- 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
Section
1:
The
Measure
of
Values
Throughout
this
work,
I
assume,
for
the
sake
of
simplicity,
gold
as
the
money-commodity.
The
first
chief
function
of
money
is
to
supply
commodities
with
the
material
for
the
expression
of
their
values,
or
to
represent
their
values
as
magnitudes
of
the
same
denomination,
qualitatively
equal,
and
quantitatively
comparable.
It
thus
serves
as
a
universal
measure
of
value.
And
only
by
virtue
of
this
function
does
gold,
the
equivalent
commodity
par
excellence,become
money.
It
is
not
money
that
renders
commodities
commensurable.Just
the
contrary.
It
is
because
all
commodities,
as
values,
are
realised
human
labour,
and
therefore
commensurable,
that
their
values
can
be
measured
by
one
and
the
same
special
commodity,
and
the
latter
be
converted
into
the
common
measure
of
their
values,i.e.,
into
money.
Money
as
a
measure
of
value,
is
the
phenomenal
form
that
must
of
necessity
be
assumed
by
that
measure
of
value
which
is
immanent
in
commodities,
labour-time.1
The
expression
of
the
value
of
a
commodity
in
gold
–
x
commodity
A
=
y
money-commodity
–
is
its
money-form
or
price.
A
single
equation,
such
as
1
ton
of
iron
=
2
ounces
of
gold,
now
suffices
to
express
the
value
of
the
iron
in
a
socially
valid
manner.
There
is
no
longer
any
need
for
this
equation
to
figure
as
a
link
in
the
chain
of
equations
that
express
the
values
of
all
other
commodities,
because
the
equivalent
commodity,
gold,
now
has
the
character
of
money.The
general
form
of
relative
value
has
resumed
its
original
shape
of
simple
or
isolated
relative
value.
On
the
other
hand,
the
expanded
expression
of
relative
value,
the
endless
series
of
equations,
has
now
become
the
form
peculiar
to
the
relative
value
of
the
money
commodity.
The
series
itself,
too,
is
now
given,and
has
social
recognition
in
the
prices
of
actual
commodities.
We
have
only
to
read
the
quotations
of
a
price-list
backwards,
to
find
the
magnitude
of
the
value
of
money
expressed
in
all
sorts
of
commodities.But
money
itself
has
no
price.
In
order
to
put
it
on
an
equal
footing
with
all
other
commodities
in
this
respect,
we
should
be
obliged
to
equate
it
to
itself
as
its
own
equivalent.
The
price
or
money-form
of
commodities
is,
like
their
form
of
value
generally,
a
form
quite
distinct
from
their
palpable
bodily
form;
it
is,
therefore,
a
purely
ideal
or
mental
form.
Although
invisible,
the
value
of
iron,
linen
and
corn
has
actual
existence
in
these
very
articles:
it
is
ideally
made
perceptible
by
their
equality
with
gold,
a
relation
that,
so
to
say,exists
only
in
their
own
heads.
Their
owner
must,therefore,
lend
them
his
tongue,
or
hang
a
ticket
on
them,
before
their
prices
can
be
communicated
to
the
outside
world.2Since
the
expression
of
the
value
of
commodities
in
gold
is
a
merely
ideal
act,
we
may
use
for
this
purpose
imaginary
or
ideal
money.
Every
trader
knows,
that
he
is
far
from
having
turned
his
goods
into
money,
when
he
has
expressed
their
value
in
a
price
or
in
imaginary
money,
and
that
it
does
not
require
the
least
bit
of
real
gold,
to
estimate
in
that
metal
millions
of
pounds'
worth
of
goods.
When,therefore,
money
serves
as
a
measure
of
value,
it
is
employed
only
as
imaginary
or
ideal
money.
This
circumstance
has
given
rise
to
the
wildest
theories.3But,
although
the
money
that
performs
the
functions
of
a
measure
of
value
is
only
ideal
money,
price
depends
entirely
upon
the
actual
substance
that
is
money.
The
value,
or
in
other
words,
the
quantity
of
human
labour
contained
in
a
ton
of
iron,
is
expressed
in
imagination
by
such
a
quantity
of
the
money
commodity
as
contains
the
same
amount
of
labour
as
the
iron.
According,
therefore,
as
the
measure
of
value
is
gold,
silver,
or
copper,
the
value
of
the
ton
of
iron
will
be
expressed
by
very
different
prices,
or
will
be
represented
by
very
different
quantities
of
those
metals
respectively.
If,
therefore,
two
different
commodities,
such
as
gold
and
silver,
are
simultaneously
measures
of
value,all
commodities
have
two
prices
–
one
a
gold-price,the
other
a
silver-price.
These
exist
quietly
side
by
side,
so
long
as
the
ratio
of
the
value
of
silver
to
that
of
gold
remains
unchanged,
say,
at
15:1.
Every
change
in
their
ratio
disturbs
the
ratio
which
exists
between
the
gold-prices
and
the
silver-prices
of
commodities,and
thus
proves,
by
facts,
that
a
double
standard
of
value
is
inconsistent
with
the
functions
of
a
standard.
4
Commodities
with
definite
prices
present
themselves
under
the
form:
a
commodity
A
=
x
gold;
b
commodity
B
=
z
gold;
c
commodity
C
=
y
gold,
&c.,
where
a,b,
c,
represent
definite
quantities
of
the
commodities
A,
B,
C
and
x,
z,
y,
definite
quantities
of
gold.
The
values
of
these
commodities
are,
therefore,
changed
in
imagination
into
so
many
different
quantities
of
gold.
Hence,
in
spite
of
the
confusing
variety
of
the
commodities
themselves,
their
values
become
magnitudes
of
the
same
denomination,
gold
magnitudes.
They
are
now
capable
of
being
compared
with
each
other
and
measured,
and
the
want
becomes
technically
felt
of
comparing
them
with
some
fixed
quantity
of
gold
as
a
unit
measure.
This
unit,
by
subsequent
division
into
aliquot
parts,
becomes
itself
the
standard
or
scale.
Before
they
become
money,gold,
silver,
and
copper
already
possess
such
standard
measures
in
their
standards
of
weight,
so
that,
for
example,
a
pound
weight,
while
serving
as
the
unit,is,
on
the
one
hand,
divisible
into
ounces,
and,
on
the
other,
may
be
combined
to
make
up
hundredweights.5It
is
owing
to
this
that,
in
all
metallic
currencies,
the
names
given
to
the
standards
of
money
or
of
price
were
originally
taken
from
the
pre-existing
names
of
the
standards
of
weight.
As
measure
of
Value,
and
as
standard
of
price,money
has
two
entirely
distinct
functions
to
perform.It
is
the
measure
of
value
inasmuch
as
it
is
the
socially
recognised
incarnation
of
human
labour;
it
is
the
standard
of
price
inasmuch
as
it
is
a
fixed
weight
of
metal.
As
the
measure
of
value
it
serves
to
convert
the
values
of
all
the
manifold
commodities
into
prices,into
imaginary
quantities
of
gold;
as
the
standard
of
price
it
measures
those
quantities
of
gold.
The
measure
of
values
measures
commodities
considered
as
values;
the
standard
of
price
measures,
on
the
contrary,
quantities
of
gold
by
a
unit
quantity
of
gold,not
the
value
of
one
quantity
of
gold
by
the
weight
of
another.
In
order
to
make
gold
a
standard
of
price,
a
certain
weight
must
be
fixed
upon
as
the
unit.
In
this
case,
as
in
all
cases
of
measuring
quantities
of
the
same
denomination,
the
establishment
of
an
unvarying
unit
of
measure
is
all-important.
Hence,
the
less
the
unit
is
subject
to
variation,
so
much
the
better
does
the
standard
of
price
fulfil
its
office.
But
only
in
so
far
as
it
is
itself
a
product
of
labour,
and,
therefore,
potentially
variable
in
value,
can
gold
serve
as
a
measure
of
value.
6
It
is,
in
the
first
place,
quite
clear
that
a
change
in
the
value
of
gold
does
not,
in
any
way,
affect
its
function
as
a
standard
of
price.
No
matter
how
this
value
varies,
the
proportions
between
the
values
of
different
quantities
of
the
metal
remain
constant.
However
great
the
fall
in
its
value,
12
ounces
of
gold
still
have
12
times
the
value
of
1
ounce;
and
in
prices,
the
only
thing
considered
is
the
relation
between
different
quantities
of
gold.
Since,
on
the
other
hand,
no
rise
or
fall
in
the
value
of
an
ounce
of
gold
can
alter
its
weight,
no
alteration
can
take
place
in
the
weight
of
its
aliquot
parts.
Thus
gold
always
renders
the
same
service
as
an
invariable
standard
of
price,
however
much
its
value
may
vary.
In
the
second
place,
a
change
in
the
value
of
gold
does
not
interfere
with
its
functions
as
a
measure
of
value.
The
change
affects
all
commodities
simultaneously,
and,
therefore,
caeteris
paribus,
leaves
their
relative
values
inter
se,
unaltered,
although
those
values
are
now
expressed
in
higher
or
lower
gold
prices.
Just
as
when
we
estimate
the
value
of
any
commodity
by
a
definite
quantity
of
the
use-value
of
some
other
commodity,
so
in
estimating
the
value
of
the
former
in
gold,
we
assume
nothing
more
than
that
the
production
of
a
given
quantity
of
gold
costs,
at
the
given
period,a
given
amount
of
labour.
As
regards
the
fluctuations
of
prices
generally,
they
are
subject
to
the
laws
of
elementary
relative
value
investigated
in
a
former
chapter.
A
general
rise
in
the
prices
of
commodities
can
result
only,
either
from
a
rise
in
their
values
–
the
value
of
money
remaining
constant
–
or
from
a
fall
in
the
value
of
money,
the
values
of
commodities
remaining
constant.
On
the
other
hand,
a
general
fall
in
prices
can
result
only,
either
from
a
fall
in
the
values
of
commodities
–
the
value
of
money
remaining
constant
–
or
from
a
rise
in
the
value
of
money,
the
values
of
commodities
remaining
constant.
It
therefore
by
no
means
follows,
that
a
rise
in
the
value
of
money
necessarily
implies
a
proportional
fall
in
the
prices
of
commodities;
or
that
a
fall
in
the
value
of
money
implies
a
proportional
rise
in
prices.
Such
change
of
price
holds
good
only
in
the
case
of
commodities
whose
value
remains
constant.
With
those,
for
example,
whose
value
rises,
simultaneously
with,
and
proportionally
to,
that
of
money,
there
is
no
alteration
in
price.
And
if
their
value
rise
either
slower
or
faster
than
that
of
money,
the
fall
or
rise
in
their
prices
will
be
determined
by
the
difference
between
the
change
in
their
value
and
that
of
money;
and
so
on.
Let
us
now
go
back
to
the
consideration
of
the
price
form.
By
degrees
there
arises
a
discrepancy
between
the
current
money-names
of
the
various
weights
of
the
precious
metal
figuring
as
money,
and
the
actual
weights
which
those
names
originally
represented.This
discrepancy
is
the
result
of
historical
causes,among
which
the
chief
are:
–
(1)
The
importation
of
foreign
money
into
an
imperfectly
developed
community.
This
happened
in
Rome
in
its
early
days,
where
gold
and
silver
coins
circulated
at
first
as
foreign
commodities.
The
names
of
these
foreign
coins
never
coincide
with
those
of
the
indigenous
weights.
(2)
As
wealth
increases,
the
less
precious
metal
is
thrust
out
by
the
more
precious
from
its
place
as
a
measure
of
value,
copper
by
silver,
silver
by
gold,
however
much
this
order
of
sequence
may
be
in
contradiction
with
poetical
chronology.
7The
word
pound,
for
instance,
was
the
money-name
given
to
an
actual
pound
weight
of
silver.
When
gold
replaced
silver
as
a
measure
of
value,
the
same
name
was
applied
according
to
the
ratio
between
the
values
of
silver
and
gold,
to
perhaps
1-15th
of
a
pound
of
gold.The
word
pound,
as
a
money-name,
thus
becomes
differentiated
from
the
same
word
as
a
weight-name.8(3)
The
debasing
of
money
carried
on
for
centuries
by
kings
and
princes
to
such
an
extent
that,
of
the
original
weights
of
the
coins,
nothing
in
fact
remained
but
the
names.
9
These
historical
causes
convert
the
separation
of
the
money-name
from
the
weight-name
into
an
established
habit
with
the
community.
Since
the
standard
of
money
is
on
the
one
hand
purely
conventional,
and
must
on
the
other
hand
find
general
acceptance,
it
is
in
the
end
regulated
by
law.
A
given
weight
of
one
of
the
precious
metals,
an
ounce
of
gold,
for
instance,becomes
officially
divided
into
aliquot
parts,
with
legally
bestowed
names,
such
as
pound,
dollar,
&c.These
aliquot
parts,
which
thenceforth
serve
as
units
of
money,
are
then
subdivided
into
other
aliquot
parts
with
legal
names,
such
as
shilling,
penny,
&c.10But,
both
before
and
after
these
divisions
are
made,a
definite
weight
of
metal
is
the
standard
of
metallic
money.
The
sole
alteration
consists
in
the
subdivision
and
denomination.
The
prices,
or
quantities
of
gold,
into
which
the
values
of
commodities
are
ideally
changed,
are
therefore
now
expressed
in
the
names
of
coins,
or
in
the
legally
valid
names
of
the
subdivisions
of
the
gold
standard.
Hence,
instead
of
saying:
A
quarter
of
wheat
is
worth
an
ounce
of
gold;
we
say,
it
is
worth
￡3
17s.10
1\/2d.
In
this
way
commodities
express
by
their
prices
how
much
they
are
worth,
and
money
serves
as
money
of
account
whenever
it
is
a
question
of
fixing
the
value
of
an
article
in
its
money-form.
11
The
name
of
a
thing
is
something
distinct
from
the
qualities
of
that
thing.
I
know
nothing
of
a
man,by
knowing
that
his
name
is
Jacob.
In
the
same
way
with
regard
to
money,
every
trace
of
a
value-relation
disappears
in
the
names
pound,
dollar,
franc,
ducat,&c.
The
confusion
caused
by
attributing
a
hidden
meaning
to
these
cabalistic
signs
is
all
the
greater,because
these
money-names
express
both
the
values
of
commodities,
and,
at
the
same
time,
aliquot
parts
of
the
weight
of
the
metal
that
is
the
standard
of
money.12On
the
other
hand,
it
is
absolutely
necessary
that
value,
in
order
that
it
may
be
distinguished
from
the
varied
bodily
forms
of
commodities,
should
assume
this
material
and
unmeaning,
but,
at
the
same
time,purely
social
form.
13
Price
is
the
money-name
of
the
labour
realised
in
a
commodity.
Hence
the
expression
of
the
equivalence
of
a
commodity
with
the
sum
of
money
constituting
its
price,
is
a
tautology14,
just
as
in
general
the
expression
of
the
relative
value
of
a
commodity
is
a
statement
of
the
equivalence
of
two
commodities.
But
although
price,
being
the
exponent
of
the
magnitude
of
a
commodity's
value,
is
the
exponent
of
its
exchange
ratio
with
money,
it
does
not
follow
that
the
exponent
of
this
exchange-ratio
is
necessarily
the
exponent
of
the
magnitude
of
the
commodity's
value.
Suppose
two
equal
quantities
of
socially
necessary
labour
to
be
respectively
represented
by
1
quarter
of
wheat
and
￡2(nearly
1\/2
oz.
of
gold),
￡2
is
the
expression
in
money
of
the
magnitude
of
the
value
of
the
quarter
of
wheat,or
is
its
price.
If
now
circumstances
allow
of
this
price
being
raised
to
￡3,
or
compel
it
to
be
reduced
to￡1,
then
although
￡1
and
￡3
may
be
too
small
or
too
great
properly
to
express
the
magnitude
of
the
wheat's
value;
nevertheless
they
are
its
prices,
for
they
are,
in
the
first
place,
the
form
under
which
its
value
appears,i.e.,
money;
and
in
the
second
place,
the
exponents
of
its
exchange-ratio
with
money.
If
the
conditions
of
production,
in
other
words,
if
the
productive
power
of
labour
remain
constant,
the
same
amount
of
social
labour-time
must,
both
before
and
after
the
change
in
price,
be
expended
in
the
reproduction
of
a
quarter
of
wheat.
This
circumstance
depends,
neither
on
the
will
of
the
wheat
producer,
nor
on
that
of
the
owners
of
other
commodities.
Magnitude
of
value
expresses
a
relation
of
social
production,
it
expresses
the
connexion
that
necessarily
exists
between
a
certain
article
and
the
portion
of
the
total
labour-time
of
society
required
to
produce
it.
As
soon
as
magnitude
of
value
is
converted
into
price,
the
above
necessary
relation
takes
the
shape
of
a
more
or
less
accidental
exchange-ratio
between
a
single
commodity
and
another,
the
money
commodity.
But
this
exchange-ratio
may
express
either
the
real
magnitude
of
that
commodity's
value,or
the
quantity
of
gold
deviating
from
that
value,for
which,
according
to
circumstances,
it
may
be
parted
with.
The
possibility,
therefore,
of
quantitative
incongruity
between
price
and
magnitude
of
value,
or
the
deviation
of
the
former
from
the
latter,
is
inherent
in
the
price-form
itself.
This
is
no
defect,
but,
on
the
contrary,
admirably
adapts
the
price-form
to
a
mode
of
production
whose
inherent
laws
impose
themselves
only
as
the
mean
of
apparently
lawless
irregularities
that
compensate
one
another.
The
price-form,
however,
is
not
only
compatible
with
the
possibility
of
a
quantitative
incongruity
between
magnitude
of
value
and
price,
i.e.,
between
the
former
and
its
expression
in
money,
but
it
may
also
conceal
a
qualitative
inconsistency,
so
much
so,that,
although
money
is
nothing
but
the
value-form
of
commodities,
price
ceases
altogether
to
express
value.
Objects
that
in
themselves
are
no
commodities,such
as
conscience,
honour,
&c.,
are
capable
of
being
offered
for
sale
by
their
holders,
and
of
thus
acquiring,through
their
price,
the
form
of
commodities.
Hence
an
object
may
have
a
price
without
having
value.
The
price
in
that
case
is
imaginary,
like
certain
quantities
in
mathematics.
On
the
other
hand,
the
imaginary
price-form
may
sometimes
conceal
either
a
direct
or
indirect
real
value-relation;
for
instance,
the
price
of
uncultivated
land,
which
is
without
value,
because
no
human
labour
has
been
incorporated
in
it.
Price,
like
relative
value
in
general,
expresses
the
value
of
a
commodity
(e.g.,
a
ton
of
iron),
by
stating
that
a
given
quantity
of
the
equivalent
(e.g.,an
ounce
of
gold),
is
directly
exchangeable
for
iron.But
it
by
no
means
states
the
converse,
that
iron
is
directly
exchangeable
for
gold.
In
order,
therefore,
that
a
commodity
may
in
practice
act
effectively
as
exchange-value,
it
must
quit
its
bodily
shape,
must
transform
itself
from
mere
imaginary
into
real
gold,although
to
the
commodity
such
transubstantiation
may
be
more
difficult
than
to
the
Hegelian
\"concept,\"the
transition
from
\"necessity\"
to
\"freedom,\"
or
to
a
lobster
the
casting
of
his
shell,
or
to
Saint
Jerome
the
putting
off
of
the
old
Adam.15Though
a
commodity
may,
side
by
side
with
its
actual
form
(iron,
for
instance),
take
in
our
imagination
the
form
of
gold,yet
it
cannot
at
one
and
the
same
time
actually
be
both
iron
and
gold.
To
fix
its
price,
it
suffices
to
equate
it
to
gold
in
imagination.
But
to
enable
it
to
render
to
its
owner
the
service
of
a
universal
equivalent,
it
must
be
actually
replaced
by
gold.
If
the
owner
of
the
iron
were
to
go
to
the
owner
of
some
other
commodity
offered
for
exchange,
and
were
to
refer
him
to
the
price
of
the
iron
as
proof
that
it
was
already
money,
he
would
get
the
same
answer
as
St.
Peter
gave
in
heaven
to
Dante,
when
the
latter
recited
the
creed
–
\"Assad
bene
e
trascorsa
D'esta
moneta
gia
la
lega
e'l
peso,
Ma
dimmi
se
tu
l'hai
nella
tua
borsa.\"
A
price
therefore
implies
both
that
a
commodity
is
exchangeable
for
money,
and
also
that
it
must
be
so
exchanged.
On
the
other
hand,
gold
serves
as
an
ideal
measure
of
value,
only
because
it
has
already,
in
the
process
of
exchange,
established
itself
as
the
money
commodity.
Under
the
ideal
measure
of
values
there
lurks
the
hard
cash.
Section
2:
The
Medium
of
Circulation
A.
The
Metamorphosis
of
Commodities
We
saw
in
a
former
chapter
that
the
exchange
of
commodities
implies
contradictory
and
mutually
exclusive
conditions.
The
differentiation
of
commodities
into
commodities
and
money
does
not
sweep
away
these
inconsistencies,
but
develops
a
modus
vivendi,
a
form
in
which
they
can
exist
side
by
side.
This
is
generally
the
way
in
which
real
contradictions
are
reconciled.
For
instance,
it
is
a
contradiction
to
depict
one
body
as
constantly
falling
towards
another,
and
as,
at
the
same
time,
constantly
flying
away
from
it.
The
ellipse
is
a
form
of
motion
which,
while
allowing
this
contradiction
to
go
on,
at
the
same
time
reconciles
it.
In
so
far
as
exchange
is
a
process,
by
which
commodities
are
transferred
from
hands
in
which
they
are
non-use-values,
to
hands
in
which
they
become
use-values,
it
is
a
social
circulation
of
matter.
The
product
of
one
form
of
useful
labour
replaces
that
of
another.
When
once
a
commodity
has
found
a
resting
place,
where
it
can
serve
as
a
use-value,
it
falls
out
of
the
sphere
of
exchange
into
that
of
consumption.But
the
former
sphere
alone
interests
us
at
present.We
have,
therefore,
now
to
consider
exchange
from
a
formal
point
of
view;
to
investigate
the
change
of
form
or
metamorphosis
of
commodities
which
effectuates
the
social
circulation
of
matter.
The
comprehension
of
this
change
of
form
is,
as
a
rule,
very
imperfect.
The
cause
of
this
imperfection
is,
apart
from
indistinct
notions
of
value
itself,
that
every
change
of
form
in
a
commodity
results
from
the
exchange
of
two
commodities,
an
ordinary
one
and
the
money-commodity.
If
we
keep
in
view
the
material
fact
alone
that
a
commodity
has
been
exchanged
for
gold,
we
overlook
the
very
thing
that
we
ought
to
observe
–
namely,
what
has
happened
to
the
form
of
the
commodity.
We
overlook
the
facts
that
gold,
when
a
mere
commodity,
is
not
money,
and
that
when
other
commodities
express
their
prices
in
gold,
this
gold
is
but
the
money-form
of
those
commodities
themselves.
Commodities,
first
of
all,
enter
into
the
process
of
exchange
just
as
they
are.
The
process
then
differentiates
them
into
commodities
and
money,
and
thus
produces
an
external
opposition
corresponding
to
the
internal
opposition
inherent
in
them,
as
being
at
once
use-values
and
values.
Commodities
as
use
values
now
stand
opposed
to
money
as
exchange
value.
On
the
other
hand,
both
opposing
sides
are
commodities,
unities
of
use-value
and
value.
But
this
unity
of
differences
manifests
itself
at
two
opposite
poles,
and
at
each
pole
in
an
opposite
way.
Being
poles
they
are
as
necessarily
opposite
as
they
are
connected.
On
the
one
side
of
the
equation
we
have
an
ordinary
commodity,
which
is
in
reality
a
use-value.Its
value
is
expressed
only
ideally
in
its
price,
by
which
it
is
equated
to
its
opponent,
the
gold,
as
to
the
real
embodiment
of
its
value.
On
the
other
hand,
the
gold,
in
its
metallic
reality,
ranks
as
the
embodiment
of
value,
as
money.
Gold,
as
gold,
is
exchange
value
itself.
As
to
its
use-value,
that
has
only
an
ideal
existence,
represented
by
the
series
of
expressions
of
relative
value
in
which
it
stands
face
to
face
with
all
other
commodities,
the
sum
of
whose
uses
makes
up
the
sum
of
the
various
uses
of
gold.
These
antagonistic
forms
of
commodities
are
the
real
forms
in
which
the
process
of
their
exchange
moves
and
takes
place.
Let
us
now
accompany
the
owner
of
some
commodity
–
say,
our
old
friend
the
weaver
of
linen
–to
the
scene
of
action,
the
market.
His
20
yards
of
linen
has
a
definite
price,
￡2.
He
exchanges
it
for
the
￡2,
and
then,
like
a
man
of
the
good
old
stamp
that
he
is,
he
parts
with
the
￡2
for
a
family
Bible
of
the
same
price.The
linen,
which
in
his
eyes
is
a
mere
commodity,
a
depository
of
value,
he
alienates
in
exchange
for
gold,which
is
the
linen's
value-form,
and
this
form
he
again
parts
with
for
another
commodity,
the
Bible,
which
is
destined
to
enter
his
house
as
an
object
of
utility
and
of
edification
to
its
inmates.
The
exchange
becomes
an
accomplished
fact
by
two
metamorphoses
of
opposite
yet
supplementary
character
–
the
conversion
of
the
commodity
into
money,
and
the
re-conversion
of
the
money
into
a
commodity.16The
two
phases
of
this
metamorphosis
are
both
of
them
distinct
transactions
of
the
weaver
–
selling,
or
the
exchange
of
the
commodity
for
money;
buying,
or
the
exchange
of
the
money
for
a
commodity;
and,
the
unity
of
the
two
acts,
selling
in
order
to
buy.
The
result
of
the
whole
transaction,
as
regards
the
weaver,
is
this,
that
instead
of
being
in
possession
of
the
linen,
he
now
has
the
Bible;
instead
of
his
original
commodity,
he
now
possesses
another
of
the
same
value
but
of
different
utility.
In
like
manner
he
procures
his
other
means
of
subsistence
and
means
of
production.
From
his
point
of
view,
the
whole
process
effectuates
nothing
more
than
the
exchange
of
the
product
of
his
labour
for
the
product
of
some
one
else's,
nothing
more
than
an
exchange
of
products.
The
exchange
of
commodities
is
therefore
accompanied
by
the
following
changes
in
their
form.
Commodity
–
Money
–
Commodity.
C––––––
M
––––––C.
The
result
of
the
whole
process
is,
so
far
as
concerns
the
objects
themselves,
C
–
C,
the
exchange
of
one
commodity
for
another,
the
circulation
of
materialised
social
labour.
When
this
result
is
attained,
the
process
is
at
an
end.
C
–
M.
First
metamorphosis,
or
sale
The
leap
taken
by
value
from
the
body
of
the
commodity,
into
the
body
of
the
gold,
is,
as
I
have
elsewhere
called
it,
the
salto
mortale
of
the
commodity.If
it
falls
short,
then,
although
the
commodity
itself
is
not
harmed,
its
owner
decidedly
is.
The
social
division
of
labour
causes
his
labour
to
be
as
one-sided
as
his
wants
are
many-sided.
This
is
precisely
the
reason
why
the
product
of
his
labour
serves
him
solely
as
exchange-value.
But
it
cannot
acquire
the
properties
of
a
socially
recognised
universal
equivalent,
except
by
being
converted
into
money.
That
money,
however,is
in
some
one
else's
pocket.
In
order
to
entice
the
money
out
of
that
pocket,
our
friend's
commodity
must,
above
all
things,
be
a
use-value
to
the
owner
of
the
money.
For
this,
it
is
necessary
that
the
labour
expended
upon
it,
be
of
a
kind
that
is
socially
useful,of
a
kind
that
constitutes
a
branch
of
the
social
division
of
labour.
But
division
of
labour
is
a
system
of
production
which
has
grown
up
spontaneously
and
continues
to
grow
behind
the
backs
of
the
producers.The
commodity
to
be
exchanged
may
possibly
be
the
product
of
some
new
kind
of
labour,
that
pretends
to
satisfy
newly
arisen
requirements,
or
even
to
give
rise
itself
to
new
requirements.
A
particular
operation,
though
yesterday,
perhaps,
forming
one
out
of
the
many
operations
conducted
by
one
producer
in
creating
a
given
commodity,
may
to-day
separate
itself
from
this
connexion,
may
establish
itself
as
an
independent
branch
of
labour
and
send
its
incomplete
product
to
market
as
an
independent
commodity.The
circumstances
may
or
may
not
be
ripe
for
such
a
separation.
To-day
the
product
satisfies
a
social
want.
Tomorrow
the
article
may,
either
altogether
or
partially,
be
superseded
by
some
other
appropriate
product.
Moreover,
although
our
weaver's
labour
may
be
a
recognised
branch
of
the
social
division
of
labour,
yet
that
fact
is
by
no
means
sufficient
to
guarantee
the
utility
of
his
20
yards
of
linen.
If
the
community's
want
of
linen,
and
such
a
want
has
a
limit
like
every
other
want,
should
already
be
saturated
by
the
products
of
rival
weavers,
our
friend's
product
is
superfluous,
redundant,
and
consequently
useless.Although
people
do
not
look
a
gift-horse
in
the
mouth,our
friend
does
not
frequent
the
market
for
the
purpose
of
making
presents.
But
suppose
his
product
turn
out
a
real
use-value,
and
thereby
attracts
money
The
question
arises,
how
much
will
it
attract
No
doubt
the
answer
is
already
anticipated
in
the
price
of
the
article,
in
the
exponent
of
the
magnitude
of
its
value.We
leave
out
of
consideration
here
any
accidental
miscalculation
of
value
by
our
friend,
a
mistake
that
is
soon
rectified
in
the
market.
We
suppose
him
to
have
spent
on
his
product
only
that
amount
of
labour-time
that
is
on
an
average
socially
necessary.
The
price
then,
is
merely
the
money-name
of
the
quantity
of
social
labour
realised
in
his
commodity.
But
without
the
leave,
and
behind
the
back,
of
our
weaver,
the
old-fashioned
mode
of
weaving
undergoes
a
change.The
labour-time
that
yesterday
was
without
doubt
socially
necessary
to
the
production
of
a
yard
of
linen,ceases
to
be
so
to-day,
a
fact
which
the
owner
of
the
money
is
only
too
eager
to
prove
from
the
prices
quoted
by
our
friend's
competitors.
Unluckily
for
him,weavers
are
not
few
and
far
between.
Lastly,
suppose
that
every
piece
of
linen
in
the
market
contains
no
more
labour-time
than
is
socially
necessary.
In
spite
of
this,
all
these
pieces
taken
as
a
whole,
may
have
had
superfluous
labour-time
spent
upon
them.
If
the
market
cannot
stomach
the
whole
quantity
at
the
normal
price
of
2
shillings
a
yard,
this
proves
that
too
great
a
portion
of
the
total
labour
of
the
community
has
been
expended
in
the
form
of
weaving.
The
effect
is
the
same
as
if
each
individual
weaver
had
expended
more
labour-time
upon
his
particular
product
than
is
socially
necessary.
Here
we
may
say,
with
the
German
proverb:
caught
together,
hung
together.
All
the
linen
in
the
market
counts
but
as
one
article
of
commerce,of
which
each
piece
is
only
an
aliquot
part.
And
as
a
matter
of
fact,
the
value
also
of
each
single
yard
is
but
the
materialised
form
of
the
same
definite
and
socially
fixed
quantity
of
homogeneous
human
labour.
17
We
see
then,
commodities
are
in
love
with
money,but
\"the
course
of
true
love
never
did
run
smooth.\"The
quantitative
division
of
labour
is
brought
about
in
exactly
the
same
spontaneous
and
accidental
manner
as
its
qualitative
division.
The
owners
of
commodities
therefore
find
out,
that
the
same
division
of
labour
that
turns
them
into
independent
private
producers,
also
frees
the
social
process
of
production
and
the
relations
of
the
individual
producers
to
each
other
within
that
process,
from
all
dependence
on
the
will
of
those
producers,
and
that
the
seeming
mutual
independence
of
the
individuals
is
supplemented
by
a
system
of
general
and
mutual
dependence
through
or
by
means
of
the
products.
The
division
of
labour
converts
the
product
of
labour
into
a
commodity,
and
thereby
makes
necessary
its
further
conversion
into
money.
At
the
same
time
it
also
makes
the
accomplishment
of
this
transubstantiation
quite
accidental.
Here,
however,we
are
only
concerned
with
the
phenomenon
in
its
integrity,
and
we
therefore
assume
its
progress
to
be
normal.
Moreover,
if
the
conversion
take
place
at
all,that
is,
if
the
commodity
be
not
absolutely
unsaleable,its
metamorphosis
does
take
place
although
the
price
realised
may
be
abnormally
above
or
below
the
value.
The
seller
has
his
commodity
replaced
by
gold,the
buyer
has
his
gold
replaced
by
a
commodity.The
fact
which
here
stares
us
in
the
face
is,
that
a
commodity
and
gold,
20
yards
of
linen
and
￡2,
have
changed
hands
and
places,
in
other
words,
that
they
have
been
exchanged.
But
for
what
is
the
commodity
exchanged
For
the
shape
assumed
by
its
own
value,for
the
universal
equivalent.
And
for
what
is
the
gold
exchanged
For
a
particular
form
of
its
own
use
value.
Why
does
gold
take
the
form
of
money
face
to
face
with
the
linen
Because
the
linen's
price
of
￡2,its
denomination
in
money,
has
already
equated
the
linen
to
gold
in
its
character
of
money.
A
commodity
strips
off
its
original
commodity-form
on
being
alienated,
i.e.,
on
the
instant
its
use-value
actually
attracts
the
gold,
that
before
existed
only
ideally
in
its
price.
The
realisation
of
a
commodity's
price,or
of
its
ideal
value-form,
is
therefore
at
the
same
time
the
realisation
of
the
ideal
use-value
of
money;the
conversion
of
a
commodity
into
money,
is
the
simultaneous
conversion
of
money
into
a
commodity.The
apparently
single
process
is
in
reality
a
double
one.
From
the
pole
of
the
commodity-owner
it
is
a
sale,
from
the
opposite
pole
of
the
money-owner,
it
is
a
purchase.
In
other
words,
a
sale
is
a
purchase,
C–M
is
also
M–C.18
Up
to
this
point
we
have
considered
men
in
only
one
economic
capacity,
that
of
owners
of
commodities,a
capacity
in
which
they
appropriate
the
produce
of
the
labour
of
others,
by
alienating
that
of
their
own
labour.
Hence,
for
one
commodity-owner
to
meet
with
another
who
has
money,
it
is
necessary,
either,
that
the
product
of
the
labour
of
the
latter
person,
the
buyer,should
be
in
itself
money,
should
be
gold,
the
material
of
which
money
consists,
or
that
his
product
should
already
have
changed
its
skin
and
have
stripped
off
its
original
form
of
a
useful
object.
In
order
that
it
may
play
the
part
of
money,
gold
must
of
course
enter
the
market
at
some
point
or
other.
This
point
is
to
be
found
at
the
source
of
production
of
the
metal,
at
which
place
gold
is
bartered,
as
the
immediate
product
of
labour,
for
some
other
product
of
equal
value.
From
that
moment
it
always
represents
the
realised
price
of
some
commodity.19Apart
from
its
exchange
for
other
commodities
at
the
source
of
its
production,
gold,
in
whose-so-ever
hands
it
may
be,
is
the
transformed
shape
of
some
commodity
alienated
by
its
owner;
it
is
the
product
of
a
sale
or
of
the
first
metamorphosis
C–M.20Gold,
as
we
saw,
became
ideal
money,
or
a
measure
of
values,
in
consequence
of
all
commodities
measuring
their
values
by
it,
and
thus
contrasting
it
ideally
with
their
natural
shape
as
useful
objects,and
making
it
the
shape
of
their
value.
It
became
real
money,
by
the
general
alienation
of
commodities,by
actually
changing
places
with
their
natural
forms
as
useful
objects,
and
thus
becoming
in
reality
the
embodiment
of
their
values.
When
they
assume
this
money-shape,
commodities
strip
off
every
trace
of
their
natural
use-value,
and
of
the
particular
kind
of
labour
to
which
they
owe
their
creation,
in
order
to
transform
themselves
into
the
uniform,
socially
recognised
incarnation
of
homogeneous
human
labour.
We
cannot
tell
from
the
mere
look
of
a
piece
of
money,
for
what
particular
commodity
it
has
been
exchanged.
Under
their
money-form
all
commodities
look
alike.
Hence,
money
may
be
dirt,
although
dirt
is
not
money.
We
will
assume
that
the
two
gold
pieces,in
consideration
of
which
our
weaver
has
parted
with
his
linen,
are
the
metamorphosed
shape
of
a
quarter
of
wheat.
The
sale
of
the
linen,
C–M,
is
at
the
same
time
its
purchase,
M–C.
But
the
sale
is
the
first
act
of
a
process
that
ends
with
a
transaction
of
an
opposite
nature,
namely,
the
purchase
of
a
Bible;
the
purchase
of
the
linen,
on
the
other
hand,
ends
a
movement
that
began
with
a
transaction
of
an
opposite
nature,namely,
with
the
sale
of
the
wheat.
C–M
(linen–money),
which
is
the
first
phase
of
C–M–C
(linen–money–Bible),
is
also
M–C
(money–linen),
the
last
phase
of
another
movement
C–M–C
(wheat–money–linen).
The
first
metamorphosis
of
one
commodity,its
transformation
from
a
commodity
into
money,
is
therefore
also
invariably
the
second
metamorphosis
of
some
other
commodity,
the
retransformation
of
the
latter
from
money
into
a
commodity.21
M–C,
or
purchase.
The
second
and
concluding
metamorphosis
of
a
commodity
Because
money
is
the
metamorphosed
shape
of
all
other
commodities,
the
result
of
their
general
alienation,
for
this
reason
it
is
alienable
itself
without
restriction
or
condition.
It
reads
all
prices
backwards,and
thus,
so
to
say,
depicts
itself
in
the
bodies
of
all
other
commodities,
which
offer
to
it
the
material
for
the
realisation
of
its
own
use-value.
At
the
same
time
the
prices,
wooing
glances
cast
at
money
by
commodities,
define
the
limits
of
its
convertibility,by
pointing
to
its
quantity.
Since
every
commodity,on
becoming
money,
disappears
as
a
commodity,
it
is
impossible
to
tell
from
the
money
itself,
how
it
got
into
the
hands
of
its
possessor,
or
what
article
has
been
changed
into
it.
Non
olet,
from
whatever
source
it
may
come.
Representing
on
the
one
hand
a
sold
commodity,
it
represents
on
the
other
a
commodity
to
be
bought.22
M–C,
a
purchase,
is,
at
the
same
time,
C–M,
a
sale;the
concluding
metamorphosis
of
one
commodity
is
the
first
metamorphosis
of
another.
With
regard
to
our
weaver,
the
life
of
his
commodity
ends
with
the
Bible,
into
which
he
has
reconverted
his
￡2.
But
suppose
the
seller
of
the
Bible
turns
the
￡2
set
free
by
the
weaver
into
brandy
M–C,
the
concluding
phase
of
C–M–C
(linen–money–Bible),
is
also
C–M,
the
first
phase
of
C–M–C
(Bible–money–brandy).The
producer
of
a
particular
commodity
has
that
one
article
alone
to
offer;
this
he
sells
very
often
in
large
quantities,
but
his
many
and
various
wants
compel
him
to
split
up
the
price
realised,
the
sum
of
money
set
free,
into
numerous
purchases.
Hence
a
sale
leads
to
many
purchases
of
various
articles.
The
concluding
metamorphosis
of
a
commodity
thus
constitutes
an
aggregation
of
first
metamorphoses
of
various
other
commodities.
精選分類
