirms
itself,
take
the
form
of
a
social
relation
between
the
products.
A
commodity
is
therefore
a
mysterious
thing,
simply
because
in
it
the
social
character
of
men's
labour
appears
to
them
as
an
objective
character
stamped
upon
the
product
of
that
labour;
because
the
relation
of
the
producers
to
the
sum
total
of
their
own
labour
is
presented
to
them
as
a
social
relation,
existing
not
between
themselves,
but
between
the
products
of
their
labour.
This
is
the
reason
why
the
products
of
labour
become
commodities,
social
things
whose
qualities
are
at
the
same
time
perceptible
and
imperceptible
by
the
senses.
In
the
same
way
the
light
from
an
object
is
perceived
by
us
not
as
the
subjective
excitation
of
our
optic
nerve,
but
as
the
objective
form
of
something
outside
the
eye
itself.
But,
in
the
act
of
seeing,
there
is
at
all
events,
an
actual
passage
of
light
from
one
thing
to
another,
from
the
external
object
to
the
eye.
There
is
a
physical
relation
between
physical
things.
But
it
is
different
with
commodities.
There,
the
existence
of
the
things
qua
commodities,
and
the
value
relation
between
the
products
of
labour
which
stamps
them
as
commodities,
have
absolutely
no
connection
with
their
physical
properties
and
with
the
material
relations
arising
therefrom.
There
it
is
a
definite
social
relation
between
men,
that
assumes,
in
their
eyes,
the
fantastic
form
of
a
relation
between
things.
In
order,therefore,
to
find
an
analogy,
we
must
have
recourse
to
the
mist-enveloped
regions
of
the
religious
world.In
that
world
the
productions
of
the
human
brain
appear
as
independent
beings
endowed
with
life,
and
entering
into
relation
both
with
one
another
and
the
human
race.
So
it
is
in
the
world
of
commodities
with
the
products
of
men's
hands.
This
I
call
the
Fetishism
which
attaches
itself
to
the
products
of
labour,
so
soon
as
they
are
produced
as
commodities,
and
which
is
therefore
inseparable
from
the
production
of
commodities.
This
Fetishism
of
commodities
has
its
origin,
as
the
foregoing
analysis
has
already
shown,
in
the
peculiar
social
character
of
the
labour
that
produces
them.
As
a
general
rule,
articles
of
utility
become
commodities,
only
because
they
are
products
of
the
labour
of
private
individuals
or
groups
of
individuals
who
carry
on
their
work
independently
of
each
other.
The
sum
total
of
the
labour
of
all
these
private
individuals
forms
the
aggregate
labour
of
society.Since
the
producers
do
not
come
into
social
contact
with
each
other
until
they
exchange
their
products,the
specific
social
character
of
each
producer's
labour
does
not
show
itself
except
in
the
act
of
exchange.
In
other
words,
the
labour
of
the
individual
asserts
itself
as
a
part
of
the
labour
of
society,
only
by
means
of
the
relations
which
the
act
of
exchange
establishes
directly
between
the
products,
and
indirectly,
through
them,
between
the
producers.
To
the
latter,
therefore,the
relations
connecting
the
labour
of
one
individual
with
that
of
the
rest
appear,
not
as
direct
social
relations
between
individuals
at
work,
but
as
what
they
really
are,
material
relations
between
persons
and
social
relations
between
things.
It
is
only
by
being
exchanged
that
the
products
of
labour
acquire,
as
values,
one
uniform
social
status,
distinct
from
their
varied
forms
of
existence
as
objects
of
utility.
This
division
of
a
product
into
a
useful
thing
and
a
value
becomes
practically
important,
only
when
exchange
has
acquired
such
an
extension
that
useful
articles
are
produced
for
the
purpose
of
being
exchanged,
and
their
character
as
values
has
therefore
to
be
taken
into
account,
beforehand,
during
production.
From
this
moment
the
labour
of
the
individual
producer
acquires
socially
a
two-fold
character.
On
the
one
hand,
it
must,as
a
definite
useful
kind
of
labour,
satisfy
a
definite
social
want,
and
thus
hold
its
place
as
part
and
parcel
of
the
collective
labour
of
all,
as
a
branch
of
a
social
division
of
labour
that
has
sprung
up
spontaneously.On
the
other
hand,
it
can
satisfy
the
manifold
wants
of
the
individual
producer
himself,
only
in
so
far
as
the
mutual
exchangeability
of
all
kinds
of
useful
private
labour
is
an
established
social
fact,
and
therefore
the
private
useful
labour
of
each
producer
ranks
on
an
equality
with
that
of
all
others.
The
equalisation
of
the
most
different
kinds
of
labour
can
be
the
result
only
of
an
abstraction
from
their
inequalities,
or
of
reducing
them
to
their
common
denominator,viz.
expenditure
of
human
labour
power
or
human
labour
in
the
abstract.
The
two-fold
social
character
of
the
labour
of
the
individual
appears
to
him,
when
reflected
in
his
brain,
only
under
those
forms
which
are
impressed
upon
that
labour
in
every-day
practice
by
the
exchange
of
products.
In
this
way,
the
character
that
his
own
labour
possesses
of
being
socially
useful
takes
the
form
of
the
condition,
that
the
product
must
be
not
only
useful,
but
useful
for
others,
and
the
social
character
that
his
particular
labour
has
of
being
the
equal
of
all
other
particular
kinds
of
labour,
takes
the
form
that
all
the
physically
different
articles
that
are
the
products
of
labour,
have
one
common
quality,
viz.,that
of
having
value.
Hence,
when
we
bring
the
products
of
our
labour
into
relation
with
each
other
as
values,
it
is
not
because
we
see
in
these
articles
the
material
receptacles
of
homogeneous
human
labour.
Quite
the
contrary:whenever,
by
an
exchange,
we
equate
as
values
our
different
products,
by
that
very
act,
we
also
equate,
as
human
labour,
the
different
kinds
of
labour
expended
upon
them.
We
are
not
aware
of
this,
nevertheless
we
do
it.28Value,
therefore,
does
not
stalk
about
with
a
label
describing
what
it
is.
It
is
value,
rather,
that
converts
every
product
into
a
social
hieroglyphic.
Later
on,
we
try
to
decipher
the
hieroglyphic,
to
get
behind
the
secret
of
our
own
social
products;
for
to
stamp
an
object
of
utility
as
a
value,
is
just
as
much
a
social
product
as
language.
The
recent
scientific
discovery,that
the
products
of
labour,
so
far
as
they
are
values,
are
but
material
expressions
of
the
human
labour
spent
in
their
production,
marks,
indeed,
an
epoch
in
the
history
of
the
development
of
the
human
race,
but,
by
no
means,
dissipates
the
mist
through
which
the
social
character
of
labour
appears
to
us
to
be
an
objective
character
of
the
products
themselves.
The
fact,
that
in
the
particular
form
of
production
with
which
we
are
dealing,
viz.,
the
production
of
commodities,
the
specific
social
character
of
private
labour
carried
on
independently,
consists
in
the
equality
of
every
kind
of
that
labour,
by
virtue
of
its
being
human
labour,which
character,
therefore,
assumes
in
the
product
the
form
of
value
–
this
fact
appears
to
the
producers,notwithstanding
the
discovery
above
referred
to,
to
be
just
as
real
and
final,
as
the
fact,
that,
after
the
discovery
by
science
of
the
component
gases
of
air,the
atmosphere
itself
remained
unaltered.
What,
first
of
all,
practically
concerns
producers
when
they
make
an
exchange,
is
the
question,
how
much
of
some
other
product
they
get
for
their
ownin
what
proportions
the
products
are
exchangeableWhen
these
proportions
have,
by
custom,
attained
a
certain
stability,
they
appear
to
result
from
the
nature
of
the
products,
so
that,
for
instance,
one
ton
of
iron
and
two
ounces
of
gold
appear
as
naturally
to
be
of
equal
value
as
a
pound
of
gold
and
a
pound
of
iron
in
spite
of
their
different
physical
and
chemical
qualities
appear
to
be
of
equal
weight.
The
character
of
having
value,
when
once
impressed
upon
products,obtains
fixity
only
by
reason
of
their
acting
and
re
acting
upon
each
other
as
quantities
of
value.
These
quantities
vary
continually,
independently
of
the
will,
foresight
and
action
of
the
producers.
To
them,their
own
social
action
takes
the
form
of
the
action
of
objects,
which
rule
the
producers
instead
of
being
ruled
by
them.
It
requires
a
fully
developed
production
of
commodities
before,
from
accumulated
experience
alone,
the
scientific
conviction
springs
up,
that
all
the
different
kinds
of
private
labour,
which
are
carried
on
independently
of
each
other,
and
yet
as
spontaneously
developed
branches
of
the
social
division
of
labour,are
continually
being
reduced
to
the
quantitative
proportions
in
which
society
requires
them.
And
whyBecause,
in
the
midst
of
all
the
accidental
and
ever
fluctuating
exchange
relations
between
the
products,the
labour
time
socially
necessary
for
their
production
forcibly
asserts
itself
like
an
over-riding
law
of
Nature.
The
law
of
gravity
thus
asserts
itself
when
a
house
falls
about
our
ears.29The
determination
of
the
magnitude
of
value
by
labour
time
is
therefore
a
secret,
hidden
under
the
apparent
fluctuations
in
the
relative
values
of
commodities.
Its
discovery,
while
removing
all
appearance
of
mere
accidentality
from
the
determination
of
the
magnitude
of
the
values
of
products,
yet
in
no
way
alters
the
mode
in
which
that
determination
takes
place.
Man's
reflections
on
the
forms
of
social
life,
and
consequently,
also,
his
scientific
analysis
of
those
forms,
take
a
course
directly
opposite
to
that
of
their
actual
historical
development.
He
begins,
post
festum,
with
the
results
of
the
process
of
development
ready
to
hand
before
him.
The
characters
that
stamp
products
as
commodities,
and
whose
establishment
is
a
necessary
preliminary
to
the
circulation
of
commodities,
have
already
acquired
the
stability
of
natural,
self-understood
forms
of
social
life,
before
man
seeks
to
decipher,
not
their
historical
character,for
in
his
eyes
they
are
immutable,
but
their
meaning.Consequently
it
was
the
analysis
of
the
prices
of
commodities
that
alone
led
to
the
determination
of
the
magnitude
of
value,
and
it
was
the
common
expression
of
all
commodities
in
money
that
alone
led
to
the
establishment
of
their
characters
as
values.
It
is,however,
just
this
ultimate
money
form
of
the
world
of
commodities
that
actually
conceals,
instead
of
disclosing,
the
social
character
of
private
labour,
and
the
social
relations
between
the
individual
producers.When
I
state
that
coats
or
boots
stand
in
a
relation
to
linen,
because
it
is
the
universal
incarnation
of
abstract
human
labour,
the
absurdity
of
the
statement
is
self
evident.
Nevertheless,
when
the
producers
of
coats
and
boots
compare
those
articles
with
linen,
or,
what
is
the
same
thing,
with
gold
or
silver,
as
the
universal
equivalent,
they
express
the
relation
between
their
own
private
labour
and
the
collective
labour
of
society
in
the
same
absurd
form.
The
categories
of
bourgeois
economy
consist
of
such
like
forms.
They
are
forms
of
thought
expressing
with
social
validity
the
conditions
and
relations
of
a
definite,
historically
determined
mode
of
production,
viz.,
the
production
of
commodities.The
whole
mystery
of
commodities,
all
the
magic
and
necromancy
that
surrounds
the
products
of
labour
as
long
as
they
take
the
form
of
commodities,
vanishes
therefore,
so
soon
as
we
come
to
other
forms
of
production.
Since
Robinson
Crusoe's
experiences
are
a
favourite
theme
with
political
economists,30let
us
take
a
look
at
him
on
his
island.
Moderate
though
he
be,
yet
some
few
wants
he
has
to
satisfy,
and
must
therefore
do
a
little
useful
work
of
various
sorts,
such
as
making
tools
and
furniture,
taming
goats,
fishing
and
hunting.Of
his
prayers
and
the
like
we
take
no
account,
since
they
are
a
source
of
pleasure
to
him,
and
he
looks
upon
them
as
so
much
recreation.
In
spite
of
the
variety
of
his
work,
he
knows
that
his
labour,
whatever
its
form,is
but
the
activity
of
one
and
the
same
Robinson,
and
consequently,
that
it
consists
of
nothing
but
different
modes
of
human
labour.
Necessity
itself
compels
him
to
apportion
his
time
accurately
between
his
different
kinds
of
work.
Whether
one
kind
occupies
a
greater
space
in
his
general
activity
than
another,depends
on
the
difficulties,
greater
or
less
as
the
case
may
be,
to
be
overcome
in
attaining
the
useful
effect
aimed
at.
This
our
friend
Robinson
soon
learns
by
experience,
and
having
rescued
a
watch,
ledger,
and
pen
and
ink
from
the
wreck,
commences,
like
a
true
born
Briton,
to
keep
a
set
of
books.
His
stock-book
contains
a
list
of
the
objects
of
utility
that
belong
to
him,
of
the
operations
necessary
for
their
production;and
lastly,
of
the
labour
time
that
definite
quantities
of
those
objects
have,
on
an
average,
cost
him.
All
the
relations
between
Robinson
and
the
objects
that
form
this
wealth
of
his
own
creation,
are
here
so
simple
and
clear
as
to
be
intelligible
without
exertion,
even
to
Mr.Sedley
Taylor.
And
yet
those
relations
contain
all
that
is
essential
to
the
determination
of
value.
Let
us
now
transport
ourselves
from
Robinson's
island
bathed
in
light
to
the
European
middle
ages
shrouded
in
darkness.
Here,
instead
of
the
independent
man,
we
find
everyone
dependent,
serfs
and
lords,vassals
and
suzerains,
laymen
and
clergy.
Personal
dependence
here
characterises
the
social
relations
of
production
just
as
much
as
it
does
the
other
spheres
of
life
organised
on
the
basis
of
that
production.
But
for
the
very
reason
that
personal
dependence
forms
the
ground-work
of
society,
there
is
no
necessity
for
labour
and
its
products
to
assume
a
fantastic
form
different
from
their
reality.
They
take
the
shape,
in
the
transactions
of
society,
of
services
in
kind
and
payments
in
kind.
Here
the
particular
and
natural
form
of
labour,
and
not,
as
in
a
society
based
on
production
of
commodities,
its
general
abstract
form
is
the
immediate
social
form
of
labour.
Compulsory
labour
is
just
as
properly
measured
by
time,
as
commodity
producing
labour;
but
every
serf
knows
that
what
he
expends
in
the
service
of
his
lord,
is
a
definite
quantity
of
his
own
personal
labour
power.
The
tithe
to
be
rendered
to
the
priest
is
more
matter
of
fact
than
his
blessing.
No
matter,
then,
what
we
may
think
of
the
parts
played
by
the
different
classes
of
people
themselves
in
this
society,
the
social
relations
between
individuals
in
the
performance
of
their
labour,
appear
at
all
events
as
their
own
mutual
personal
relations,and
are
not
disguised
under
the
shape
of
social
relations
between
the
products
of
labour.
For
an
example
of
labour
in
common
or
directly
associated
labour,
we
have
no
occasion
to
go
back
to
that
spontaneously
developed
form
which
we
find
on
the
threshold
of
the
history
of
all
civilised
races.31We
have
one
close
at
hand
in
the
patriarchal
industries
of
a
peasant
family,
that
produces
corn,cattle,
yarn,
linen,
and
clothing
for
home
use.
These
different
articles
are,
as
regards
the
family,
so
many
products
of
its
labour,
but
as
between
themselves,
they
are
not
commodities.
The
different
kinds
of
labour,such
as
tillage,
cattle
tending,
spinning,
weaving
and
making
clothes,
which
result
in
the
various
products,are
in
themselves,
and
such
as
they
are,
direct
social
functions,
because
functions
of
the
family,
which,just
as
much
as
a
society
based
on
the
production
of
commodities,
possesses
a
spontaneously
developed
system
of
division
of
labour.
The
distribution
of
the
work
within
the
family,
and
the
regulation
of
the
labour
time
of
the
several
members,
depend
as
well
upon
differences
of
age
and
sex
as
upon
natural
conditions
varying
with
the
seasons.
The
labour
power
of
each
individual,
by
its
very
nature,
operates
in
this
case
merely
as
a
definite
portion
of
the
whole
labour
power
of
the
family,
and
therefore,
the
measure
of
the
expenditure
of
individual
labour
power
by
its
duration,appears
here
by
its
very
nature
as
a
social
character
of
their
labour.
Let
us
now
picture
to
ourselves,
by
way
of
change,
a
community
of
free
individuals,
carrying
on
their
work
with
the
means
of
production
in
common,
in
which
the
labour
power
of
all
the
different
individuals
is
consciously
applied
as
the
combined
labour
power
of
the
community.
All
the
characteristics
of
Robinson's
labour
are
here
repeated,
but
with
this
difference,
that
they
are
social,
instead
of
individual.
Everything
produced
by
him
was
exclusively
the
result
of
his
own
personal
labour,
and
therefore
simply
an
object
of
use
for
himself.
The
total
product
of
our
community
is
a
social
product.
One
portion
serves
as
fresh
means
of
production
and
remains
social.
But
another
portion
is
consumed
by
the
members
as
means
of
subsistence.A
distribution
of
this
portion
amongst
them
is
consequently
necessary.
The
mode
of
this
distribution
will
vary
with
the
productive
organisation
of
the
community,
and
the
degree
of
historical
development
attained
by
the
producers.
We
will
assume,
but
merely
for
the
sake
of
a
parallel
with
the
production
of
commodities,
that
the
share
of
each
individual
producer
in
the
means
of
subsistence
is
determined
by
his
labour
time.
Labour
time
would,
in
that
case,
play
a
double
part.
Its
apportionment
in
accordance
with
a
definite
social
plan
maintains
the
proper
proportion
between
the
different
kinds
of
work
to
be
done
and
the
various
wants
of
the
community.
On
the
other
hand,
it
also
serves
as
a
measure
of
the
portion
of
the
common
labour
borne
by
each
individual,
and
of
his
share
in
the
part
of
the
total
product
destined
for
individual
consumption.
The
social
relations
of
the
individual
producers,
with
regard
both
to
their
labour
and
to
its
products,
are
in
this
case
perfectly
simple
and
intelligible,
and
that
with
regard
not
only
to
production
but
also
to
distribution.
The
religious
world
is
but
the
reflex
of
the
real
world.
And
for
a
society
based
upon
the
production
of
commodities,
in
which
the
producers
in
general
enter
into
social
relations
with
one
another
by
treating
their
products
as
commodities
and
values,
whereby
they
reduce
their
individual
private
labour
to
the
standard
of
homogeneous
human
labour
–
for
such
a
society,
Christianity
with
its
cultus
of
abstract
man,
more
especially
in
its
bourgeois
developments,Protestantism,
Deism,
&c.,
is
the
most
fitting
form
of
religion.
In
the
ancient
Asiatic
and
other
ancient
modes
of
production,
we
find
that
the
conversion
of
products
into
commodities,
and
therefore
the
conversion
of
men
into
producers
of
commodities,holds
a
subordinate
place,
which,
however,
increases
in
importance
as
the
primitive
communities
approach
nearer
and
nearer
to
their
dissolution.
Trading
nations,
properly
so
called,
exist
in
the
ancient
world
only
in
its
interstices,
like
the
gods
of
Epicurus
in
the
Intermundia,
or
like
Jews
in
the
pores
of
Polish
society.
Those
ancient
social
organisms
of
production
are,
as
compared
with
bourgeois
society,
extremely
simple
and
transparent.
But
they
are
founded
either
on
the
immature
development
of
man
individually,
who
has
not
yet
severed
the
umbilical
cord
that
unites
him
with
his
fellowmen
in
a
primitive
tribal
community,
or
upon
direct
relations
of
subjection.
They
can
arise
and
exist
only
when
the
development
of
the
productive
power
of
labour
has
not
risen
beyond
a
low
stage,and
when,
therefore,
the
social
relations
within
the
sphere
of
material
life,
between
man
and
man,
and
between
man
and
Nature,
are
correspondingly
narrow.This
narrowness
is
reflected
in
the
ancient
worship
of
Nature,
and
in
the
other
elements
of
the
popular
religions.
The
religious
reflex
of
the
real
world
can,
in
any
case,
only
then
finally
vanish,
when
the
practical
relations
of
every-day
life
offer
to
man
none
but
perfectly
intelligible
and
reasonable
relations
with
regard
to
his
fellowmen
and
to
Nature.
The
life-process
of
society,
which
is
based
on
the
process
of
material
production,
does
not
strip
off
its
mystical
veil
until
it
is
treated
as
production
by
freely
associated
men,
and
is
consciously
regulated
by
them
in
accordance
with
a
settled
plan.
This,
however,demands
for
society
a
certain
material
ground-work
or
set
of
conditions
of
existence
which
in
their
turn
are
the
spontaneous
product
of
a
long
and
painful
process
of
development.
Political
Economy
has
indeed
analysed,
however
incompletely,32value
and
its
magnitude,
and
has
discovered
what
lies
beneath
these
forms.
But
it
has
never
once
asked
the
question
why
labour
is
represented
by
the
value
of
its
product
and
labour
time
by
the
magnitude
of
that
value.33These
formul,which
bear
it
stamped
upon
them
in
unmistakable
letters
that
they
belong
to
a
state
of
society,
in
which
the
process
of
production
has
the
mastery
over
man,instead
of
being
controlled
by
him,
such
formulappear
to
the
bourgeois
intellect
to
be
as
much
a
self
evident
necessity
imposed
by
Nature
as
productive
labour
itself.
Hence
forms
of
social
production
that
preceded
the
bourgeois
form,
are
treated
by
the
bourgeoisie
in
much
the
same
way
as
the
Fathers
of
the
Church
treated
pre-Christian
religions.34
To
what
extent
some
economists
are
misled
by
the
Fetishism
inherent
in
commodities,
or
by
the
objective
appearance
of
the
social
characteristics
of
labour,
is
shown,
amongst
other
ways,
by
the
dull
and
tedious
quarrel
over
the
part
played
by
Nature
in
the
formation
of
exchange
value.
Since
exchange
value
is
a
definite
social
manner
of
expressing
the
amount
of
labour
bestowed
upon
an
object,
Nature
has
no
more
to
do
with
it,
than
it
has
in
fixing
the
course
of
exchange.
The
mode
of
production
in
which
the
product
takes
the
form
of
a
commodity,
or
is
produced
directly
for
exchange,
is
the
most
general
and
most
embryonic
form
of
bourgeois
production.
It
therefore
makes
its
appearance
at
an
early
date
in
history,
though
not
in
the
same
predominating
and
characteristic
manner
as
now-a-days.
Hence
its
Fetish
character
is
comparatively
easy
to
be
seen
through.
But
when
we
come
to
more
concrete
forms,
even
this
appearance
of
simplicity
vanishes.
Whence
arose
the
illusions
of
the
monetary
system
To
it
gold
and
silver,
when
serving
as
money,
did
not
represent
a
social
relation
between
producers,
but
were
natural
objects
with
strange
social
properties.
And
modern
economy,
which
looks
down
with
such
disdain
on
the
monetary
system,
does
not
its
superstition
come
out
as
clear
as
noon-day,
whenever
it
treats
of
capital
How
long
is
it
since
economy
discarded
the
physiocratic
illusion,
that
rents
grow
out
of
the
soil
and
not
out
of
society
But
not
to
anticipate,
we
will
content
ourselves
with
yet
another
example
relating
to
the
commodity
form.Could
commodities
themselves
speak,
they
would
say:Our
use
value
may
be
a
thing
that
interests
men.
It
is
no
part
of
us
as
objects.
What,
however,
does
belong
to
us
as
objects,
is
our
value.
Our
natural
intercourse
as
commodities
proves
it.
In
the
eyes
of
each
other
we
are
nothing
but
exchange
values.
Now
listen
how
those
commodities
speak
through
the
mouth
of
the
economist.
\"Value\"
–
(i.e.,
exchange
value)
\"is
a
property
of
things,
riches\"
–
(i.e.,
use
value)
\"of
man.
Value,in
this
sense,
necessarily
implies
exchanges,
riches
do
not.\"35
\"Riches\"
(use
value)
\"are
the
attribute
of
men,value
is
the
attribute
of
commodities.
A
man
or
a
community
is
rich,
a
pearl
or
a
diamond
is
valuable...\"
A
pearl
or
a
diamond
is
valuable
as
a
pearl
or
a
diamond.36
So
far
no
chemist
has
ever
discovered
exchange
value
either
in
a
pearl
or
a
diamond.
The
economic
discoverers
of
this
chemical
element,
who
by
the-bye
lay
special
claim
to
critical
acumen,
find
however
that
the
use
value
of
objects
belongs
to
them
independently
of
their
material
properties,
while
their
value,
on
the
other
hand,
forms
a
part
of
them
as
objects.
What
confirms
them
in
this
view,
is
the
peculiar
circumstance
that
the
use
value
of
objects
is
realised
without
exchange,
by
means
of
a
direct
relation
between
the
objects
and
man,
while,
on
the
other
hand,
their
value
is
realised
only
by
exchange,that
is,
by
means
of
a
social
process.
Who
fails
here
to
call
to
mind
our
good
friend,
Dogberry,
who
informs
neighbour
Seacoal,
that,
\"To
be
a
well-favoured
man
is
the
gift
of
fortune;
but
reading
and
writing
comes
by
Nature.\"37
精選分類
