資本論 PART 1: COMMODITIES AND MONEY004

NOTES:

1Karl

Marx,

\"Zur

Kritik

der

Politischen

Oekonomie.\"Berlin,

1859,

p.

3.

2\"Desire

implies

want,

it

is

the

appetite

of

the

mind,

and

as

natural

as

hunger

to

the

body...

The

greatest

number

(of

things)

have

their

value

from

supplying

the

wants

of

the

mind.\"Nicholas

Barbon:

\"A

Discourse

Concerning

Coining

the

New

Money

Lighter.

In

Answer

to

Mr.

Locke's

Considerations,&c.\",

London,

1696,

pp.

2,

3.

3\"Things

have

an

intrinsick

vertue\"

(this

is

Barbon's

special

term

for

value

in

use)

\"which

in

all

places

have

the

same

vertue;

as

the

loadstone

to

attract

iron\"

(l.c.,

p.

6).

The

property

which

the

magnet

possesses

of

attracting

iron,

became

of

use

only

after

by

means

of

that

property

the

polarity

of

the

magnet

had

been

discovered.

4\"The

natural

worth

of

anything

consists

in

its

fitness

to

supply

the

necessities,

or

serve

the

conveniencies

of

human

life.\"

(John

Locke,

\"Some

Considerations

on

the

Consequences

of

the

Lowering

of

Interest,

1691,\"

in

Works

Edit.

Lond.,1777,

Vol.

II.,

p.

28.)

In

English

writers

of

the

17th

century

we

frequently

find

\"worth\"

in

the

sense

of

value

in

use,

and

\"value\"in

the

sense

of

exchange

value.

This

is

quite

in

accordance

with

the

spirit

of

a

language

that

likes

to

use

a

Teutonic

word

for

the

actual

thing,

and

a

Romance

word

for

its

reflexion.

5In

bourgeois

societies

the

economic

fictio

juris

prevails,that

every

one,

as

a

buyer,

possesses

an

encyclopedic

knowledge

of

commodities.

6\"La

valeur

consiste

dans

le

rapport

d'échange

qui

se

trouve

entre

telle

chose

et

telle

autre

entre

telle

mesure

d'une

production

et

telle

mesure

d'une

autre.\"

[\"Value

consists

in

the

exchange

relation

between

one

thing

and

another,

between

a

given

amount

of

one

product

and

a

given

amount

of

another\"](Le

Trosne:

\"De

l'Intérêt

Social.\"

Physiocrates,

Ed.

Daire.Paris,

1846.

p.

889.)

7\"Nothing

can

have

an

intrinsick

value.\"

(N.

Barbon,

l.c.,

p.6);

or

as

Butler

says

–

\"The

value

of

a

thing

is

just

as

much

as

it

will

bring.\"

8N.

Barbon,

l.c.,

p.

53

and

7.

9\"The

value

of

them

(the

necessaries

of

life),

when

they

are

exchanged

the

one

for

another,

is

regulated

by

the

quantity

of

labour

necessarily

required,

and

commonly

taken

in

producing

them.\"

(\"Some

Thoughts

on

the

Interest

of

Money

in

General,and

Particularly

in

the

Publick

Funds,

&c.\"

Lond.,

p.

36)

This

remarkable

anonymous

work

written

in

the

last

century,

bears

no

date.

It

is

clear,

however,

from

internal

evidence

that

it

appeared

in

the

reign

of

George

II,

about

1739

or

1740.

10\"Toutes

les

productions

d'un

même

genre

ne

forment

proprement

qu'une

masse,

dont

le

prix

se

détermine

en

général

et

sans

égard

aux

circonstances

particulières.\"

[\"Properly

speaking,

all

products

of

the

same

kind

form

a

single

mass,and

their

price

is

determined

in

general

and

without

regard

to

particular

circumstances\"]

(Le

Trosne,

l.c.,

p.

893.)

11K.

Marx.

l.c.,

p.6

12I

am

inserting

the

parenthesis

because

its

omission

has

often

given

rise

to

the

misunderstanding

that

every

product

that

is

consumed

by

some

one

other

than

its

producer

is

considered

in

Marx

a

commodity.

[Engels,

4th

German

Edition]

13Tutti

i

fenomeni

dell'universo,

sieno

essi

prodotti

della

mano

dell'uomo,

ovvero

delle

universali

leggi

della

fisica,non

ci

danno

idea

di

attuale

creazione,

ma

unicamente

di

una

modificazione

della

materia.

Accostare

e

separare

sono

gli

unici

elementi

che

l'ingegno

umano

ritrova

analizzando

l'idea

della

riproduzione:

e

tanto

e

riproduzione

di

valore

(value

in

use,

although

Verri

in

this

passage

of

his

controversy

with

the

Physiocrats

is

not

himself

quite

certain

of

the

kind

of

value

he

is

speaking

of)

e

di

ricchezze

se

la

terra,

l'aria

e

l'acqua

ne'campi

si

trasmutino

in

grano,

come

se

colla

mano

dell'uomo

il

glutine

di

un

insetto

si

trasmuti

in

velluto

ovvero

alcuni

pezzetti

di

metalio

si

organizzino

a

formare

una

ripetizione.\"

[\"All

the

phenomena

of

the

universe,

whether

produced

by

the

hand

of

man

or

through

the

universal

laws

of

physics,

are

not

actual

new

creations,

but

merely

a

modification

of

matter.

Joining

together

and

separating

are

the

only

elements

which

the

human

mind

always

finds

on

analysing

the

concept

of

reproduction

and

it

is

just

the

same

with

the

reproduction

of

value\"

(value

in

use,

although

Verri

in

this

passage

of

his

controversy

with

the

Physiocrats

is

not

himself

quite

certain

of

the

kind

of

value

he

is

speaking

of)

\"and

of

wealth,

when

earth,

air

and

water

in

the

fields

are

transformed

into

corn,

or

when

the

hand

of

man

transforms

the

secretions

of

an

insect

into

silk,

or

some

pieces

of

metal

are

arranged

to

make

the

mechanism

of

a

watch.\"]–

Pietro

Verri,

\"Meditazioni

sulla

Economia

Politica\"

[first

printed

in

1773]

in

Custodi's

edition

of

the

Italian

Economists,Parte

Moderna,

t.

XV.,

p.

22.

14Comp.

Hegel,

\"Philosophie

des

Rechts.\"

Berlin,

1840.

p.250.

15The

reader

must

note

that

we

are

not

speaking

here

of

the

wages

or

value

that

the

labourer

gets

for

a

given

labour

time,but

of

the

value

of

the

commodity

in

which

that

labour

time

is

materialised.

Wages

is

a

category

that,

as

yet,

has

no

existence

at

the

present

stage

of

our

investigation.

16In

order

to

prove

that

labour

alone

is

that

all-sufficient

and

real

measure,

by

which

at

all

times

the

value

of

all

commodities

can

be

estimated

and

compared,

Adam

Smith

says,

\"Equal

quantities

of

labour

must

at

all

times

and

in

all

places

have

the

same

value

for

the

labourer.

In

his

normal

state

of

health,strength,

and

activity,

and

with

the

average

degree

of

skill

that

he

may

possess,

he

must

always

give

up

the

same

portion

of

his

rest,

his

freedom,

and

his

happiness.\"

(\"Wealth

of

Nations,\"

b.

I.ch.

V.)

On

the

one

hand

Adam

Smith

here

(but

not

everywhere)

confuses

the

determination

of

value

by

means

of

the

quantity

of

labour

expended

in

the

production

of

commodities,

with

the

determination

of

the

values

of

commodities

by

means

of

the

value

of

labour,

and

seeks

in

consequence

to

prove

that

equal

quantities

of

labour

have

always

the

same

value.

On

the

other

hand

he

has

a

presentiment,

that

labour,

so

far

as

it

manifests

itself

in

the

value

of

commodities,

counts

only

as

expenditure

of

labour

power,

but

he

treats

this

expenditure

as

the

mere

sacrifice

of

rest,

freedom,

and

happiness,

not

as

at

the

same

time

the

normal

activity

of

living

beings.

But

then,he

has

the

modern

wage-labourer

in

his

eye.

Much

more

aptly,the

anonymous

predecessor

of

Adam

Smith,

quoted

above

in

note

9,

this

chapter,

says

\"one

man

has

employed

himself

a

week

in

providing

this

necessary

of

life

...

and

he

that

gives

him

some

other

in

exchange

cannot

make

a

better

estimate

of

what

is

a

proper

equivalent,

than

by

computing

what

cost

him

just

as

much

labour

and

time;

which

in

effect

is

no

more

than

exchanging

one

man's

labour

in

one

thing

for

a

time

certain,

for

another

man's

labour

in

another

thing

for

the

same

time.\"

(l.c.,p.

39.)

[The

English

language

has

the

advantage

of

possessing

different

words

for

the

two

aspects

of

labour

here

considered.The

labour

which

creates

use

value,

and

counts

qualitatively,

is

Work,

as

distinguished

from

Labour,

that

which

creates

Value

and

counts

quantitatively,

is

Labour

as

distinguished

from

Work

—

Engels]

17The

few

economists,

amongst

whom

is

S.

Bailey,

who

have

occupied

themselves

with

the

analysis

of

the

form

of

value,

have

been

unable

to

arrive

at

any

result,

first,

because

they

confuse

the

form

of

value

with

value

itself;

and

second,because,

under

the

coarse

influence

of

the

practical

bourgeois,they

exclusively

give

their

attention

to

the

quantitative

aspect

of

the

question.

\"The

command

of

quantity

...

constitutes

value.\"

(\"Money

and

its

Vicissitudes.\"

London,

1837,

p.

11.

By

S.

Bailey.)

18The

celebrated

Franklin,

one

of

the

first

economists,

after

Wm.

Petty,

who

saw

through

the

nature

of

value,

says:

\"Trade

in

general

being

nothing

else

but

the

exchange

of

labour

for

labour,

the

value

of

all

things

is

...

most

justly

measured

by

labour.\"

(\"The

works

of

B.

Franklin,

&c.,\"

edited

by

Sparks.Boston,

1836,

Vol.

II.,

p.

267.)

Franklin

is

unconscious

that

by

estimating

the

value

of

everything

in

labour,

he

makes

abstraction

from

any

difference

in

the

sorts

of

labour

exchanged,

and

thus

reduces

them

all

to

equal

human

labour.But

although

ignorant

of

this,

yet

he

says

it.

He

speaks

first

of

\"the

one

labour,\"

then

of

\"the

other

labour,\"

and

finally

of

\"labour,\"

without

further

qualification,

as

the

substance

of

the

value

of

everything.

19In

a

sort

of

way,

it

is

with

man

as

with

commodities.Since

he

comes

into

the

world

neither

with

a

looking

glass

in

his

hand,

nor

as

a

Fichtian

philosopher,

to

whom

\"I

am

I\"is

sufficient,

man

first

sees

and

recognises

himself

in

other

men.

Peter

only

establishes

his

own

identity

as

a

man

by

first

comparing

himself

with

Paul

as

being

of

like

kind.

And

thereby

Paul,

just

as

he

stands

in

his

Pauline

personality,

becomes

to

Peter

the

type

of

the

genus

homo.

20Value

is

here,

as

occasionally

in

the

preceding

pages,

used

in

sense

of

value

determined

as

to

quantity,

or

of

magnitude

of

value.

21This

incongruity

between

the

magnitude

of

value

and

its

relative

expression

has,

with

customary

ingenuity,

been

exploited

by

vulgar

economists.

For

example

–

\"Once

admit

that

A

falls,

because

B,

with

which

it

is

exchanged,

rises,

while

no

less

labour

is

bestowed

in

the

meantime

on

A,

and

your

general

principle

of

value

falls

to

the

ground...

If

he

[Ricardo]allowed

that

when

A

rises

in

value

relatively

to

B,

B

falls

in

value

relatively

to

A,

he

cut

away

the

ground

on

which

he

rested

his

grand

proposition,

that

the

value

of

a

commodity

is

ever

determined

by

the

labour

embodied

in

it,

for

if

a

change

in

the

cost

of

A

alters

not

only

its

own

value

in

relation

to

B,for

which

it

is

exchanged,

but

also

the

value

of

B

relatively

to

that

of

A,

though

no

change

has

taken

place

in

the

quantity

of

labour

to

produce

B,

then

not

only

the

doctrine

falls

to

the

ground

which

asserts

that

the

quantity

of

labour

bestowed

on

an

article

regulates

its

value,

but

also

that

which

affirms

the

cost

of

an

article

to

regulate

its

value'

(J.

Broadhurst:

\"Political

Economy,\"

London,

1842,

pp.

11

and

14.)

Mr.

Broadhurst

might

just

as

well

say:

consider

the

fractions

10\/20,

10\/50,10\/100,

&c.,

the

number

10

remains

unchanged,

and

yet

its

proportional

magnitude,

its

magnitude

relatively

to

the

numbers

20,

50,

100

&c.,

continually

diminishes.

Therefore

the

great

principle

that

the

magnitude

of

a

whole

number,

such

as

10,

is

\"regulated\"

by

the

number

of

times

unity

is

contained

in

it,

falls

to

the

ground.

[The

author

explains

in

section

4

of

this

chapter,

pp.

80-81,

note

2

(note

33

of

this

document),

what

he

understands

by

\"Vulgar

Economy.\"

–

Engels]

22Such

expressions

of

relations

in

general,

called

by

Hegel

reflex

categories,

form

a

very

curious

class.

For

instance,

one

man

is

king

only

because

other

men

stand

in

the

relation

of

subjects

to

him.

They,

on

the

contrary,

imagine

that

they

are

subjects

because

he

is

king.

23F.

L.

A.

Ferrier,

sous-inspecteur

des

douanes,

\"Du

gouvernement

considéré

dans

ses

rapports

avec

le

commerce,

\"Paris,

1805;

and

Charles

Ganilh,

\"Des

Systèmes

d'Economie

Politique,

–

2nd

ed.,

Paris,

1821.

24In

Homer,

for

instance,

the

value

of

an

article

is

expressed

in

a

series

of

different

things

II.

VII.

472-475.

25For

this

reason,

we

can

speak

of

the

coat

value

of

the

linen

when

its

value

is

expressed

in

coats,

or

of

its

corn

value

when

expressed

in

corn,

and

so

on.

Every

such

expression

tells

us,

that

what

appears

in

the

use

values,

coat,

corn,

&c.,

is

the

value

of

the

linen.

\"The

value

of

any

commodity

denoting

its

relation

in

exchange,

we

may

speak

of

it

as

...

corn

value,cloth

value,

according

to

the

commodity

with

which

it

is

compared;

and

hence

there

are

a

thousand

different

kinds

of

value,

as

many

kinds

of

value

as

there

are

commodities

in

existence,

and

all

are

equally

real

and

equally

nominal.\"

(\"A

Critical

Dissertation

on

the

Nature,

Measures

and

Causes

of

Value:

chiefly

in

reference

to

the

writings

of

Mr.

Ricardo

and

his

followers.\"

By

the

author

of

\"Essays

on

the

Formation,

&c.,of

Opinions.\"

London,

1825,

p.

39.)

S.

Bailey,

the

author

of

this

anonymous

work,

a

work

which

in

its

day

created

much

stir

in

England,

fancied

that,

by

thus

pointing

out

the

various

relative

expressions

of

one

and

the

same

value,

he

had

proved

the

impossibility

of

any

determination

of

the

concept

of

value.However

narrow

his

own

views

may

have

been,

yet,

that

he

laid

his

finger

on

some

serious

defects

in

the

Ricardian

Theory,is

proved

by

the

animosity

with

which

he

was

attacked

by

Ricardo's

followers.

See

the

Westminster

Review

for

example.

26It

is

by

no

means

self-evident

that

this

character

of

direct

and

universal

exchangeability

is,

so

to

speak,

a

polar

one,

and

as

intimately

connected

with

its

opposite

pole,

the

absence

of

direct

exchangeability,

as

the

positive

pole

of

the

magnet

is

with

its

negative

counterpart.

It

may

therefore

be

imagined

that

all

commodities

can

simultaneously

have

this

character

impressed

upon

them,

just

as

it

can

be

imagined

that

all

Catholics

can

be

popes

together.

It

is,

of

course,

highly

desirable

in

the

eyes

of

the

petit

bourgeois,

for

whom

the

production

of

commodities

is

the

nec

plus

ultra

of

human

freedom

and

individual

independence,

that

the

inconveniences

resulting

from

this

character

of

commodities

not

being

directly

exchangeable,

should

be

removed.

Proudhon's

socialism

is

a

working

out

of

this

Philistine

Utopia,

a

form

of

socialism

which,

as

I

have

elsewhere

shown,

does

not

possess

even

the

merit

of

originality.

Long

before

his

time,

the

task

was

attempted

with

much

better

success

by

Gray,

Bray,

and

others.But,

for

all

that,

wisdom

of

this

kind

flourishes

even

now

in

certain

circles

under

the

name

of

\"science.\"

Never

has

any

school

played

more

tricks

with

the

word

science,

than

that

of

Proudhon,

for

\"wo

Begriffe

fehlen,

Da

stellt

zur

rechten

Zeit

ein

Wort

sich

ein.\"

[\"Where

thoughts

are

absent,

Words

are

brought

in

as

convenient

replacements,\"

Goethe's,

Faust,

See

Proudhon's

Philosophy

of

Poverty]

26aIn

the

German

edition,

there

is

the

following

footnote

here:

\"One

may

recall

that

China

and

the

tables

began

to

dance

when

the

rest

of

the

world

appeared

to

be

standing

still–

pour

encourager

les

autres

[to

encourage

the

others].\"

The

defeat

of

the

1848-49

revolutions

was

followed

by

a

period

of

dismal

political

reaction

in

Europe.

At

that

time,

spiritualism,especially

table-turning,

became

the

rage

among

the

European

aristocracy.

In

1850-64,

China

was

swept

by

an

anti-feudal

liberation

movement

in

the

form

of

a

large-scale

peasant

war,the

Taiping

Revolt.

–

Note

by

editors

of

MECW.

27Among

the

ancient

Germans

the

unit

for

measuring

land

was

what

could

be

harvested

in

a

day,

and

was

called

Tagwerk,Tagwanne

(jurnale,

or

terra

jurnalis,

or

diornalis),

Mannsmaad,&c.

(See

G.

L.

von

Maurer,

\"Einleitung

zur

Geschichte

der

Mark,

&c.

Verfassung,\"

Munchen,

1854,

p.

129

sq.)

28When,

therefore,

Galiani

says:

Value

is

a

relation

between

persons

–

\"La

Ricchezza

e

una

ragione

tra

due

persone,\"

–

he

ought

to

have

added:

a

relation

between

persons

expressed

as

a

relation

between

things.

(Galiani:

Della

Moneta,

p.

221,V.

III.

of

Custodi's

collection

of

\"Scrittori

Classici

Italiani

di

Economia

Politica.\"

Parte

Moderna,

Milano

1803.)

29\"What

are

we

to

think

of

a

law

that

asserts

itself

only

by

periodical

revolutions

It

is

just

nothing

but

a

law

of

Nature,founded

on

the

want

of

knowledge

of

those

whose

action

is

the

subject

of

it.\"

(Friedrich

Engels:

\"Umrisse

zu

einer

Kritik

der

Nationalkonomie,\"

in

the

\"Deutsch-Franzsische

Jahrbücher,\"edited

by

Arnold

Ruge

and

Karl

Marx.

Paris.

1844.)

30Even

Ricardo

has

his

stories

à

la

Robinson.

\"He

makes

the

primitive

hunter

and

the

primitive

fisher

straightway,

as

owners

of

commodities,

exchange

fish

and

game

in

the

proportion

in

which

labour

time

is

incorporated

in

these

exchange

values.On

this

occasion

he

commits

the

anachronism

of

making

these

men

apply

to

the

calculation,

so

far

as

their

implements

have

to

be

taken

into

account,

the

annuity

tables

in

current

use

on

the

London

Exchange

in

the

year

1817.

The

parallelograms

of

Mr.

Owen

appear

to

be

the

only

form

of

society,

besides

the

bourgeois

form,

with

which

he

was

acquainted.\"

(Karl

Marx:\"Zur

Kritik,

&c..\"

pp.

38,

39)

31A

ridiculous

presumption

has

latterly

got

abroad

that

common

property

in

its

primitive

form

is

specifically

a

Slavonian,

or

even

exclusively

Russian

form.

It

is

the

primitive

form

that

we

can

prove

to

have

existed

amongst

Romans,Teutons,

and

Celts,

and

even

to

this

day

we

find

numerous

examples,

ruins

though

they

be,

in

India.

A

more

exhaustive

study

of

Asiatic,

and

especially

of

Indian

forms

of

common

property,

would

show

how

from

the

different

forms

of

primitive

common

property,

different

forms

of

its

dissolution

have

been

developed.

Thus,

for

instance,

the

various

original

types

of

Roman

and

Teutonic

private

property

are

deducible

from

different

forms

of

Indian

common

property.\"

(Karl

Marx,\"Zur

Kritik,

&c.,\"

p.

10.)

32The

insufficiency

of

Ricardo's

analysis

of

the

magnitude

of

value,

and

his

analysis

is

by

far

the

best,

will

appear

from

the

3rd

and

4th

books

of

this

work.

As

regards

value

in

general,it

is

the

weak

point

of

the

classical

school

of

Political

Economy

that

it

nowhere

expressly

and

with

full

consciousness,distinguishes

between

labour,

as

it

appears

in

the

value

of

a

product,

and

the

same

labour,

as

it

appears

in

the

use

value

of

that

product.

Of

course

the

distinction

is

practically

made,since

this

school

treats

labour,

at

one

time

under

its

quantitative

aspect,

at

another

under

its

qualitative

aspect.

But

it

has

not

the

least

idea,

that

when

the

difference

between

various

kinds

of

labour

is

treated

as

purely

quantitative,

their

qualitative

unity

or

equality,

and

therefore

their

reduction

to

abstract

human

labour,

is

implied.

For

instance,

Ricardo

declares

that

he

agrees

with

Destutt

de

Tracy

in

this

proposition:

\"As

it

is

certain

that

our

physical

and

moral

faculties

are

alone

our

original

riches,the

employment

of

those

faculties,

labour

of

some

kind,

is

our

only

original

treasure,

and

it

is

always

from

this

employment

that

all

those

things

are

created

which

we

call

riches...

It

is

certain,

too,

that

all

those

things

only

represent

the

labour

which

has

created

them,

and

if

they

have

a

value,

or

even

two

distinct

values,

they

can

only

derive

them

from

that

(the

value)

of

the

labour

from

which

they

emanate.\"

(Ricardo,

\"The

Principles

of

Pol.

Econ.,\"

3

Ed.

Lond.

1821,

p.

334.)

We

would

here

only

point

out,

that

Ricardo

puts

his

own

more

profound

interpretation

upon

the

words

of

Destutt.

What

the

latter

really

says

is,

that

on

the

one

hand

all

things

which

constitute

wealth

represent

the

labour

that

creates

them,

but

that

on

the

other

hand,

they

acquire

their

\"two

different

values\"

(use

value

and

exchange

value)

from

\"the

value

of

labour.\"

He

thus

falls

into

the

commonplace

error

of

the

vulgar

economists,

who

assume

the

value

of

one

commodity

(in

this

case

labour)

in

order

to

determine

the

values

of

the

rest.

But

Ricardo

reads

him

as

if

he

had

said,

that

labour

(not

the

value

of

labour)

is

embodied

both

in

use

value

and

exchange

value.

Nevertheless,

Ricardo

himself

pays

so

little

attention

to

the

two-fold

character

of

the

labour

which

has

a

two-fold

embodiment,

that

he

devotes

the

whole

of

his

chapter

on

\"Value

and

Riches,

Their

Distinctive

Properties,\"

to

a

laborious

examination

of

the

trivialities

of

a

J.B.

Say.

And

at

the

finish

he

is

quite

astonished

to

find

that

Destutt

on

the

one

hand

agrees

with

him

as

to

labour

being

the

source

of

value,

and

on

the

other

hand

with

J.

B.

Say

as

to

the

notion

of

value.

33It

is

one

of

the

chief

failings

of

classical

economy

that

it

has

never

succeeded,

by

means

of

its

analysis

of

commodities,and,

in

particular,

of

their

value,

in

discovering

that

form

under

which

value

becomes

exchange

value.

Even

Adam

Smith

and

Ricardo,

the

best

representatives

of

the

school,treat

the

form

of

value

as

a

thing

of

no

importance,

as

having

no

connection

with

the

inherent

nature

of

commodities.

The

reason

for

this

is

not

solely

because

their

attention

is

entirely

absorbed

in

the

analysis

of

the

magnitude

of

value.

It

lies

deeper.

The

value

form

of

the

product

of

labour

is

not

only

the

most

abstract,

but

is

also

the

most

universal

form,

taken

by

the

product

in

bourgeois

production,

and

stamps

that

production

as

a

particular

species

of

social

production,

and

thereby

gives

it

its

special

historical

character.

If

then

we

treat

this

mode

of

production

as

one

eternally

fixed

by

Nature

for

every

state

of

society,

we

necessarily

overlook

that

which

is

the

differentia

specifica

of

the

value

form,

and

consequently

of

the

commodity

form,

and

of

its

further

developments,money

form,

capital

form,

&c.

We

consequently

find

that

economists,

who

are

thoroughly

agreed

as

to

labour

time

being

the

measure

of

the

magnitude

of

value,

have

the

most

strange

and

contradictory

ideas

of

money,

the

perfected

form

of

the

general

equivalent.

This

is

seen

in

a

striking

manner

when

they

treat

of

banking,

where

the

commonplace

definitions

of

money

will

no

longer

hold

water.

This

led

to

the

rise

of

a

restored

mercantile

system

(Ganilh,

&c.),

which

sees

in

value

nothing

but

a

social

form,

or

rather

the

unsubstantial

ghost

of

that

form.

Once

for

all

I

may

here

state,

that

by

classical

Political

Economy,

I

understand

that

economy

which,

since

the

time

of

W.

Petty,

has

investigated

the

real

relations

of

production

in

bourgeois

society

in

contradistinction

to

vulgar

economy,which

deals

with

appearances

only,

ruminates

without

ceasing

on

the

materials

long

since

provided

by

scientific

economy,and

there

seeks

plausible

explanations

of

the

most

obtrusive

phenomena,

for

bourgeois

daily

use,

but

for

the

rest,

confines

itself

to

systematising

in

a

pedantic

way,

and

proclaiming

for

everlasting

truths,

the

trite

ideas

held

by

the

self-complacent

bourgeoisie

with

regard

to

their

own

world,

to

them

the

best

of

all

possible

worlds.

34\"Les

économistes

ont

une

singulière

manière

de

procéder.Il

n'y

a

pour

eux

que

deux

sortes

d'institutions,

celles

de

l'art

et

celles

de

la

nature.

Les

institutions

de

la

féodalité

sont

des

institutions

artificielles

celles

de

la

bourgeoisie

sont

des

institutions

naturelles.

Ils

ressemblent

en

ceci

aux

théologiens,qui

eux

aussi

établissent

deux

sortes

de

religions.

Toute

religion

qui

n'est

pas

la

leur,

est

une

invention

des

hommes

tandis

que

leur

propre

religion

est

une

émanation

de

Dieu

Ainsi

il

y

a

eu

de

l'histoire,

mais

il

n'y

en

a

plus.\"

[\"Economists

have

a

singular

method

of

procedure.

There

are

only

two

kinds

of

institutions

for

them,

artificial

and

natural.

The

institutions

of

feudalism

are

artificial

institutions,

those

of

the

bourgeoisie

are

natural

institutions.

In

this

they

resemble

the

theologians,who

likewise

establish

two

kinds

of

religion.

Every

religion

which

is

not

theirs

is

an

invention

of

men,

while

their

own

is

an

emanation

from

God.

...

Thus

there

has

been

history,

but

there

is

no

longer

any\"]

(Karl

Marx.

Misère

de

la

Philosophie.Réponse

a

la

Philosophie

de

la

Misère

par

M.

Proudhon,

1847,p.

113.)

Truly

comical

is

M.

Bastiat,

who

imagines

that

the

ancient

Greeks

and

Romans

lived

by

plunder

alone.

But

when

people

plunder

for

centuries,

there

must

always

be

something

at

hand

for

them

to

seize;

the

objects

of

plunder

must

be

continually

reproduced.

It

would

thus

appear

that

even

Greeks

and

Romans

had

some

process

of

production,

consequently,an

economy,

which

just

as

much

constituted

the

material

basis

of

their

world,

as

bourgeois

economy

constitutes

that

of

our

modern

world.

Or

perhaps

Bastiat

means,

that

a

mode

of

production

based

on

slavery

is

based

on

a

system

of

plunder.

In

that

case

he

treads

on

dangerous

ground.

If

a

giant

thinker

like

Aristotle

erred

in

his

appreciation

of

slave

labour,

why

should

a

dwarf

economist

like

Bastiat

be

right

in

his

appreciation

of

wage

labour

I

seize

this

opportunity

of

shortly

answering

an

objection

taken

by

a

German

paper

in

America,

to

my

work,\"Zur

Kritik

der

Pol.

Oekonomie,

1859.\"

In

the

estimation

of

that

paper,

my

view

that

each

special

mode

of

production

and

the

social

relations

corresponding

to

it,

in

short,

that

the

economic

structure

of

society,

is

the

real

basis

on

which

the

juridical

and

political

superstructure

is

raised

and

to

which

definite

social

forms

of

thought

correspond;

that

the

mode

of

production

determines

the

character

of

the

social,

political,and

intellectual

life

generally,

all

this

is

very

true

for

our

own

times,

in

which

material

interests

preponderate,

but

not

for

the

middle

ages,

in

which

Catholicism,

nor

for

Athens

and

Rome,where

politics,

reigned

supreme.

In

the

first

place

it

strikes

one

as

an

odd

thing

for

any

one

to

suppose

that

these

well

worn

phrases

about

the

middle

ages

and

the

ancient

world

are

unknown

to

anyone

else.

This

much,

however,

is

clear,

that

the

middle

ages

could

not

live

on

Catholicism,

nor

the

ancient

world

on

politics.

On

the

contrary,

it

is

the

mode

in

which

they

gained

a

livelihood

that

explains

why

here

politics,

and

there

Catholicism,

played

the

chief

part.

For

the

rest,

it

requires

but

a

slight

acquaintance

with

the

history

of

the

Roman

republic,

for

example,

to

be

aware

that

its

secret

history

is

the

history

of

its

landed

property.

On

the

other

hand,

Don

Quixote

long

ago

paid

the

penalty

for

wrongly

imagining

that

knight

errantry

was

compatible

with

all

economic

forms

of

society.

35\"Observations

on

certain

verbal

disputes

in

Pol.

Econ.,particularly

relating

to

value

and

to

demand

and

supply\"

Lond.,1821,

p.

16.

36S.

Bailey,

l.c.,

p.

165.

37The

author

of

\"Observations\"

and

S.

Bailey

accuse

Ricardo

of

converting

exchange

value

from

something

relative

into

something

absolute.

The

opposite

is

the

fact.He

has

explained

the

apparent

relation

between

objects,such

as

diamonds

and

pearls,

in

which

relation

they

appear

as

exchange

values,

and

disclosed

the

true

relation

hidden

behind

the

appearances,

namely,

their

relation

to

each

other

as

mere

expressions

of

human

labour.

If

the

followers

of

Ricardo

answer

Bailey

somewhat

rudely,

and

by

no

means

convincingly,

the

reason

is

to

be

sought

in

this,

that

they

were

unable

to

find

in

Ricardo's

own

works

any

key

to

the

hidden

relations

existing

between

value

and

its

form,

exchange

value.

[1]

The

following

passage

occurred

only

in

the

first

edition.'Now

we

know

the

substance

of

value.

It

is

labour.

We

know

the

measure

of

its

magnitude.

It

is

labour

time.

The

form,which

stamps

value

as

exchange-value,

remains

to

be

analysed.But

before

this

we

need

to

develop

the

characteristics

we

have

already

found

somewhat

more

fully.'

Taken

from

the

Penguin

edition

of

'Capital,'

translated

by

Ben

Fowkes.