- 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
The
form
which
circulation
takes
when
money
becomes
capital,
is
opposed
to
all
the
laws
we
have
hitherto
investigated
bearing
on
the
nature
of
commodities,
value
and
money,
and
even
of
circulation
itself.
What
distinguishes
this
form
from
that
of
the
simple
circulation
of
commodities,
is
the
inverted
order
of
succession
of
the
two
antithetical
processes,
sale
and
purchase.
How
can
this
purely
formal
distinction
between
these
processes
change
their
character
as
it
were
by
magic
But
that
is
not
all.
This
inversion
has
no
existence
for
two
out
of
the
three
persons
who
transact
business
together.
As
capitalist,
I
buy
commodities
from
A
and
sell
them
again
to
B,
but
as
a
simple
owner
of
commodities,
I
sell
them
to
B
and
then
purchase
fresh
ones
from
A.
A
and
B
see
no
difference
between
the
two
sets
of
transactions.
They
are
merely
buyers
or
sellers.
And
I
on
each
occasion
meet
them
as
a
mere
owner
of
either
money
or
commodities,
as
a
buyer
or
a
seller,
and,
what
is
more,
in
both
sets
of
transactions,I
am
opposed
to
A
only
as
a
buyer
and
to
B
only
as
a
seller,
to
the
one
only
as
money,
to
the
other
only
as
commodities,
and
to
neither
of
them
as
capital
or
a
capitalist,
or
as
representative
of
anything
that
is
more
than
money
or
commodities,
or
that
can
produce
any
effect
beyond
what
money
and
commodities
can.
For
me
the
purchase
from
A
and
the
sale
to
B
are
part
of
a
series.
But
the
connexion
between
the
two
acts
exists
for
me
alone.
A
does
not
trouble
himself
about
my
transaction
with
B,
nor
does
B
about
my
business
with
A.
And
if
I
offered
to
explain
to
them
the
meritorious
nature
of
my
action
in
inverting
the
order
of
succession,
they
would
probably
point
out
to
me
that
I
was
mistaken
as
to
that
order
of
succession,and
that
the
whole
transaction,
instead
of
beginning
with
a
purchase
and
ending
with
a
sale,
began,
on
the
contrary,
with
a
sale
and
was
concluded
with
a
purchase.
In
truth,
my
first
act,
the
purchase,
was
from
the
standpoint
of
A,
a
sale,
and
my
second
act,the
sale,
was
from
the
standpoint
of
B,
a
purchase.Not
content
with
that,
A
and
B
would
declare
that
the
whole
series
was
superfluous
and
nothing
but
Hokus
Pokus;
that
for
the
future
A
would
buy
direct
from
B,
and
B
sell
direct
to
A.
Thus
the
whole
transaction
would
be
reduced
to
a
single
act
forming
an
isolated,non-complemented
phase
in
the
ordinary
circulation
of
commodities,
a
mere
sale
from
A's
point
of
view,
and
from
B's,
a
mere
purchase.
The
inversion,
therefore,of
the
order
of
succession,
does
not
take
us
outside
the
sphere
of
the
simple
circulation
of
commodities,
and
we
must
rather
look,
whether
there
is
in
this
simple
circulation
anything
permitting
an
expansion
of
the
value
that
enters
into
circulation,
and,
consequently,
a
creation
of
surplus-value.
Let
us
take
the
process
of
circulation
in
a
form
under
which
it
presents
itself
as
a
simple
and
direct
exchange
of
commodities.
This
is
always
the
case
when
two
owners
of
commodities
buy
from
each
other,
and
on
the
settling
day
the
amounts
mutually
owing
are
equal
and
cancel
each
other.
The
money
in
this
case
is
money
of
account
and
serves
to
express
the
value
of
the
commodities
by
their
prices,
but
is
not,
itself,in
the
shape
of
hard
cash,
confronted
with
them.
So
far
as
regards
use-values,
it
is
clear
that
both
parties
may
gain
some
advantage.
Both
part
with
goods
that,as
use-values,
are
of
no
service
to
them,
and
receive
others
that
they
can
make
use
of.
And
there
may
also
be
a
further
gain.
A,
who
sells
wine
and
buys
corn,possibly
produces
more
wine,
with
given
labour-time,than
farmer
B
could,
and
B
on
the
other
hand,
more
corn
than
wine-grower
A
could.
A,
therefore,
may
get,
for
the
same
exchange-value,
more
corn,
and
B
more
wine,
than
each
would
respectively
get
without
any
exchange
by
producing
his
own
corn
and
wine.With
reference,
therefore,
to
use-value,
there
is
good
ground
for
saying
that
\"exchange
is
a
transaction
by
which
both
sides
gain.\"1It
is
otherwise
with
exchange
value.
\"A
man
who
has
plenty
of
wine
and
no
corn
treats
with
a
man
who
has
plenty
of
corn
and
no
wine;an
exchange
takes
place
between
them
of
corn
to
the
value
of
50,
for
wine
of
the
same
value.
This
act
produces
no
increase
of
exchange-value
either
for
the
one
or
the
other;
for
each
of
them
already
possessed,before
the
exchange,
a
value
equal
to
that
which
he
acquired
by
means
of
that
operation.\"2The
result
is
not
altered
by
introducing
money,
as
a
medium
of
circulation,
between
the
commodities,
and
making
the
sale
and
the
purchase
two
distinct
acts.3The
value
of
a
commodity
is
expressed
in
its
price
before
it
goes
into
circulation,
and
is
therefore
a
precedent
condition
of
circulation,
not
its
result.4
Abstractedly
considered,
that
is,
apart
from
circumstances
not
immediately
flowing
from
the
laws
of
the
simple
circulation
of
commodities,
there
is
in
an
exchange
nothing
(if
we
except
the
replacing
of
one
use-value
by
another)
but
a
metamorphosis,a
mere
change
in
the
form
of
the
commodity.
The
same
exchange-value,
i.e.,
the
same
quantity
of
incorporated
social
labour,
remains
throughout
in
the
hands
of
the
owner
of
the
commodity,
first
in
the
shape
of
his
own
commodity,
then
in
the
form
of
the
money
for
which
he
exchanged
it,
and
lastly,
in
the
shape
of
the
commodity
he
buys
with
that
money.This
change
of
form
does
not
imply
a
change
in
the
magnitude
of
the
value.
But
the
change,
which
the
value
of
the
commodity
undergoes
in
this
process,is
limited
to
a
change
in
its
money-form.
This
form
exists
first
as
the
price
of
the
commodity
offered
for
sale,
then
as
an
actual
sum
of
money,
which,
however,was
already
expressed
in
the
price,
and
lastly,
as
the
price
of
an
equivalent
commodity.
This
change
of
form
no
more
implies,
taken
alone,
a
change
in
the
quantity
of
value,
than
does
the
change
of
a
￡5
note
into
sovereigns,
half
sovereigns
and
shillings.
So
far
therefore
as
the
circulation
of
commodities
effects
a
change
in
the
form
alone
of
their
values,
and
is
free
from
disturbing
influences,
it
must
be
the
exchange
of
equivalents.
Little
as
Vulgar-Economy
knows
about
the
nature
of
value,
yet
whenever
it
wishes
to
consider
the
phenomena
of
circulation
in
their
purity,it
assumes
that
supply
and
demand
are
equal,
which
amounts
to
this,
that
their
effect
is
nil.
If
therefore,as
regards
the
use-values
exchanged,
both
buyer
and
seller
may
possibly
gain
something,
this
is
not
the
case
as
regards
the
exchange-values.
Here
we
must
rather
say,
\"Where
equality
exists
there
can
be
no
gain.\"5It
is
true,
commodities
may
be
sold
at
prices
deviating
from
their
values,
but
these
deviations
are
to
be
considered
as
infractions
of
the
laws
of
the
exchange
of
commodities6,
which
in
its
normal
state
is
an
exchange
of
equivalents,
consequently,
no
method
for
increasing
value.7
Hence,
we
see
that
behind
all
attempts
to
represent
the
circulation
of
commodities
as
a
source
of
surplus-value,
there
lurks
a
quid
pro
quo,
a
mixing
up
of
use-value
and
exchange-value.
For
instance,Condillac
says:
\"It
is
not
true
that
on
an
exchange
of
commodities
we
give
value
for
value.
On
the
contrary,each
of
the
two
contracting
parties
in
every
case,
gives
a
less
for
a
greater
value.
...
If
we
really
exchanged
equal
values,
neither
party
could
make
a
profit.
And
yet,
they
both
gain,
or
ought
to
gain.
Why
The
value
of
a
thing
consists
solely
in
its
relation
to
our
wants.What
is
more
to
the
one
is
less
to
the
other,
and
vice
versa.
...
It
is
not
to
be
assumed
that
we
offer
for
sale
articles
required
for
our
own
consumption.
...
We
wish
to
part
with
a
useless
thing,
in
order
to
get
one
that
we
need;
we
want
to
give
less
for
more.
...
It
was
natural
to
think
that,
in
an
exchange,
value
was
given
for
value,
whenever
each
of
the
articles
exchanged
was
of
equal
value
with
the
same
quantity
of
gold....
But
there
is
another
point
to
be
considered
in
our
calculation.
The
question
is,
whether
we
both
exchange
something
superfluous
for
something
necessary.\"
8We
see
in
this
passage,
how
Condillac
not
only
confuses
use-value
with
exchange-value,
but
in
a
really
childish
manner
assumes,
that
in
a
society,
in
which
the
production
of
commodities
is
well
developed,
each
producer
produces
his
own
means
of
subsistence,
and
throws
into
circulation
only
the
excess
over
his
own
requirements9Still,
Condillac's
argument
is
frequently
used
by
modern
economists,
more
especially
when
the
point
is
to
show,
that
the
exchange
of
commodities
in
its
developed
form,
commerce,
is
productive
of
surplus-value.
For
instance,
\"Commerce
...
adds
value
to
products,
for
the
same
products
in
the
hands
of
consumers,
are
worth
more
than
in
the
hands
of
producers,
and
it
may
strictly
be
considered
an
act
of
production.\"10But
commodities
are
not
paid
for
twice
over,
once
on
account
of
their
use-value,
and
again
on
account
of
their
value.
And
though
the
use-value
of
a
commodity
is
more
serviceable
to
the
buyer
than
to
the
seller,
its
money-form
is
more
serviceable
to
the
seller.
Would
he
otherwise
sell
it
We
might
therefore
just
as
well
say
that
the
buyer
performs
\"strictly
an
act
of
production,\"
by
converting
stockings,
for
example,into
money.
If
commodities,
or
commodities
and
money,
of
equal
exchange-value,
and
consequently
equivalents,are
exchanged,
it
is
plain
that
no
one
abstracts
more
value
from,
than
he
throws
into,
circulation.
There
is
no
creation
of
surplus-value.
And,
in
its
normal
form,the
circulation
of
commodities
demands
the
exchange
of
equivalents.
But
in
actual
practice,
the
process
does
not
retain
its
normal
form.
Let
us,
therefore,
assume
an
exchange
of
non-equivalents.
In
any
case
the
market
for
commodities
is
only
frequented
by
owners
of
commodities,
and
the
power
which
these
persons
exercise
over
each
other,
is
no
other
than
the
power
of
their
commodities.
The
material
variety
of
these
commodities
is
the
material
incentive
to
the
act
of
exchange,
and
makes
buyers
and
sellers
mutually
dependent,
because
none
of
them
possesses
the
object
of
his
own
wants,
and
each
holds
in
his
hand
the
object
of
another's
wants.
Besides
these
material
differences
of
their
use-values,
there
is
only
one
other
difference
between
commodities,namely,
that
between
their
bodily
form
and
the
form
into
which
they
are
converted
by
sale,
the
difference
between
commodities
and
money.
And
consequently
the
owners
of
commodities
are
distinguishable
only
as
sellers,
those
who
own
commodities,
and
buyers,those
who
own
money.
Suppose
then,
that
by
some
inexplicable
privilege,the
seller
is
enabled
to
sell
his
commodities
above
their
value,
what
is
worth
100
for
110,
in
which
case
the
price
is
nominally
raised
10%.
The
seller
therefore
pockets
a
surplus-value
of
10.
But
after
he
has
sold
he
becomes
a
buyer.
A
third
owner
of
commodities
comes
to
him
now
as
seller,
who
in
this
capacity
also
enjoys
the
privilege
of
selling
his
commodities
10%too
dear.
Our
friend
gained
10
as
a
seller
only
to
lose
it
again
as
a
buyer.11The
net
result
is,
that
all
owners
of
commodities
sell
their
goods
to
one
another
at
10%
above
their
value,
which
comes
precisely
to
the
same
as
if
they
sold
them
at
their
true
value.
Such
a
general
and
nominal
rise
of
prices
has
the
same
effect
as
if
the
values
had
been
expressed
in
weight
of
silver
instead
of
in
weight
of
gold.
The
nominal
prices
of
commodities
would
rise,
but
the
real
relation
between
their
values
would
remain
unchanged.
Let
us
make
the
opposite
assumption,
that
the
buyer
has
the
privilege
of
purchasing
commodities
under
their
value.
In
this
case
it
is
no
longer
necessary
to
bear
in
mind
that
he
in
his
turn
will
become
a
seller.He
was
so
before
he
became
buyer;
he
had
already
lost
10%
in
selling
before
he
gained
10%
as
buyer.12Everything
is
just
as
it
was.
The
creation
of
surplus-value,
and
therefore
the
conversion
of
money
into
capital,
can
consequently
be
explained
neither
on
the
assumption
that
commodities
are
sold
above
their
value,
nor
that
they
are
bought
below
their
value.13
The
problem
is
in
no
way
simplified
by
introducing
irrelevant
matters
after
the
manner
of
Col.
Torrens:\"Effectual
demand
consists
in
the
power
and
inclination
(!),
on
the
part
of
consumers,
to
give
for
commodities,
either
by
immediate
or
circuitous
barter,some
greater
portion
of
...
capital
than
their
production
costs.\"14In
relation
to
circulation,
producers
and
consumers
meet
only
as
buyers
and
sellers.
To
assert
that
the
surplus-value
acquired
by
the
producer
has
its
origin
in
the
fact
that
consumers
pay
for
commodities
more
than
their
value,
is
only
to
say
in
other
words:The
owner
of
commodities
possesses,
as
a
seller,
the
privilege
of
selling
too
dear.
The
seller
has
himself
produced
the
commodities
or
represents
their
producer,but
the
buyer
has
to
no
less
extent
produced
the
commodities
represented
by
his
money,
or
represents
their
producer.
The
distinction
between
them
is,
that
one
buys
and
the
other
sells.
The
fact
that
the
owner
of
the
commodities,
under
the
designation
of
producer,sells
them
over
their
value,
and
under
the
designation
of
consumer,
pays
too
much
for
them,
does
not
carry
us
a
single
step
further.15
To
be
consistent
therefore,
the
upholders
of
the
delusion
that
surplus-value
has
its
origin
in
a
nominal
rise
of
prices
or
in
the
privilege
which
the
seller
has
of
selling
too
dear,
must
assume
the
existence
of
a
class
that
only
buys
and
does
not
sell,
i.e.,
only
consumes
and
does
not
produce.
The
existence
of
such
a
class
is
inexplicable
from
the
standpoint
we
have
so
far
reached,
viz.,
that
of
simple
circulation.
But
let
us
anticipate.
The
money
with
which
such
a
class
is
constantly
making
purchases,
must
constantly
flow
into
their
pockets,
without
any
exchange,
gratis,
by
might
or
right,
from
the
pockets
of
the
commodity
owners
themselves.
To
sell
commodities
above
their
value
to
such
a
class,
is
only
to
crib
back
again
a
part
of
the
money
previously
given
to
it.16The
towns
of
Asia
Minor
thus
paid
a
yearly
money
tribute
to
ancient
Rome.
With
this
money
Rome
purchased
from
them
commodities,
and
purchased
them
too
dear.
The
provincials
cheated
the
Romans,
and
thus
got
back
from
their
conquerors,
in
the
course
of
trade,
a
portion
of
the
tribute.
Yet,
for
all
that,
the
conquered
were
the
really
cheated.
Their
goods
were
still
paid
for
with
their
own
money.
That
is
not
the
way
to
get
rich
or
to
create
surplus-value.
Let
us
therefore
keep
within
the
bounds
of
exchange
where
sellers
are
also
buyers,
and
buyers,
sellers.
Our
difficulty
may
perhaps
have
arisen
from
treating
the
actors
as
personifications
instead
of
as
individuals.
A
may
be
clever
enough
to
get
the
advantage
of
B
or
C
without
their
being
able
to
retaliate.
A
sells
wine
worth
￡40
to
B,
and
obtains
from
him
in
exchange
corn
to
the
value
of
￡50.
A
has
converted
his
￡40
into
￡50,
has
made
more
money
out
of
less,
and
has
converted
his
commodities
into
capital.
Let
us
examine
this
a
little
more
closely.
Before
the
exchange
we
had
￡40
worth
of
wine
in
the
hands
of
A,
and￡50
worth
of
corn
in
those
of
B,
a
total
value
of
￡90.
After
the
exchange
we
have
still
the
same
total
value
of
￡90.
The
value
in
circulation
has
not
increased
by
one
iota,
it
is
only
distributed
differently
between
A
and
B.
What
is
a
loss
of
value
to
B
is
surplus-value
to
A;
what
is
\"minus\"
to
one
is
\"plus\"
to
the
other.
The
same
change
would
have
taken
place,
if
A,
without
the
formality
of
an
exchange,
had
directly
stolen
the￡10
from
B.
The
sum
of
the
values
in
circulation
can
clearly
not
be
augmented
by
any
change
in
their
distribution,
any
more
than
the
quantity
of
the
precious
metals
in
a
country
by
a
Jew
selling
a
Queen
Anne's
farthing
for
a
guinea.
The
capitalist
class,
as
a
whole,in
any
country,
cannot
over-reach
themselves.17
Turn
and
twist
then
as
we
may,
the
fact
remains
unaltered.
If
equivalents
are
exchanged,
no
surplus
value
results,
and
if
non-equivalents
are
exchanged,still
no
surplus-value.18Circulation,
or
the
exchange
of
commodities,
begets
no
value.19
The
reason
is
now
therefore
plain
why,
in
analysing
the
standard
form
of
capital,
the
form
under
which
it
determines
the
economic
organisation
of
modern
society,
we
entirely
left
out
of
consideration
its
most
popular,
and,
so
to
say,
antediluvian
forms,
merchants'capital
and
money-lenders'
capital.
The
circuit
M-C-M,
buying
in
order
to
sell
dearer,is
seen
most
clearly
in
genuine
merchants'
capital.But
the
movement
takes
place
entirely
within
the
sphere
of
circulation.
Since,
however,
it
is
impossible,by
circulation
alone,
to
account
for
the
conversion
of
money
into
capital,
for
the
formation
of
surplus
value,
it
would
appear,
that
merchants'
capital
is
an
impossibility,
so
long
as
equivalents
are
exchanged;20that,
therefore,
it
can
only
have
its
origin
in
the
two
fold
advantage
gained,
over
both
the
selling
and
the
buying
producers,
by
the
merchant
who
parasitically
shoves
himself
in
between
them.
It
is
in
this
sense
that
Franklin
says,
\"war
is
robbery,
commerce
is
generally
cheating.\"21If
the
transformation
of
merchants'
money
into
capital
is
to
be
explained
otherwise
than
by
the
producers
being
simply
cheated,
a
long
series
of
intermediate
steps
would
be
necessary,
which,
at
present,
when
the
simple
circulation
of
commodities
forms
our
only
assumption,
are
entirely
wanting.
What
we
have
said
with
reference
to
merchants'capital,
applies
still
more
to
money-lenders'capital.
In
merchants'
capital,
the
two
extremes,the
money
that
is
thrown
upon
the
market,
and
the
augmented
money
that
is
withdrawn
from
the
market,
are
at
least
connected
by
a
purchase
and
a
sale,
in
other
words
by
the
movement
of
the
circulation.
In
money-lenders'
capital
the
form
M-C-M
is
reduced
to
the
two
extremes
without
a
mean,
M-M
,
money
exchanged
for
more
money,
a
form
that
is
incompatible
with
the
nature
of
money,
and
therefore
remains
inexplicable
from
the
standpoint
of
the
circulation
of
commodities.
Hence
Aristotle:
\"since
chrematistic
is
a
double
science,
one
part
belonging
to
commerce,
the
other
to
economic,
the
latter
being
necessary
and
praiseworthy,
the
former
based
on
circulation
and
with
justice
disapproved
(for
it
is
not
based
on
Nature,
but
on
mutual
cheating),
therefore
the
usurer
is
most
rightly
hated,
because
money
itself
is
the
source
of
his
gain,
and
is
not
used
for
the
purposes
for
which
it
was
invented.
For
it
originated
for
the
exchange
of
commodities,
but
interest
makes
out
of
money,
more
money.
Hence
its
name
(τοκο
interest
and
offspring).
For
the
begotten
are
like
those
who
beget
them.
But
interest
is
money
of
money,
so
that
of
all
modes
of
making
a
living,
this
is
the
most
contrary
to
Nature.\"22
In
the
course
of
our
investigation,
we
shall
find
that
both
merchants'
capital
and
interest-bearing
capital
are
derivative
forms,
and
at
the
same
time
it
will
become
clear,
why
these
two
forms
appear
in
the
course
of
history
before
the
modern
standard
form
of
capital.
We
have
shown
that
surplus-value
cannot
be
created
by
circulation,
and,
therefore,
that
in
its
formation,something
must
take
place
in
the
background,which
is
not
apparent
in
the
circulation
itself.23But
can
surplus-value
possibly
originate
anywhere
else
than
in
circulation,
which
is
the
sum
total
of
all
the
mutual
relations
of
commodity-owners,
as
far
as
they
are
determined
by
their
commodities
Apart
from
circulation,
the
commodity-owner
is
in
relation
only
with
his
own
commodity.
So
far
as
regards
value,
that
relation
is
limited
to
this,
that
the
commodity
contains
a
quantity
of
his
own
labour,
that
quantity
being
measured
by
a
definite
social
standard.
This
quantity
is
expressed
by
the
value
of
the
commodity,
and
since
the
value
is
reckoned
in
money
of
account,
this
quantity
is
also
expressed
by
the
price,
which
we
will
suppose
to
be
￡10.
But
his
labour
is
not
represented
both
by
the
value
of
the
commodity,
and
by
a
surplus
over
that
value,
not
by
a
price
of
10
that
is
also
a
price
of
11,
not
by
a
value
that
is
greater
than
itself.
The
commodity
owner
can,
by
his
labour,
create
value,but
not
self-expanding
value.
He
can
increase
the
value
of
his
commodity,
by
adding
fresh
labour,
and
therefore
more
value
to
the
value
in
hand,
by
making,for
instance,
leather
into
boots.
The
same
material
has
now
more
value,
because
it
contains
a
greater
quantity
of
labour.
The
boots
have
therefore
more
value
than
the
leather,
but
the
value
of
the
leather
remains
what
it
was;
it
has
not
expanded
itself,
has
not,
during
the
making
of
the
boots,
annexed
surplus
value.
It
is
therefore
impossible
that
outside
the
sphere
of
circulation,
a
producer
of
commodities
can,
without
coming
into
contact
with
other
commodity-owners,expand
value,
and
consequently
convert
money
or
commodities
into
capital.
It
is
therefore
impossible
for
capital
to
be
produced
by
circulation,
and
it
is
equally
impossible
for
it
to
originate
apart
from
circulation.
It
must
have
its
origin
both
in
circulation
and
yet
not
in
circulation.
We
have,
therefore,
got
a
double
result.
The
conversion
of
money
into
capital
has
to
be
explained
on
the
basis
of
the
laws
that
regulate
the
exchange
of
commodities,
in
such
a
way
that
the
starting-point
is
the
exchange
of
equivalents.24Our
friend,
Moneybags,
who
as
yet
is
only
an
embryo
capitalist,
must
buy
his
commodities
at
their
value,must
sell
them
at
their
value,
and
yet
at
the
end
of
the
process
must
withdraw
more
value
from
circulation
than
he
threw
into
it
at
starting.
His
development
into
a
full-grown
capitalist
must
take
place,
both
within
the
sphere
of
circulation
and
without
it.
These
are
the
conditions
of
the
problem.
Hic
Rhodus,
hic
salta!
25
NOTES:
1\"L'échange
est
une
transaction
admirable
dans
laquelle
les
deux
contractants
gagnent
-
toujours
(!)\"
[\"Exchange
is
a
transaction
in
which
the
two
contracting
parties
always
gain,both
of
them
(!)\"]
(Destutt
de
Tracy:
\"Traité
de
la
Volonté
et
de
ses
effets.\"
Paris,
1826,
p.
68.)
This
work
appeared
afterwards
as
\"Traité
d'Econ.
Polit.\"
2\"Mercier
de
la
Rivière,\"
l.
c.,
p.
544.
3\"Que
l'une
de
ces
deux
valeurs
soit
argent,
ou
qu'elles
soient
toutes
deux
marchandises
usuelles,
rien
de
plus
indifférent
en
soi.\"
[\"Whether
one
of
those
two
values
is
money,
or
they
are
both
ordinary
commodities,
is
in
itself
a
matter
of
complete
indifference.\"]
(\"Mercier
de
la
Rivière,\"l.c.,
p.
543.)
4\"Ce
ne
sont
pas
les
contractants
qui
prononcent
sur
la
valeur;
elle
est
décidée
avant
la
convention.\"
[\"It
is
not
the
parties
to
a
contract
who
decide
on
the
value;
that
has
been
decided
before
the
contract.\"]
(Le
Trosne,
p.
906.)
5\"Dove
è
egualità
non
è
lucro.\"
(Galiani,
\"Della
Moneta
in
Custodi,
Parte
Moderna,\"
t.
iv.,
p.
244.)
6\"L'échange
devient
désavantageux
pour
l'une
des
parties,lorsque
quelque
chose
étrangère
vient
diminuer
ou
exagérer
le
prix;
alors
l'égalité
est
blessée,
mais
la
lésion
procède
de
cette
cause
et
non
de
l'échange.\"
[\"The
exchange
becomes
unfavourable
for
one
of
the
parties
when
some
external
circumstance
comes
to
lessen
or
increase
the
price;
then
equality
is
infringed,
but
this
infringement
arises
from
that
cause
and
not
from
the
exchange
itself.\"]
(Le
Trosne,
l.c.,
p.904.)
7\"L'échange
est
de
sa
nature
un
contrat
d'égalité
qui
se
fait
de
valeur
pour
valeur
égale.
Il
n'est
donc
pas
un
moyen
de
s'enrichir,
puisque
l'on
donne
autant
que
l'on
reoit.\"[\"Exchange
is
by
its
nature
a
contract
which
rests
on
equality,i.e.,
it
takes
place
between
two
equal
values,
and
it
is
not
a
means
of
self-enrichment,
since
as
much
is
given
as
is
received.\"]
(Le
Trosne,
l.c.,
p.
903.)
8Condillac:
\"Le
Commerce
et
le
Gouvernement\"
(1776).Edit.
Daire
et
Molinari
in
the
\"Mélanges
d'Econ.
Polit.\"
Paris,1847,
pp.
267,
291.
9Le
Trosne,
therefore,
answers
his
friend
Condillac
with
justice
as
follows:
\"Dans
une
...
société
formée
il
n'y
a
pas
de
surabondant
en
aucun
genre.\"
[\"In
a
developed
society
absolutely
nothing
is
superfluous.\"]
At
the
same
time,
in
a
bantering
way,
he
remarks:
\"If
both
the
persons
who
exchange
receive
more
to
an
equal
amount,
and
part
with
less
to
an
equal
amount,
they
both
get
the
same.\"
It
is
because
Condillac
has
not
the
remotest
idea
of
the
nature
of
exchange-value
that
he
has
been
chosen
by
Herr
Professor
Wilhelm
Roscher
as
a
proper
person
to
answer
for
the
soundness
of
his
own
childish
notions.
See
Roscher's
\"Die
Grundlagen
der
Nationalkonomie,Dritte
Auflage,\"
1858.
10S.
P.
Newman:
\"Elements
of
Polit.
Econ.\"
Andover
and
New
York,
1835,
p.
175.
11\"By
the
augmentation
of
the
nominal
value
of
the
produce...
sellers
not
enriched...
since
what
they
gain
as
sellers,they
precisely
expend
in
the
quality
of
buyers.\"
(\"The
Essential
Principles
of
the
Wealth
of
Nations.\"
&c.,
London,
1797,
p.66.)
12\"Si
l'on
est
forcé
de
donner
pour
18
livres
une
quantité
de
telle
production
qui
en
valait
24,
lorsqu'on
employera
ce
même
argent
à
acheter,
on
aura
également
pour
18
l.
ce
que
l'on
payait
24.\"
[\"If
one
is
compelled
to
sell
a
quantity
of
a
certain
product
for
18
livres
when
it
has
a
value
of
24
livres,
when
one
employs
the
same
amount
of
money
in
buying,
one
will
receive
for
18
livres
the
same
quantity
of
the
product
as
24
livres
would
have
bought
otherwise.\"]
(Le
Trosne,
I.
c.,
p.
897.)
13\"Chaque
vendeur
ne
peut
donc
parvenir
à
renchérir
habituellement
ses
marchandises,
qu'en
se
soumettant
aussi
à
payer
habituellement
plus
cher
les
marchandises
des
autres
vendeurs;
et
par
la
même
raison,
chaque
consommateur
ne
peut
payer
habituellement
moins
cher
ce
qu'il
achète,
qu'en
se
soumettant
aussi
à
une
diminution
semblable
sur
le
prix
des
choses
qu'il
vend.\"
[\"A
seller
can
normally
only
succeed
in
raising
the
prices
of
his
commodities
if
he
agrees
to
pay,
by
and
large,
more
for
the
commodities
of
the
other
sellers;
and
for
the
same
reason
a
consumer
can
normally
only
pay
less
for
his
purchases
if
he
submits
to
a
similar
reduction
in
the
prices
of
the
things
he
sells.\"]
(Mercier
de
la
Rivière,
l.c.,
p.
555.)
14Torrens.
\"An
Essay
on
the
Production
of
Wealth.\"London,
1821,
p.
349.
15\"The
idea
of
profits
being
paid
by
the
consumers,
is,assuredly,
very
absurd.
Who
are
the
consumers\"
(G.
Ramsay:\"An
Essay
on
the
Distribution
of
Wealth.\"
Edinburgh,
1836,
p.183.)
16\"When
a
man
is
in
want
of
a
demand,
does
Mr.
Malthus
recommend
him
to
pay
some
other
person
to
take
off
his
goods\"
is
a
question
put
by
an
angry
disciple
of
Ricardo
to
Malthus,
who,
like
his
disciple,
Parson
Chalmers,
economically
glorifies
this
class
of
simple
buyers
or
consumers.
(See
\"An
Inquiry
into
those
Principles
Respecting
the
Nature
of
Demand
and
the
Necessity
of
Consumption,
lately
advocated
by
Mr.Malthus,\"
&c.
Lond.,
1821,
p.
55.)
17Destutt
de
Tracy,
although,
or
perhaps
because,
he
was
a
member
of
the
Institute,
held
the
opposite
view.
He
says,industrial
capitalists
make
profits
because
\"they
all
sell
for
more
than
it
has
cost
to
produce.
And
to
whom
do
they
sell
In
the
first
instance
to
one
another.\"
(I.
c.,
p.
239.)
18\"L'échange
qui
se
fait
de
deux
valeurs
égales
n'augmente
ni
ne
diminue
la
masse
des
valeurs
subsistantes
dans
la
société.L'échange
de
deux
valeurs
inégales
...
ne
change
rien
non
plus
à
la
somme
des
valeurs
sociales,
bien
qu'il
ajoute
à
la
fortune
de
l'un
ce
qu'il
te
de
la
fortune
de
l'autre.\"
[\"The
exchange
of
two
equal
values
neither
increases
nor
diminishes
the
amount
of
the
values
available
in
society.
Nor
does
the
exchange
of
two
unequal
values
...
change
anything
in
the
sum
of
social
values,
although
it
adds
to
the
wealth
of
one
person
what
it
removes
from
the
wealth
of
another.\"]
(J.
B.
Say,
l.c.,
t.
II,
pp.443,
444.)
Say,
not
in
the
least
troubled
as
to
the
consequences
of
this
statement,
borrows
it,
almost
word
for
word,
from
the
Physiocrats.
The
following
example
will
show
how
Monsieur
Say
turned
to
account
the
writings
of
the
Physiocrats,
in
his
day
quite
forgotten,
for
the
purpose
of
expanding
the
\"value\"
of
his
own.
His
most
celebrated
saying,
\"On
n'achète
des
produits
qu'avec
des
produits\"
[\"Products
can
only
be
bought
with
products.\"](l.c.,
t.
II.
p.
441.)
runs
as
follows
in
the
original
physiocratic
work:
\"Les
productions
ne
se
paient
qu'avec
des
productions.\"
[\"Products
can
only
be
paid
for
with
products.\"](Le
Trosne,
l.c.,
p.
899.)
19\"Exchange
confers
no
value
at
all
upon
products.\"
(F.Wayland:
\"The
Elements
of
Political
Economy.\"
Boston,
1843,p.
169.)
20Under
the
rule
of
invariable
equivalents
commerce
would
be
impossible.
(G.
Opdyke:
\"A
Treatise
on
Polit.
Economy.\"New
York,
1851,
pp.
66-69.)
\"The
difference
between
real
value
and
exchange-value
is
based
upon
this
fact,
namely,
that
the
value
of
a
thing
is
different
from
the
so-called
equivalent
given
for
it
in
trade,
i.e.,
that
this
equivalent
is
no
equivalent.\"(F.
Engels,
l.c.,
p.
96).
21Benjamin
Franklin:
Works,
Vol.
II,
edit.
Sparks
in\"Positions
to
be
examined
concerning
National
Wealth,\"
p.376.
22Aristotle,
I.
c.,
c.
10.
23\"Profit,
in
the
usual
condition
of
the
market,
is
not
made
by
exchanging.
Had
it
not
existed
before,
neither
could
it
after
that
transaction.\"
(Ramsay,
l.c.,
p.
184.)
24From
the
foregoing
investigation,
the
reader
will
see
that
this
statement
only
means
that
the
formation
of
capital
must
be
possible
even
though
the
price
and
value
of
a
commodity
be
the
same;
for
its
formation
cannot
be
attributed
to
any
deviation
of
the
one
from
the
other.
If
prices
actually
differ
from
values,
we
must,
first
of
all,
reduce
the
former
to
the
latter,
in
other
words,treat
the
difference
as
accidental
in
order
that
the
phenomena
may
be
observed
in
their
purity,
and
our
observations
not
interfered
with
by
disturbing
circumstances
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
process
in
question.
We
know,
moreover,
that
this
reduction
is
no
mere
scientific
process.
The
continual
oscillations
in
prices,
their
rising
and
falling,
compensate
each
other,
and
reduce
themselves
to
an
average
price,
which
is
their
hidden
regulator.
It
forms
the
guiding
star
of
the
merchant
or
the
manufacturer
in
every
undertaking
that
requires
time.
He
knows
that
when
a
long
period
of
time
is
taken,
commodities
are
sold
neither
over
nor
under,
but
at
their
average
price.
If
therefore
he
thought
about
the
matter
at
all,
he
would
formulate
the
problem
of
the
formation
of
capital
as
follows:
How
can
we
account
for
the
origin
of
capital
on
the
supposition
that
prices
are
regulated
by
the
average
price,
i.
e.,
ultimately
by
the
value
of
the
commodities
I
say
\"ultimately,\"
because
average
prices
do
not
directly
coincide
with
the
values
of
commodities,
as
Adam
Smith,
Ricardo,
and
others
believe.
25\"Hic
Rhodus,
hic
saltus!\"
–
Latin,
usually
translated:\"Rhodes
is
here,
here
is
where
you
jump!\"
Originates
from
the
traditional
Latin
translation
of
the
punch
line
from
Aesop's
fable
The
Boastful
Athlete
which
has
been
the
subject
of
some
mistranslations.
In
Greek,
the
maxim
reads:
\"ιδο
η
ρδο,
ιδο
και
το
πδημα\"
The
story
is
that
an
athlete
boasts
that
when
in
Rhodes,
he
performed
a
stupendous
jump,
and
that
there
were
witnesses
who
could
back
up
his
story.
A
bystander
then
remarked,'Alright!
Let's
say
this
is
Rhodes,
demonstrate
the
jump
here
and
now.'
The
fable
shows
that
people
must
be
known
by
their
deeds,
not
by
their
own
claims
for
themselves.
In
the
context
in
which
Hegel
used
it
in
the
Philosophy
of
Right,
this
could
be
taken
to
mean
that
the
philosophy
of
right
must
have
to
do
with
the
actuality
of
modern
society,
not
the
theories
and
ideals
that
societies
create
for
themselves,
nor,
as
Hegel
goes
on
to
say,
to\"teach
the
world
what
it
ought
to
be.\"
The
epigram
is
given
by
Hegel
first
in
Greek,
then
in
Latin(in
the
form
\"
Hic
Rhodus,
hic
saltus\"),
and
he
then
says:
\"With
little
change,
the
above
saying
would
read
(in
German):
\"
Hier
ist
die
Rose,
hier
tanze\":
\"Here
is
the
rose,
dance
here\"
This
is
taken
to
be
an
allusion
to
the
'rose
in
the
cross'
of
the
Rosicrucians
(who
claimed
to
possess
esoteric
knowledge
with
which
they
could
transform
social
life),
implying
that
the
material
for
understanding
and
changing
society
is
given
in
society
itself,
not
in
some
other-worldly
theory,
punning
first
on
the
Greek
(
Rhodos
=
Rhodes,
rhodon
=
rose),
then
on
the
Latin
(
saltus
=
jump
[noun],
salta
=
dance
[imperative]).
[MIA
Editors.]
精選分類
