- 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
CHAPTER
4:
THE
GENERAL
FORMULA
FOR
CAPITAL
The
circulation
of
commodities
is
the
starting-point
of
capital.
The
production
of
commodities,
their
circulation,
and
that
more
developed
form
of
their
circulation
called
commerce,these
form
the
historical
ground-work
from
which
it
rises.
The
modern
history
of
capital
dates
from
the
creation
in
the
16th
century
of
a
world-embracing
commerce
and
a
world-embracing
market.
If
we
abstract
from
the
material
substance
of
the
circulation
of
commodities,
that
is,
from
the
exchange
of
the
various
use-values,
and
consider
only
the
economic
forms
produced
by
this
process
of
circulation,
we
find
its
final
result
to
be
money:
this
final
product
of
the
circulation
of
commodities
is
the
first
form
in
which
capital
appears.
As
a
matter
of
history,
capital,
as
opposed
to
landed
property,
invariably
takes
the
form
at
first
of
money;it
appears
as
moneyed
wealth,
as
the
capital
of
the
merchant
and
of
the
usurer.1But
we
have
no
need
to
refer
to
the
origin
of
capital
in
order
to
discover
that
the
first
form
of
appearance
of
capital
is
money.
We
can
see
it
daily
under
our
very
eyes.
All
new
capital,to
commence
with,
comes
on
the
stage,
that
is,
on
the
market,
whether
of
commodities,
labour,
or
money,even
in
our
days,
in
the
shape
of
money
that
by
a
definite
process
has
to
be
transformed
into
capital.
The
first
distinction
we
notice
between
money
that
is
money
only,
and
money
that
is
capital,
is
nothing
more
than
a
difference
in
their
form
of
circulation.
The
simplest
form
of
the
circulation
of
commodities
is
C-M-C,
the
transformation
of
commodities
into
money,
and
the
change
of
the
money
back
again
into
commodities;
or
selling
in
order
to
buy.
But
alongside
of
this
form
we
find
another
specifically
different
form:
M-C-M,
the
transformation
of
money
into
commodities,
and
the
change
of
commodities
back
again
into
money;
or
buying
in
order
to
sell.Money
that
circulates
in
the
latter
manner
is
thereby
transformed
into,
becomes
capital,
and
is
already
potentially
capital.
Now
let
us
examine
the
circuit
M-C-M
a
little
closer.
It
consists,
like
the
other,
of
two
antithetical
phases.
In
the
first
phase,
M-C,
or
the
purchase,
the
money
is
changed
into
a
commodity.
In
the
second
phase,
C-M,
or
the
sale,
the
commodity
is
changed
back
again
into
money.
The
combination
of
these
two
phases
constitutes
the
single
movement
whereby
money
is
exchanged
for
a
commodity,
and
the
same
commodity
is
again
exchanged
for
money;
whereby
a
commodity
is
bought
in
order
to
be
sold,
or,neglecting
the
distinction
in
form
between
buying
and
selling,
whereby
a
commodity
is
bought
with
money,and
then
money
is
bought
with
a
commodity.
2Theresult,
in
which
the
phases
of
the
process
vanish,
is
the
exchange
of
money
for
money,
M-M.
If
I
purchase
2,000
lbs.
of
cotton
for
￡100,
and
resell
the
2,000
lbs.of
cotton
for
￡110,
I
have,
in
fact,
exchanged
￡100
for￡110,
money
for
money.
Now
it
is
evident
that
the
circuit
M-C-M
would
be
absurd
and
without
meaning
if
the
intention
were
to
exchange
by
this
means
two
equal
sums
of
money,￡100
for
￡100.
The
miser's
plan
would
be
far
simpler
and
surer;
he
sticks
to
his
￡100
instead
of
exposing
it
to
the
dangers
of
circulation.
And
yet,
whether
the
merchant
who
has
paid
￡100
for
his
cotton
sells
it
for
￡110,
or
lets
it
go
for
￡100,
or
even
￡50,
his
money
has,
at
all
events,
gone
through
a
characteristic
and
original
movement,
quite
different
in
kind
from
that
which
it
goes
through
in
the
hands
of
the
peasant
who
sells
corn,
and
with
the
money
thus
set
free
buys
clothes.
We
have
therefore
to
examine
first
the
distinguishing
characteristics
of
the
forms
of
the
circuits
M-C-M
and
C-M-C,
and
in
doing
this
the
real
difference
that
underlies
the
mere
difference
of
form
will
reveal
itself.
Let
us
see,
in
the
first
place,
what
the
two
forms
have
in
common.
Both
circuits
are
resolvable
into
the
same
two
antithetical
phases,
C-M,
a
sale,
and
M-C,
a
purchase.In
each
of
these
phases
the
same
material
elements-
a
commodity,
and
money,
and
the
same
economic
dramatis
personae,
a
buyer
and
a
seller
-
confront
one
another.
Each
circuit
is
the
unity
of
the
same
two
antithetical
phases,
and
in
each
case
this
unity
is
brought
about
by
the
intervention
of
three
contracting
parties,
of
whom
one
only
sells,
another
only
buys,while
the
third
both
buys
and
sells.
What,
however,
first
and
foremost
distinguishes
the
circuit
C-M-C
from
the
circuit
M-C-M,
is
the
inverted
order
of
succession
of
the
two
phases.
The
simple
circulation
of
commodities
begins
with
a
sale
and
ends
with
a
purchase,
while
the
circulation
of
money
as
capital
begins
with
a
purchase
and
ends
with
a
sale.
In
the
one
case
both
the
starting-point
and
the
goal
are
commodities,
in
the
other
they
are
money.In
the
first
form
the
movement
is
brought
about
by
the
intervention
of
money,
in
the
second
by
that
of
a
commodity.
In
the
circulation
C-M-C,
the
money
is
in
the
end
converted
into
a
commodity,
that
serves
as
a
use
value;
it
is
spent
once
for
all.
In
the
inverted
form,M-C-M,
on
the
contrary,
the
buyer
lays
out
money
in
order
that,
as
a
seller,
he
may
recover
money.
By
the
purchase
of
his
commodity
he
throws
money
into
circulation,
in
order
to
withdraw
it
again
by
the
sale
of
the
same
commodity.
He
lets
the
money
go,
but
only
with
the
sly
intention
of
getting
it
back
again.
The
money,
therefore,
is
not
spent,
it
is
merely
advanced.
3
In
the
circuit
C-M-C,
the
same
piece
of
money
changes
its
place
twice.
The
seller
gets
it
from
the
buyer
and
pays
it
away
to
another
seller.
The
complete
circulation,
which
begins
with
the
receipt,
concludes
with
the
payment,
of
money
for
commodities.
It
is
the
very
contrary
in
the
circuit
M-C-M.
Here
it
is
not
the
piece
of
money
that
changes
its
place
twice,
but
the
commodity.
The
buyer
takes
it
from
the
hands
of
the
seller
and
passes
it
into
the
hands
of
another
buyer.Just
as
in
the
simple
circulation
of
commodities
the
double
change
of
place
of
the
same
piece
of
money
effects
its
passage
from
one
hand
into
another,
so
here
the
double
change
of
place
of
the
same
commodity
brings
about
the
reflux
of
the
money
to
its
point
of
departure.
Such
reflux
is
not
dependent
on
the
commodity
being
sold
for
more
than
was
paid
for
it.
This
circumstance
influences
only
the
amount
of
the
money
that
comes
back.
The
reflux
itself
takes
place,
so
soon
as
the
purchased
commodity
is
resold,
in
other
words,so
soon
as
the
circuit
M-C-M
is
completed.
We
have
here,
therefore,
a
palpable
difference
between
the
circulation
of
money
as
capital,
and
its
circulation
as
mere
money.
The
circuit
C-M-C
comes
completely
to
an
end,so
soon
as
the
money
brought
in
by
the
sale
of
one
commodity
is
abstracted
again
by
the
purchase
of
another.
If,
nevertheless,
there
follows
a
reflux
of
money
to
its
starting-point,
this
can
only
happen
through
a
renewal
or
repetition
of
the
operation.
If
I
sell
a
quarter
of
corn
for
￡3,
and
with
this
￡3
buy
clothes,the
money,
so
far
as
I
am
concerned,
is
spent
and
done
with.
It
belongs
to
the
clothes
merchant.
If
I
now
sell
a
second
quarter
of
corn,
money
indeed
flows
back
to
me,not
however
as
a
sequel
to
the
first
transaction,
but
in
consequence
of
its
repetition.
The
money
again
leaves
me,
so
soon
as
I
complete
this
second
transaction
by
a
fresh
purchase.
Therefore,
in
the
circuit
C-M-C,
the
expenditure
of
money
has
nothing
to
do
with
its
reflux.On
the
other
hand,
in
M-C-M,
the
reflux
of
the
money
is
conditioned
by
the
very
mode
of
its
expenditure.Without
this
reflux,
the
operation
fails,
or
the
process
is
interrupted
and
incomplete,
owing
to
the
absence
of
its
complementary
and
final
phase,
the
sale.
The
circuit
C-M-C
starts
with
one
commodity,
and
finishes
with
another,
which
falls
out
of
circulation
and
into
consumption.
Consumption,
the
satisfaction
of
wants,
in
one
word,
use-value,
is
its
end
and
aim.The
circuit
M-C-M,
on
the
contrary,
commences
with
money
and
ends
with
money.
Its
leading
motive,
and
the
goal
that
attracts
it,
is
therefore
mere
exchange
value.
In
the
simple
circulation
of
commodities,
the
two
extremes
of
the
circuit
have
the
same
economic
form.
They
are
both
commodities,
and
commodities
of
equal
value.
But
they
are
also
use-values
differing
in
their
qualities,
as,
for
example,
corn
and
clothes.The
exchange
of
products,
of
the
different
materials
in
which
the
labour
of
society
is
embodied,
forms
here
the
basis
of
the
movement.
It
is
otherwise
in
the
circulation
M-C-M,
which
at
first
sight
appears
purposeless,
because
tautological.
Both
extremes
have
the
same
economic
form.
They
are
both
money,and
therefore
are
not
qualitatively
different
use
values;
for
money
is
but
the
converted
form
of
commodities,
in
which
their
particular
use-values
vanish.
To
exchange
￡100
for
cotton,
and
then
this
same
cotton
again
for
￡100,
is
merely
a
roundabout
way
of
exchanging
money
for
money,
the
same
for
the
same,
and
appears
to
be
an
operation
just
as
purposeless
as
it
is
absurd.4One
sum
of
money
is
distinguishable
from
another
only
by
its
amount.The
character
and
tendency
of
the
process
M-C-M,
is
therefore
not
due
to
any
qualitative
difference
between
its
extremes,
both
being
money,
but
solely
to
their
quantitative
difference.
More
money
is
withdrawn
from
circulation
at
the
finish
than
was
thrown
into
it
at
the
start.
The
cotton
that
was
bought
for
￡100
is
perhaps
resold
for
￡100
￡10
or
￡110.
The
exact
form
of
this
process
is
therefore
M-C-M',
where
M'
=
M
D
M
=
the
original
sum
advanced,
plus
an
increment.This
increment
or
excess
over
the
original
value
I
call
\"surplus-value.\"
The
value
originally
advanced,therefore,
not
only
remains
intact
while
in
circulation,but
adds
to
itself
a
surplus-value
or
expands
itself.
It
is
this
movement
that
converts
it
into
capital.
Of
course,
it
is
also
possible,
that
in
C-M-C,
the
two
extremes
C-C,
say
corn
and
clothes,
may
represent
different
quantities
of
value.
The
farmer
may
sell
his
corn
above
its
value,
or
may
buy
the
clothes
at
less
than
their
value.
He
may,
on
the
other
hand,
\"be
done\"by
the
clothes
merchant.
Yet,
in
the
form
of
circulation
now
under
consideration,
such
differences
in
value
are
purely
accidental.
The
fact
that
the
corn
and
the
clothes
are
equivalents,
does
not
deprive
the
process
of
all
meaning,
as
it
does
in
M-C-M.
The
equivalence
of
their
values
is
rather
a
necessary
condition
to
its
normal
course.
The
repetition
or
renewal
of
the
act
of
selling
in
order
to
buy,
is
kept
within
bounds
by
the
very
object
it
aims
at,
namely,
consumption
or
the
satisfaction
of
definite
wants,
an
aim
that
lies
altogether
outside
the
sphere
of
circulation.
But
when
we
buy
in
order
to
sell,
we,
on
the
contrary,
begin
and
end
with
the
same
thing,
money,
exchange-value;
and
thereby
the
movement
becomes
interminable.
No
doubt,
M
becomes
M
D
M,
￡100
become
￡110.
But
when
viewed
in
their
qualitative
aspect
alone,
￡110
are
the
same
as
￡100,
namely
money;
and
considered
quantitatively,
￡110
is,
like
￡100,
a
sum
of
definite
and
limited
value.
If
now,
the
￡110
be
spent
as
money,they
cease
to
play
their
part.
They
are
no
longer
capital.
Withdrawn
from
circulation,
they
become
petrified
into
a
hoard,
and
though
they
remained
in
that
state
till
doomsday,
not
a
single
farthing
would
accrue
to
them.
If,
then,
the
expansion
of
value
is
once
aimed
at,
there
is
just
the
same
inducement
to
augment
the
value
of
the
￡110
as
that
of
the
￡100;for
both
are
but
limited
expressions
for
exchange
value,
and
therefore
both
have
the
same
vocation
to
approach,
by
quantitative
increase,
as
near
as
possible
to
absolute
wealth.
Momentarily,
indeed,
the
value
originally
advanced,
the
￡100
is
distinguishable
from
the
surplus-value
of
￡10
that
is
annexed
to
it
during
circulation;
but
the
distinction
vanishes
immediately.At
the
end
of
the
process,
we
do
not
receive
with
one
hand
the
original
￡100,
and
with
the
other,
the
surplus-value
of
￡10.
We
simply
get
a
value
of
￡110,which
is
in
exactly
the
same
condition
and
fitness
for
commencing
the
expanding
process,
as
the
original￡100
was.
Money
ends
the
movement
only
to
begin
it
again.5Therefore,
the
final
result
of
every
separate
circuit,
in
which
a
purchase
and
consequent
sale
are
completed,
forms
of
itself
the
starting-point
of
a
new
circuit.
The
simple
circulation
of
commodities
—selling
in
order
to
buy
—
is
a
means
of
carrying
out
a
purpose
unconnected
with
circulation,
namely,
the
appropriation
of
use-values,
the
satisfaction
of
wants.The
circulation
of
money
as
capital
is,
on
the
contrary,an
end
in
itself,
for
the
expansion
of
value
takes
place
only
within
this
constantly
renewed
movement.
The
circulation
of
capital
has
therefore
no
limits.6
As
the
conscious
representative
of
this
movement,the
possessor
of
money
becomes
a
capitalist.
His
person,
or
rather
his
pocket,
is
the
point
from
which
the
money
starts
and
to
which
it
returns.
The
expansion
of
value,
which
is
the
objective
basis
or
main-spring
of
the
circulation
M-C-M,
becomes
his
subjective
aim,
and
it
is
only
in
so
far
as
the
appropriation
of
ever
more
and
more
wealth
in
the
abstract
becomes
the
sole
motive
of
his
operations,that
he
functions
as
a
capitalist,
that
is,
as
capital
personified
and
endowed
with
consciousness
and
a
will.
Use-values
must
therefore
never
be
looked
upon
as
the
real
aim
of
the
capitalist;7neither
must
the
profit
on
any
single
transaction.
The
restless
never
ending
process
of
profit-making
alone
is
what
he
aims
at.8This
boundless
greed
after
riches,
this
passionate
chase
after
exchange-value9,
is
common
to
the
capitalist
and
the
miser;
but
while
the
miser
is
merely
a
capitalist
gone
mad,
the
capitalist
is
a
rational
miser.The
never-ending
augmentation
of
exchange-value,which
the
miser
strives
after,
by
seeking
to
save10his
money
from
circulation,
is
attained
by
the
more
acute
capitalist,
by
constantly
throwing
it
afresh
into
circulation.11
The
independent
form,
i.e.,
the
money-form,
which
the
value
of
commodities
assumes
in
the
case
of
simple
circulation,
serves
only
one
purpose,
namely,their
exchange,
and
vanishes
in
the
final
result
of
the
movement.
On
the
other
hand,
in
the
circulation
M-C-M,
both
the
money
and
the
commodity
represent
only
different
modes
of
existence
of
value
itself,the
money
its
general
mode,
and
the
commodity
its
particular,
or,
so
to
say,
disguised
mode.12It
is
constantly
changing
from
one
form
to
the
other
without
thereby
becoming
lost,
and
thus
assumes
an
automatically
active
character.
If
now
we
take
in
turn
each
of
the
two
different
forms
which
self
expanding
value
successively
assumes
in
the
course
of
its
life,
we
then
arrive
at
these
two
propositions:Capital
is
money:
Capital
is
commodities.13In
truth,however,
value
is
here
the
active
factor
in
a
process,
in
which,
while
constantly
assuming
the
form
in
turn
of
money
and
commodities,
it
at
the
same
time
changes
in
magnitude,
differentiates
itself
by
throwing
off
surplus-value
from
itself;
the
original
value,
in
other
words,
expands
spontaneously.
For
the
movement,in
the
course
of
which
it
adds
surplus-value,
is
its
own
movement,
its
expansion,
therefore,
is
automatic
expansion.
Because
it
is
value,
it
has
acquired
the
occult
quality
of
being
able
to
add
value
to
itself.It
brings
forth
living
offspring,
or,
at
the
least,
lays
golden
eggs.
Value,
therefore,
being
the
active
factor
in
such
a
process,
and
assuming
at
one
time
the
form
of
money,
at
another
that
of
commodities,
but
through
all
these
changes
preserving
itself
and
expanding,
it
requires
some
independent
form,
by
means
of
which
its
identity
may
at
any
time
be
established.
And
this
form
it
possesses
only
in
the
shape
of
money.
It
is
under
the
form
of
money
that
value
begins
and
ends,and
begins
again,
every
act
of
its
own
spontaneous
generation.
It
began
by
being
￡100,
it
is
now
￡110,and
so
on.
But
the
money
itself
is
only
one
of
the
two
forms
of
value.
Unless
it
takes
the
form
of
some
commodity,
it
does
not
become
capital.
There
is
here
no
antagonism,
as
in
the
case
of
hoarding,
between
the
money
and
commodities.
The
capitalist
knows
that
all
commodities,
however
scurvy
they
may
look,
or
however
badly
they
may
smell,
are
in
faith
and
in
truth
money,
inwardly
circumcised
Jews,
and
what
is
more,a
wonderful
means
whereby
out
of
money
to
make
more
money.
In
simple
circulation,
C-M-C,
the
value
of
commodities
attained
at
the
most
a
form
independent
of
their
use-values,
i.e.,
the
form
of
money;
but
that
same
value
now
in
the
circulation
M-C-M,
or
the
circulation
of
capital,
suddenly
presents
itself
as
an
independent
substance,
endowed
with
a
motion
of
its
own,
passing
through
a
life-process
of
its
own,
in
which
money
and
commodities
are
mere
forms
which
it
assumes
and
casts
off
in
turn.
Nay,
more:
instead
of
simply
representing
the
relations
of
commodities,
it
enters
now,
so
to
say,
into
private
relations
with
itself.It
differentiates
itself
as
original
value
from
itself
as
surplus-value;
as
the
father
differentiates
himself
from
himself
qua
the
son,
yet
both
are
one
and
of
one
age:for
only
by
the
surplus-value
of
￡10
does
the
￡100
originally
advanced
become
capital,
and
so
soon
as
this
takes
place,
so
soon
as
the
son,
and
by
the
son,the
father,
is
begotten,
so
soon
does
their
difference
vanish,
and
they
again
become
one,
￡110.
Value
therefore
now
becomes
value
in
process,money
in
process,
and,
as
such,
capital.
It
comes
out
of
circulation,
enters
into
it
again,
preserves
and
multiplies
itself
within
its
circuit,
comes
back
out
of
it
with
expanded
bulk,
and
begins
the
same
round
ever
afresh.14M-M',
money
which
begets
money,
such
is
the
description
of
Capital
from
the
mouths
of
its
first
interpreters,
the
Mercantilists.
Buying
in
order
to
sell,
or,
more
accurately,
buying
in
order
to
sell
dearer,
M-C-M',
appears
certainly
to
be
a
form
peculiar
to
one
kind
of
capital
alone,namely,
merchants'
capital.
But
industrial
capital
too
is
money,
that
is
changed
into
commodities,
and
by
the
sale
of
these
commodities,
is
re-converted
into
more
money.
The
events
that
take
place
outside
the
sphere
of
circulation,
in
the
interval
between
the
buying
and
selling,
do
not
affect
the
form
of
this
movement.Lastly,
in
the
case
of
interest-bearing
capital,
the
circulation
M-C-M'
appears
abridged.
We
have
its
result
without
the
intermediate
stage,
in
the
form
M-M',
\"en
style
lapidaire\"
so
to
say,
money
that
is
worth
more
money,
value
that
is
greater
than
itself.
M-C-M'
is
therefore
in
reality
the
general
formula
of
capital
as
it
appears
prima
facie
within
the
sphere
of
circulation.
NOTES:
1The
contrast
between
the
power,
based
on
the
personal
relations
of
dominion
and
servitude,
that
is
conferred
by
landed
property,
and
the
impersonal
power
that
is
given
by
money,
is
well
expressed
by
the
two
French
proverbs,
\"Nulle
terre
sans
seigneur,\"
and
\"L'argent
n'a
pas
de
matre,\"
–
\"No
land
without
its
lord,\"
and
\"Money
has
no
master.\"
2\"Avec
de
l'argent
on
achète
des
marchandises
et
avec
des
marchandises
on
achète
de
l'argent.\"
[\"With
money
one
buys
commodities,
and
with
commodities
one
buys
money\"](Mercier
de
la
Rivière:
\"L'ordre
naturel
et
essentiel
des
sociétés
politiques,\"
p.
543.)
3\"When
a
thing
is
bought
in
order
to
be
sold
again,
the
sum
employed
is
called
money
advanced;
when
it
is
bought
not
to
be
sold,
it
may
be
said
to
be
expended.\"
—
(James
Steuart:\"Works,\"
&c.
Edited
by
Gen.
Sir
James
Steuart,
his
son.
Lond.,1805,
V.
I.,
p.
274.)
4\"On
n'échange
pas
de
l'argent
contre
de
l'argent,\"
[\"One
does
not
exchange
money
for
money,\"]
says
Mercier
de
la
Rivière
to
the
Mercantilists
(l.c.,
p.
486.)
In
a
work,
which,ex
professo
treats
of
\"trade\"
and
\"speculation,\"
occurs
the
following:
\"All
trade
consists
in
the
exchange
of
things
of
different
kinds;
and
the
advantage\"
(to
the
merchant)
\"arises
out
of
this
difference.
To
exchange
a
pound
of
bread
against
a
pound
of
bread
...
would
be
attended
with
no
advantage;...
Hence
trade
is
advantageously
contrasted
with
gambling,which
consists
in
a
mere
exchange
of
money
for
money.\"
(Th.Corbet,
\"An
Inquiry
into
the
Causes
and
Modes
of
the
Wealth
of
Individuals;
or
the
Principles
of
Trade
and
Speculation
Explained.\"
London,
1841,
p.
5.)
Although
Corbet
does
not
see
that
M-M,
the
exchange
of
money
for
money,
is
the
characteristic
form
of
circulation,
not
only
of
merchants'capital
but
of
all
capital,
yet
at
least
he
acknowledges
that
this
form
is
common
to
gambling
and
to
one
species
of
trade,
viz.,speculation:
but
then
comes
MacCulloch
and
makes
out,
that
to
buy
in
order
to
sell,
is
to
speculate,
and
thus
the
difference
between
Speculation
and
Trade
vanishes.
\"Every
transaction
in
which
an
individual
buys
produce
in
order
to
sell
it
again,
is,in
fact,
a
speculation.\"
(MacCulloch:
\"A
Dictionary
Practical,&c.,
of
Commerce.\"
Lond.,
1847,
p.
1009.)
With
much
more
naiveté,
Pinto,
the
Pindar
of
the
Amsterdam
Stock
Exchange,remarks,
\"Le
commerce
est
un
jeu:
(taken
from
Locke)
et
ce
n'est
pas
avec
des
gueux
qu'on
peut
gagner.
Si
l'on
gagnait
longtemps
en
tout
avec
tous,
il
faudrait
rendre
de
bon
accord
les
plus
grandes
parties
du
profit
pour
recommencer
le
jeu.\"[\"Trade
is
a
game,
and
nothing
can
be
won
from
beggars.
If
one
won
everything
from
everybody
all
the
time,
it
would
be
necessary
to
give
back
the
greater
part
of
the
profit
voluntarily,in
order
to
begin
the
game
again\"]
(Pinto:
\"Traité
de
la
Circulation
et
du
Crédit.\"
Amsterdam,
1771.
p.
231,)
5\"Capital
is
divisible
...
into
the
original
capital
and
the
profit,
the
increment
to
the
capital
...
although
in
practice
this
profit
is
immediately
turned
into
capital,
and
set
in
motion
with
the
original.\"
(F.
Engels,
\"Umrisse
zu
einer
Kritik
der
Nationalkonomie,
in:
Deutsch-Franzsische
Jahrbücher,herausgegeben
von
Arnold
Ruge
und
Karl
Marx.\"
Paris,
1844,p.
99.)
6Aristotle
opposes
Oeconomic
to
Chrematistic.
He
starts
from
the
former.
So
far
as
it
is
the
art
of
gaining
a
livelihood,it
is
limited
to
procuring
those
articles
that
are
necessary
to
existence,
and
useful
either
to
a
household
or
the
state.
\"True
wealth
(o
aleqinos
ploutos)
consists
of
such
values
in
use;
for
the
quantity
of
possessions
of
this
kind,
capable
of
making
life
pleasant,
is
not
unlimited.
There
is,
however,
a
second
mode
of
acquiring
things,
to
which
we
may
by
preference
and
with
correctness
give
the
name
of
Chrematistic,
and
in
this
case
there
appear
to
be
no
limits
to
riches
and
possessions.
Trade(e
kapelike
is
literally
retail
trade,
and
Aristotle
takes
this
kind
because
in
it
values
in
use
predominate)
does
not
in
its
nature
belong
to
Chrematistic,
for
here
the
exchange
has
reference
only
to
what
is
necessary
to
themselves
(the
buyer
or
seller).\"Therefore,
as
he
goes
on
to
show,
the
original
form
of
trade
was
barter,
but
with
the
extension
of
the
latter,
there
arose
the
necessity
for
money.
On
the
discovery
of
money,
barter
of
necessity
developed
into
kapelike,
into
trading
in
commodities,and
this
again,
in
opposition
to
its
original
tendency,
grew
into
Chrematistic,
into
the
art
of
making
money.
Now
Chrematistic
is
distinguishable
from
Oeconomic
in
this
way,
that
\"in
the
case
of
Chrematistic
circulation
is
the
source
of
riches
poietike
crematon
...
dia
chrematon
diaboles.
And
it
appears
to
revolve
about
money,
for
money
is
the
beginning
and
end
of
this
kind
of
exchange
(to
nomisma
stoiceion
tes
allages
estin).
Therefore
also
riches,
such
as
Chrematistic
strives
for,
are
unlimited.Just
as
every
art
that
is
not
a
means
to
an
end,
but
an
end
in
itself,
has
no
limit
to
its
aims,
because
it
seeks
constantly
to
approach
nearer
and
nearer
to
that
end,
while
those
arts
that
pursue
means
to
an
end,
are
not
boundless,
since
the
goal
itself
imposes
a
limit
upon
them,
so
with
Chrematistic,
there
are
no
bounds
to
its
aims,
these
aims
being
absolute
wealth.Oeconomic
not
Chrematistic
has
a
limit
...
the
object
of
the
former
is
something
different
from
money,
of
the
latter
the
augmentation
of
money....
By
confounding
these
two
forms,which
overlap
each
other,
some
people
have
been
led
to
look
upon
the
preservation
and
increase
of
money
ad
infinitum
as
the
end
and
aim
of
Oeconomic.\"
(Aristoteles,
De
Rep.
edit.Bekker,
lib.
l.c.
8,
9.
passim.)
7\"Commodities
(here
used
in
the
sense
of
use-values)
are
not
the
terminating
object
of
the
trading
capitalist,
money
is
his
terminating
object.\"
(Th.
Chalmers,
On
Pol.
Econ.
&c.,
2nd
Ed.,
Glasgow,
1832,
pp.
165,
166.)
8\"Il
mercante
non
conta
quasi
per
niente
il
lucro
fatto,
ma
mira
sempre
al
futuro.\"
[\"The
merchant
counts
the
money
he
has
made
as
almost
nothing;
he
always
looks
to
the
future.\"](A.
Genovesi,
Lezioni
di
Economia
Civile
(1765),
Custodi's
edit.
of
Italian
Economists.
Parte
Moderna
t.
viii,
p.
139.)
9\"The
inextinguishable
passion
for
gain,
the
auri
sacra
fames,
will
always
lead
capitalists.\"
(MacCulloch:
\"The
Principles
of
Polit.
Econ.\"
London,
1830,
p.
179.)
This
view,of
course,
does
not
prevent
the
same
MacCulloch
and
others
of
his
kidney,
when
in
theoretical
difficulties,
such,
for
example,as
the
question
of
over-production,
from
transforming
the
same
capitalist
into
a
moral
citizen,
whose
sole
concern
is
for
use
values,
and
who
even
develops
an
insatiable
hunger
for
boots,hats,
eggs,
calico,
and
other
extremely
familiar
sorts
of
use
values.
10Sozein
is
a
characteristic
Greek
expression
for
hoarding.So
in
English
to
save
has
the
same
two
meanings:
sauver
and
épargner.
11\"Questo
infinito
che
le
cose
non
hanno
in
progresso,hanno
in
giro.\"
[\"That
infinity
which
things
do
not
possess,they
possess
in
circulation.\"]
(Galiani.)
12\"Ce
n'est
pas
la
matière
qui
fait
le
capital,
mais
la
valeur
de
ces
matières.\"
[\"It
is
not
matter
which
makes
capital,
but
the
value
of
that
matter.\"]
(J.
B.
Say:
\"Traité
d'Econ.
Polit.\"
3ème
éd.
Paris,
1817,
t.
II.,
p.
429.)
13\"Currency
(!)
employed
in
producing
articles...
is
capital.\"(Macleod:
\"The
Theory
and
Practice
of
Banking.\"
London,1855,
v.
1,
ch.
i,
p.
55.)
\"Capital
is
commodities.\"
(James
Mill:\"Elements
of
Pol.
Econ.\"
Lond.,
1821,
p.
74.)
14Capital:
\"portion
fructifiante
de
la
richesse
accumulée...valeur
permanente,
multipliante.\"
(Sismondi:
\"Nouveaux
Principes
d'Econ.
Polit.,\"
t.
i.,
p.
88,
89.)
精選分類
