- 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
欣可小說 >
其他 >
資本論 >
CHAPTER 2: EXCHANGE
It
is
plain
that
commodities
cannot
go
to
market
and
make
exchanges
of
their
own
account.
We
must,
therefore,
have
recourse
to
their
guardians,
who
are
also
their
owners.
Commodities
are
things,
and
therefore
without
power
of
resistance
against
man.
If
they
are
wanting
in
docility
he
can
use
force;
in
other
words,
he
can
take
possession
of
them.1In
order
that
these
objects
may
enter
into
relation
with
each
other
as
commodities,
their
guardians
must
place
themselves
in
relation
to
one
another,
as
persons
whose
will
resides
in
those
objects,
and
must
behave
in
such
a
way
that
each
does
not
appropriate
the
commodity
of
the
other,
and
part
with
his
own,
except
by
means
of
an
act
done
by
mutual
consent.
They
must
therefore,mutually
recognise
in
each
other
the
rights
of
private
proprietors.
This
juridical
relation,
which
thus
expresses
itself
in
a
contract,
whether
such
contract
be
part
of
a
developed
legal
system
or
not,
is
a
relation
between
two
wills,
and
is
but
the
reflex
of
the
real
economic
relation
between
the
two.
It
is
this
economic
relation
that
determines
the
subject-matter
comprised
in
each
such
juridical
act.2
The
persons
exist
for
one
another
merely
as
representatives
of,
and,
therefore.
as
owners
of,commodities.
In
the
course
of
our
investigation
we
shall
find,
in
general,
that
the
characters
who
appear
on
the
economic
stage
are
but
the
personifications
of
the
economic
relations
that
exist
between
them.
What
chiefly
distinguishes
a
commodity
from
its
owner
is
the
fact,
that
it
looks
upon
every
other
commodity
as
but
the
form
of
appearance
of
its
own
value.
A
born
leveller
and
a
cynic,
it
is
always
ready
to
exchange
not
only
soul,
but
body,
with
any
and
every
other
commodity,
be
the
same
more
repulsive
than
Maritornes
herself.
The
owner
makes
up
for
this
lack
in
the
commodity
of
a
sense
of
the
concrete,by
his
own
five
and
more
senses.
His
commodity
possesses
for
himself
no
immediate
use-value.Otherwise,
he
would
not
bring
it
to
the
market.
It
has
use-value
for
others;
but
for
himself
its
only
direct
use-value
is
that
of
being
a
depository
of
exchange
value,
and,
consequently,
a
means
of
exchange.
3Therefore,
he
makes
up
his
mind
to
part
with
it
for
commodities
whose
value
in
use
is
of
service
to
him.All
commodities
are
non-use-values
for
their
owners,and
use-values
for
their
non-owners.
Consequently,they
must
all
change
hands.
But
this
change
of
hands
is
what
constitutes
their
exchange,
and
the
latter
puts
them
in
relation
with
each
other
as
values,
and
realises
them
as
values.
Hence
commodities
must
be
realised
as
values
before
they
can
be
realised
as
use-values.
On
the
other
hand,
they
must
show
that
they
are
use-values
before
they
can
be
realised
as
values.For
the
labour
spent
upon
them
counts
effectively,only
in
so
far
as
it
is
spent
in
a
form
that
is
useful
for
others.
Whether
that
labour
is
useful
for
others,
and
its
product
consequently
capable
of
satisfying
the
wants
of
others,
can
be
proved
only
by
the
act
of
exchange.
Every
owner
of
a
commodity
wishes
to
part
with
it
in
exchange
only
for
those
commodities
whose
use
value
satisfies
some
want
of
his.
Looked
at
in
this
way,
exchange
is
for
him
simply
a
private
transaction.On
the
other
hand,
he
desires
to
realise
the
value
of
his
commodity,
to
convert
it
into
any
other
suitable
commodity
of
equal
value,
irrespective
of
whether
his
own
commodity
has
or
has
not
any
use-value
for
the
owner
of
the
other.
From
this
point
of
view,
exchange
is
for
him
a
social
transaction
of
a
general
character.But
one
and
the
same
set
of
transactions
cannot
be
simultaneously
for
all
owners
of
commodities
both
exclusively
private
and
exclusively
social
and
general.
Let
us
look
at
the
matter
a
little
closer.
To
the
owner
of
a
commodity,
every
other
commodity
is,
in
regard
to
his
own,
a
particular
equivalent,
and
consequently
his
own
commodity
is
the
universal
equivalent
for
all
the
others.
But
since
this
applies
to
every
owner,
there
is,in
fact,
no
commodity
acting
as
universal
equivalent,and
the
relative
value
of
commodities
possesses
no
general
form
under
which
they
can
be
equated
as
values
and
have
the
magnitude
of
their
values
compared.
So
far,
therefore,
they
do
not
confront
each
other
as
commodities,
but
only
as
products
or
use
values.
In
their
difficulties
our
commodity
owners
think
like
Faust:
\"Im
Anfang
war
die
Tat.\"
[\"In
the
beginning
was
the
deed.\"
–
Goethe,
Faust.]
They
therefore
acted
and
transacted
before
they
thought.Instinctively
they
conform
to
the
laws
imposed
by
the
nature
of
commodities.
They
cannot
bring
their
commodities
into
relation
as
values,
and
therefore
as
commodities,
except
by
comparing
them
with
some
one
other
commodity
as
the
universal
equivalent.That
we
saw
from
the
analysis
of
a
commodity.
But
a
particular
commodity
cannot
become
the
universal
equivalent
except
by
a
social
act.
The
social
action
therefore
of
all
other
commodities,
sets
apart
the
particular
commodity
in
which
they
all
represent
their
values.
Thereby
the
bodily
form
of
this
commodity
becomes
the
form
of
the
socially
recognised
universal
equivalent.
To
be
the
universal
equivalent,
becomes,by
this
social
process,
the
specific
function
of
the
commodity
thus
excluded
by
the
rest.
Thus
it
becomes–
money.
\"Illi
unum
consilium
habent
et
virtutem
et
potestatem
suam
bestiae
tradunt.
Et
ne
quis
possit
emere
aut
vendere,
nisi
qui
habet
characterem
autnomen
bestiae
aut
numerum
nominis
ejus.\"
[\"These
have
one
mind,
and
shall
give
their
power
and
strength
unto
the
beast.\"
Revelations,
17:13;
\"And
that
no
man
might
buy
or
sell,
save
he
that
had
the
mark,
or
the
name
of
the
beast,
or
the
number
of
his
name.\"
Revelations,
13:17.]
(Apocalypse.
)
Money
is
a
crystal
formed
of
necessity
in
the
course
of
the
exchanges,
whereby
different
products
of
labour
are
practically
equated
to
one
another
and
thus
by
practice
converted
into
commodities.The
historical
progress
and
extension
of
exchanges
develops
the
contrast,
latent
in
commodities,
between
use-value
and
value.
The
necessity
for
giving
an
external
expression
to
this
contrast
for
the
purposes
of
commercial
intercourse,
urges
on
the
establishment
of
an
independent
form
of
value,
and
finds
no
rest
until
it
is
once
for
all
satisfied
by
the
differentiation
of
commodities
into
commodities
and
money.
At
the
same
rate,
then,
as
the
conversion
of
products
into
commodities
is
being
accomplished,
so
also
is
the
conversion
of
one
special
commodity
into
money.4
The
direct
barter
of
products
attains
the
elementary
form
of
the
relative
expression
of
value
in
one
respect,but
not
in
another.
That
form
is
x
Commodity
A
=
y
Commodity
B.
The
form
of
direct
barter
is
x
use-value
A
=
y
use-value
B.5The
articles
A
and
B
in
this
case
are
not
as
yet
commodities,
but
become
so
only
by
the
act
of
barter.
The
first
step
made
by
an
object
of
utility
towards
acquiring
exchange-value
is
when
it
forms
a
non-use-value
for
its
owner,
and
that
happens
when
it
forms
a
superfluous
portion
of
some
article
required
for
his
immediate
wants.
Objects
in
themselves
are
external
to
man,
and
consequently
alienable
by
him.In
order
that
this
alienation
may
be
reciprocal,
it
is
only
necessary
for
men,
by
a
tacit
understanding,
to
treat
each
other
as
private
owners
of
those
alienable
objects,
and
by
implication
as
independent
individuals.But
such
a
state
of
reciprocal
independence
has
no
existence
in
a
primitive
society
based
on
property
in
common,
whether
such
a
society
takes
the
form
of
a
patriarchal
family,
an
ancient
Indian
community,
or
a
Peruvian
Inca
State.
The
exchange
of
commodities,therefore,
first
begins
on
the
boundaries
of
such
communities,
at
their
points
of
contact
with
other
similar
communities,
or
with
members
of
the
latter.
So
soon,
however,
as
products
once
become
commodities
in
the
external
relations
of
a
community,
they
also,by
reaction,
become
so
in
its
internal
intercourse.The
proportions
in
which
they
are
exchangeable
are
at
first
quite
a
matter
of
chance.
What
makes
them
exchangeable
is
the
mutual
desire
of
their
owners
to
alienate
them.
Meantime
the
need
for
foreign
objects
of
utility
gradually
establishes
itself.
The
constant
repetition
of
exchange
makes
it
a
normal
social
act.
In
the
course
of
time,
therefore,
some
portion
at
least
of
the
products
of
labour
must
be
produced
with
a
special
view
to
exchange.
From
that
moment
the
distinction
becomes
firmly
established
between
the
utility
of
an
object
for
the
purposes
of
consumption,
and
its
utility
for
the
purposes
of
exchange.
Its
use-value
becomes
distinguished
from
its
exchange-value.
On
the
other
hand,
the
quantitative
proportion
in
which
the
articles
are
exchangeable,
becomes
dependent
on
their
production
itself.
Custom
stamps
them
as
values
with
definite
magnitudes.
In
the
direct
barter
of
products,
each
commodity
is
directly
a
means
of
exchange
to
its
owner,
and
to
all
other
persons
an
equivalent,
but
that
only
in
so
far
as
it
has
use-value
for
them.
At
this
stage,
therefore,the
articles
exchanged
do
not
acquire
a
value
form
independent
of
their
own
use-value,
or
of
the
individual
needs
of
the
exchangers.
The
necessity
for
a
value-form
grows
with
the
increasing
number
and
variety
of
the
commodities
exchanged.
The
problem
and
the
means
of
solution
arise
simultaneously.Commodity-owners
never
equate
their
own
commodities
to
those
of
others,
and
exchange
them
on
a
large
scale,
without
different
kinds
of
commodities
belonging
to
different
owners
being
exchangeable
for,and
equated
as
values
to,
one
and
the
same
special
article.
Such
last-mentioned
article,
by
becoming
the
equivalent
of
various
other
commodities,
acquires
at
once,
though
within
narrow
limits,
the
character
of
a
general
social
equivalent.
This
character
comes
and
goes
with
the
momentary
social
acts
that
called
it
into
life.
In
turns
and
transiently
it
attaches
itself
first
to
this
and
then
to
that
commodity.
But
with
the
development
of
exchange
it
fixes
itself
firmly
and
exclusively
to
particular
sorts
of
commodities,and
becomes
crystallised
by
assuming
the
money
form.
The
particular
kind
of
commodity
to
which
it
sticks
is
at
first
a
matter
of
accident.
Nevertheless
there
are
two
circumstances
whose
influence
is
decisive.
The
money-form
attaches
itself
either
to
the
most
important
articles
of
exchange
from
outside,and
these
in
fact
are
primitive
and
natural
forms
in
which
the
exchange-value
of
home
products
finds
expression;
or
else
it
attaches
itself
to
the
object
of
utility
that
forms,
like
cattle,
the
chief
portion
of
indigenous
alienable
wealth.
Nomad
races
are
the
first
to
develop
the
money-form,
because
all
their
worldly
goods
consist
of
moveable
objects
and
are
therefore
directly
alienable;
and
because
their
mode
of
life,
by
continually
bringing
them
into
contact
with
foreign
communities,
solicits
the
exchange
of
products.Man
has
often
made
man
himself,
under
the
form
of
slaves,
serve
as
the
primitive
material
of
money,
but
has
never
used
land
for
that
purpose.
Such
an
idea
could
only
spring
up
in
a
bourgeois
society
already
well
developed.
It
dates
from
the
last
third
of
the
17th
century,
and
the
first
attempt
to
put
it
in
practice
on
a
national
scale
was
made
a
century
afterwards,
during
the
French
bourgeois
revolution.
In
proportion
as
exchange
bursts
its
local
bonds,
and
the
value
of
commodities
more
and
more
expands
into
an
embodiment
of
human
labour
in
the
abstract,
in
the
same
proportion
the
character
of
money
attaches
itself
to
commodities
that
are
by
Nature
fitted
to
perform
the
social
function
of
a
universal
equivalent.
Those
commodities
are
the
precious
metals.
The
truth
of
the
proposition
that,
\"although
gold
and
silver
are
not
by
Nature
money,
money
is
by
Nature
gold
and
silver,\"6is
shown
by
the
fitness
of
the
physical
properties
of
these
metals
for
the
functions
of
money.7Up
to
this
point,
however,
we
are
acquainted
only
with
one
function
of
money,
namely,
to
serve
as
the
form
of
manifestation
of
the
value
of
commodities,or
as
the
material
in
which
the
magnitudes
of
their
values
are
socially
expressed.
An
adequate
form
of
manifestation
of
value,
a
fit
embodiment
of
abstract,undifferentiated,
and
therefore
equal
human
labour,that
material
alone
can
be
whose
every
sample
exhibits
the
same
uniform
qualities.
On
the
other
hand,
since
the
difference
between
the
magnitudes
of
value
is
purely
quantitative,
the
money
commodity
must
be
susceptible
of
merely
quantitative
differences,must
therefore
be
divisible
at
will,
and
equally
capable
of
being
reunited.
Gold
and
silver
possess
these
properties
by
Nature.
The
use-value
of
the
money-commodity
becomes
two-fold.
In
addition
to
its
special
use-value
as
a
commodity
(gold,
for
instance,
serving
to
stop
teeth,to
form
the
raw
material
of
articles
of
luxury,
&c.),
it
acquires
a
formal
use-value,
originating
in
its
specific
social
function.
Since
all
commodities
are
merely
particular
equivalents
of
money,
the
latter
being
their
universal
equivalent,
they,
with
regard
to
the
latter
as
the
universal
commodity,
play
the
parts
of
particular
commodities.
8
We
have
seen
that
the
money-form
is
but
the
reflex,
thrown
upon
one
single
commodity,
of
the
value
relations
between
all
the
rest.
That
money
is
a
commodity9is
therefore
a
new
discovery
only
for
those
who,
when
they
analyse
it,
start
from
its
fully
developed
shape.
The
act
of
exchange
gives
to
the
commodity
converted
into
money,
not
its
value,
but
its
specific
value-form.
By
confounding
these
two
distinct
things
some
writers
have
been
led
to
hold
that
the
value
of
gold
and
silver
is
imaginary.10The
fact
that
money
can,
in
certain
functions,
be
replaced
by
mere
symbols
of
itself,
gave
rise
to
that
other
mistaken
notion,
that
it
is
itself
a
mere
symbol.
Nevertheless
under
this
error
lurked
a
presentiment
that
the
money
form
of
an
object
is
not
an
inseparable
part
of
that
object,
but
is
simply
the
form
under
which
certain
social
relations
manifest
themselves.
In
this
sense
every
commodity
is
a
symbol,
since,
in
so
far
as
it
is
value,
it
is
only
the
material
envelope
of
the
human
labour
spent
upon
it.11But
if
it
be
declared
that
the
social
characters
assumed
by
objects,
or
the
material
forms
assumed
by
the
social
qualities
of
labour
under
the
régime
of
a
definite
mode
of
production,
are
mere
symbols,
it
is
in
the
same
breath
also
declared
that
these
characteristics
are
arbitrary
fictions
sanctioned
by
the
so-called
universal
consent
of
mankind.
This
suited
the
mode
of
explanation
in
favour
during
the
18th
century.
Unable
to
account
for
the
origin
of
the
puzzling
forms
assumed
by
social
relations
between
man
and
man,
people
sought
to
denude
them
of
their
strange
appearance
by
ascribing
to
them
a
conventional
origin.
It
has
already
been
remarked
above
that
the
equivalent
form
of
a
commodity
does
not
imply
the
determination
of
the
magnitude
of
its
value.Therefore,
although
we
may
be
aware
that
gold
is
money,
and
consequently
directly
exchangeable
for
all
other
commodities,
yet
that
fact
by
no
means
tells
how
much
10
lbs.,
for
instance,
of
gold
is
worth.Money,
like
every
other
commodity,
cannot
express
the
magnitude
of
its
value
except
relatively
in
other
commodities.
This
value
is
determined
by
the
labour
time
required
for
its
production,
and
is
expressed
by
the
quantity
of
any
other
commodity
that
costs
the
same
amount
of
labour-time.12Such
quantitative
determination
of
its
relative
value
takes
place
at
the
source
of
its
production
by
means
of
barter.
When
it
steps
into
circulation
as
money,
its
value
is
already
given.
In
the
last
decades
of
the
17th
century
it
had
already
been
shown
that
money
is
a
commodity,
but
this
step
marks
only
the
infancy
of
the
analysis.
The
difficulty
lies,
not
in
comprehending
that
money
is
a
commodity,
but
in
discovering
how,
why,
and
by
what
means
a
commodity
becomes
money.13
We
have
already
seen,
from
the
most
elementary
expression
of
value,
x
commodity
A
=
y
commodity
B,
that
the
object
in
which
the
magnitude
of
the
value
of
another
object
is
represented,
appears
to
have
the
equivalent
form
independently
of
this
relation,
as
a
social
property
given
to
it
by
Nature.
We
followed
up
this
false
appearance
to
its
final
establishment,
which
is
complete
so
soon
as
the
universal
equivalent
form
becomes
identified
with
the
bodily
form
of
a
particular
commodity,
and
thus
crystallised
into
the
money-form.What
appears
to
happen
is,
not
that
gold
becomes
money,
in
consequence
of
all
other
commodities
expressing
their
values
in
it,
but,
on
the
contrary,
that
all
other
commodities
universally
express
their
values
in
gold,
because
it
is
money.
The
intermediate
steps
of
the
process
vanish
in
the
result
and
leave
no
trace
behind.
Commodities
find
their
own
value
already
completely
represented,
without
any
initiative
on
their
part,
in
another
commodity
existing
in
company
with
them.
These
objects,
gold
and
silver,
just
as
they
come
out
of
the
bowels
of
the
earth,
are
forthwith
the
direct
incarnation
of
all
human
labour.
Hence
the
magic
of
money.
In
the
form
of
society
now
under
consideration,
the
behaviour
of
men
in
the
social
process
of
production
is
purely
atomic.
Hence
their
relations
to
each
other
in
production
assume
a
material
character
independent
of
their
control
and
conscious
individual
action.
These
facts
manifest
themselves
at
first
by
products
as
a
general
rule
taking
the
form
of
commodities.
We
have
seen
how
the
progressive
development
of
a
society
of
commodity-producers
stamps
one
privileged
commodity
with
the
character
of
money.
Hence
the
riddle
presented
by
money
is
but
the
riddle
presented
by
commodities;
only
it
now
strikes
us
in
its
most
glaring
form.
NOTES:
1In
the
12th
century,
so
renowned
for
its
piety,
they
included
amongst
commodities
some
very
delicate
things.
Thus
a
French
poet
of
the
period
enumerates
amongst
the
goods
to
be
found
in
the
market
of
Landit,
not
only
clothing,
shoes,
leather,agricultural
implements,
&c.,
but
also
\"femmes
folles
de
leur
corps.\"
2Proudhon
begins
by
taking
his
ideal
of
Justice,
of
\"justice
éternelle,\"
from
the
juridical
relations
that
correspond
to
the
production
of
commodities:
thereby,
it
may
be
noted,
he
proves,to
the
consolation
of
all
good
citizens,
that
the
production
of
commodities
is
a
form
of
production
as
everlasting
as
justice.Then
he
turns
round
and
seeks
to
reform
the
actual
production
of
commodities,
and
the
actual
legal
system
corresponding
thereto,
in
accordance
with
this
ideal.
What
opinion
should
we
have
of
a
chemist,
who,
instead
of
studying
the
actual
laws
of
the
molecular
changes
in
the
composition
and
decomposition
of
matter,
and
on
that
foundation
solving
definite
problems,claimed
to
regulate
the
composition
and
decomposition
of
matter
by
means
of
the
\"eternal
ideas,\"
of
\"naturalité\"
and\"affinité\"
Do
we
really
know
any
more
about
\"usury,\"
when
we
say
it
contradicts
\"justice
éternelle,\"
\"équité
éternelle,\"\"mutualité
éternelle,\"
and
other
\"vérités
éternelles\"
than
the
fathers
of
the
church
did
when
they
said
it
was
incompatible
with
\"grace
éternelle,\"
\"foi
éternelle,\"
and
\"la
volonté
éternelle
de
Dieu\"
3For
two-fold
is
the
use
of
every
object....
The
one
is
peculiar
to
the
object
as
such,
the
other
is
not,
as
a
sandal
which
may
be
worn,
and
is
also
exchangeable.
Both
are
uses
of
the
sandal,
for
even
he
who
exchanges
the
sandal
for
the
money
or
food
he
is
in
want
of,
makes
use
of
the
sandal
as
a
sandal.
But
not
in
its
natural
way.
For
it
has
not
been
made
for
the
sake
of
being
exchanged.\"
(Aristoteles,
\"De
Rep.\"
l.
i.
c.
9.)
4From
this
we
may
form
an
estimate
of
the
shrewdness
of
the
petit-bourgeois
socialism,
which,
while
perpetuating
the
production
of
commodities,
aims
at
abolishing
the\"antagonism\"
between
money
and
commodities,
and
consequently,
since
money
exists
only
by
virtue
of
this
antagonism,
at
abolishing
money
itself.
We
might
just
as
well
try
to
retain
Catholicism
without
the
Pope.
For
more
on
this
point
see
my
work,
\"Zur
Kritik
der
Pol.
Oekon.,\"
p.
61,
sq.
5So
long
as,
instead
of
two
distinct
use-values
being
exchanged,
a
chaotic
mass
of
articles
are
offered
as
the
equivalent
of
a
single
article,
which
is
often
the
case
with
savages,
even
the
direct
barter
of
products
is
in
its
first
infancy.
6Karl
Marx,
l.c.,
p.
135.
\"I
metalli
...
naturalmente
moneta.\"[\"The
metals
...
are
by
their
nature
money.\"]
(Galiani,
\"Della
moneta\"
in
Custodi's
Collection:
Parte
Moderna
t.
iii.)
7For
further
details
on
this
subject
see
in
my
work
cited
above,
the
chapter
on
\"The
precious
metals.\"
8\"Il
danaro
è
la
merce
universale\"(Verri,
l.c.,
p.
16).
9\"Silver
and
gold
themselves
(which
we
may
call
by
the
general
name
of
bullion)
are
...
commodities
...
rising
and
falling
in
...
value
...
Bullion,
then,
may
be
reckoned
to
be
of
higher
value
where
the
smaller
weight
will
purchase
the
greater
quantity
of
the
product
or
manufacture
of
the
countrey,\"&c.
(\"A
Discourse
of
the
General
Notions
of
Money,
Trade,and
Exchanges,
as
They
Stand
in
Relation
each
to
other.\"By
a
Merchant.
Lond.,
1695,
p.
7.)
\"Silver
and
gold,
coined
or
uncoined,
though
they
are
used
for
a
measure
of
all
other
things,
are
no
less
a
commodity
than
wine,
oil,
tobacco,cloth,
or
stuffs.\"
(\"A
Discourse
concerning
Trade,
and
that
in
particular
of
the
East
Indies,\"
&c.
London,
1689,
p.
2.)
\"The
stock
and
riches
of
the
kingdom
cannot
properly
be
confined
to
money,
nor
ought
gold
and
silver
to
be
excluded
from
being
merchandise.\"
(\"The
East-India
Trade
a
Most
Profitable
Trade.\"London,
1677,
p.
4.)
10L'oro
e
l'argento
hanno
valore
come
metalli
anteriore
all'esser
moneta.\"
[\"Gold
and
silver
have
value
as
metals
before
they
are
money\"]
(Galiani,
l.c.)
Locke
says,
\"The
universal
consent
of
mankind
gave
to
silver,
on
account
of
its
qualities
which
made
it
suitable
for
money,
an
imaginary
value.\"
Law,
on
the
other
hand.
\"How
could
different
nations
give
an
imaginary
value
to
any
single
thing...
or
how
could
this
imaginary
value
have
maintained
itself\"
But
the
following
shows
how
little
he
himself
understood
about
the
matter:\"Silver
was
exchanged
in
proportion
to
the
value
in
use
it
possessed,
consequently
in
proportion
to
its
real
value.
By
its
adoption
as
money
it
received
an
additional
value
(une
valeur
additionnelle).\"
(Jean
Law:
\"Considérations
sur
le
numéraire
et
le
commerce\"
in
E.
Daire's
Edit.
of
\"Economistes
Financiers
du
XVIII
siècle,\"
p.
470.)
11\"L'Argent
en
(des
denrées)
est
le
signe.\"
[\"Money
is
their(the
commodities')
symbol\"]
(V.
de
Forbonnais:
\"Eléments
du
Commerce,
Nouv.
Edit.
Leyde,
1766,\"
t.
II.,
p.
143.)
\"Comme
signe
il
est
attiré
par
les
denrées.\"
[\"As
a
symbol
it
is
attracted
by
the
commodities\"]
(l.c.,
p.
155.)
\"L'argent
est
un
signe
d'une
chose
et
la
représente.\"
[\"Money
is
a
symbol
of
a
thing
and
represents
it.\"]
(Montesquieu:
\"Esprit
des
Lois,\"
(Oeuvres,Lond.
1767,
t.
II,
p.
2.)
\"L'argent
n'est
pas
simple
signe,
car
il
est
lui-même
richesse,
il
ne
représente
pas
les
valeurs,
il
les
équivaut.\"
[\"Money
is
not
a
mere
symbol,
for
it
is
itself
wealth;
it
does
not
represent
the
values,
it
is
their
equivalents\"](Le
Trosne,
l.c.,
p.
910.)
\"The
notion
of
value
contemplates
the
valuable
article
as
a
mere
symbol
-
the
article
counts
not
for
what
it
is,
but
for
what
it
is
worth.\"
(Hegel,
l.c.,
p.
100.)
Lawyers
started
long
before
economists
the
idea
that
money
is
a
mere
symbol,
and
that
the
value
of
the
precious
metals
is
purely
imaginary.
This
they
did
in
the
sycophantic
service
of
the
crowned
heads,
supporting
the
right
of
the
latter
to
debase
the
coinage,
during
the
whole
of
the
middle
ages,
by
the
traditions
of
the
Roman
Empire
and
the
conceptions
of
money
to
be
found
in
the
Pandects.
\"Qu'aucun
puisse
ni
doive
faire
doute,\"
[\"Let
no
one
call
into
question,\"]
says
an
apt
scholar
of
theirs,
Philip
of
Valois,
in
a
decree
of
1346,
\"que
à
nous
et
à
notre
majesté
royale
n'appartiennent
seulement
...
le
mestier,le
fait,
l'état,
la
provision
et
toute
l'ordonnance
des
monnaies,de
donner
tel
cours,
et
pour
tel
prix
comme
il
nous
plait
et
bon
nous
semble.\"
[\"that
the
trade,
the
composition,
the
supply
and
the
power
of
issuing
ordinances
on
the
currency
...
belongs
exclusively
to
us
and
to
our
royal
majesty,
to
fix
such
a
rate
and
at
such
price
as
it
shall
please
us
and
seem
good
to
us\"]
It
was
a
maxim
of
the
Roman
Law
that
the
value
of
money
was
fixed
by
decree
of
the
emperor.
It
was
expressly
forbidden
to
treat
money
as
a
commodity.
\"Pecunias
vero
nulli
emere
fas
erit,
nam
in
usu
publico
constitutas
oportet
non
esse
mercem.\"[\"However,
it
shall
not
be
lawful
to
anyone
to
buy
money,
for,as
it
was
created
for
public
use,
it
is
not
permissible
for
it
to
be
a
commodity\"]
Some
good
work
on
this
question
has
been
done
by
G.
F.
Pagnini:
\"Saggio
sopra
il
giusto
pregio
delle
cose,
1751\";
Custodi
\"Parte
Moderna,\"
t.
II.
In
the
second
part
of
his
work
Pagnini
directs
his
polemics
especially
against
the
lawyers.
12\"If
a
man
can
bring
to
London
an
ounce
of
Silver
out
of
the
Earth
in
Peru,
in
the
same
time
that
he
can
produce
a
bushel
of
Corn,
then
the
one
is
the
natural
price
of
the
other;
now,
if
by
reason
of
new
or
more
easier
mines
a
man
can
procure
two
ounces
of
silver
as
easily
as
he
formerly
did
one,
the
corn
will
be
as
cheap
at
ten
shillings
the
bushel
as
it
was
before
at
five
shillings,
caeteris
paribus.\"
William
Petty.
\"A
Treatise
of
Taxes
and
Contributions.\"
Lond.,
1667,
p.
32.
13The
learned
Professor
Roscher,
after
first
informing
us
that
\"the
false
definitions
of
money
may
be
divided
into
two
main
groups:
those
which
make
it
more,
and
those
which
make
it
less,
than
a
commodity,\"
gives
us
a
long
and
very
mixed
catalogue
of
works
on
the
nature
of
money,
from
which
it
appears
that
he
has
not
the
remotest
idea
of
the
real
history
of
the
theory;
and
then
he
moralises
thus:
\"For
the
rest,
it
is
not
to
be
denied
that
most
of
the
later
economists
do
not
bear
sufficiently
in
mind
the
peculiarities
that
distinguish
money
from
other
commodities\"
(it
is
then,
after
all,
either
more
or
less
than
a
commodity!)...
\"So
far,
the
semi-mercantilist
reaction
of
Ganilh
is
not
altogether
without
foundation.\"(Wilhelm
Roscher:
\"Die
Grundlagen
der
Nationaloekonomie,
\"3rd
Edn.
1858,
pp.
207-210.)
More!
less!
not
sufficiently!
so
far!
not
altogether!
What
clearness
and
precision
of
ideas
and
language!
And
such
eclectic
professorial
twaddle
is
modestly
baptised
by
Mr.
Roscher,
\"the
anatomico-physiological
method\"
of
Political
Economy!
One
discovery
however,he
must
have
credit
for,
namely,
that
money
is
\"a
pleasant
commodity.\"
精選分類