IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SECTION 3: THE FORM OF VALUE OR EXCHANGE-VALUE
COMMODITIES COME INTO THE WORLD IN THE SHAPE OF USE VALUES, ARTICLES, OR GOODS, SUCH AS IRON,
LINEN, CORN, &C. THIS IS THEIR PLAIN, HOMELY, BODILY FORM. THEY ARE, HOWEVER, COMMODITIES, ONLY
BECAUSE THEY ARE SOMETHING TWO-FOLD, BOTH OBJECTS OF UTILITY, AND, AT THE SAME TIME, DEPOSITORIES OF
VALUE. THEY MANIFEST THEMSELVES THEREFORE AS COMMODITIES, OR HAVE THE FORM OF COMMODITIES,
ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY HAVE TWO FORMS, A PHYSICAL OR NATURAL FORM, AND A VALUE FORM.
THE REALITY OF THE VALUE OF COMMODITIES DIFFERS IN THIS RESPECT FROM DAME QUICKLY, THAT WE DON’T
KNOW “WHERE TO HAVE IT.” THE VALUE OF COMMODITIES IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF THE COARSE MATERIALITY
OF THEIR SUBSTANCE, NOT AN ATOM OF MATTER ENTERS INTO ITS COMPOSITION. TURN AND EXAMINE A SINGLE
COMMODITY, BY ITSELF, AS WE WILL, YET IN SO FAR AS IT REMAINS AN OBJECT OF VALUE, IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE
TO GRASP IT. IF, HOWEVER, WE BEAR IN MIND THAT THE VALUE OF COMMODITIES HAS A PURELY SOCIAL REALITY,
AND THAT THEY ACQUIRE THIS REALITY ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE EXPRESSIONS OR EMBODIMENTS OF ONE
IDENTICAL SOCIAL SUBSTANCE, VIZ., HUMAN LABOUR, IT FOLLOWS AS A MATTER OF COURSE, THAT VALUE CAN ONLY
MANIFEST ITSELF IN THE SOCIAL RELATION OF COMMODITY TO COMMODITY. IN FACT WE STARTED FROM
EXCHANGE VALUE, OR THE EXCHANGE RELATION OF COMMODITIES, IN ORDER TO GET AT THE VALUE THAT LIES
HIDDEN BEHIND IT. WE MUST NOW RETURN TO THIS FORM UNDER WHICH VALUE FIRST APPEARED TO US.
EVERY ONE KNOWS, IF HE KNOWS NOTHING ELSE, THAT COMMODITIES HAVE A VALUE FORM COMMON TO THEM
ALL, AND PRESENTING A MARKED CONTRAST WITH THE VARIED BODILY FORMS OF THEIR USE VALUES. I MEAN THEIR
MONEY FORM. HERE, HOWEVER, A TASK IS SET US, THE PERFORMANCE OF WHICH HAS NEVER YET EVEN BEEN
ATTEMPTED BY BOURGEOIS ECONOMY, THE TASK OF TRACING THE GENESIS OF THIS MONEY FORM, OF
34 CHAPTER 1
DEVELOPING THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE IMPLIED IN THE VALUE RELATION OF COMMODITIES, FROM ITS
SIMPLEST, ALMOST IMPERCEPTIBLE OUTLINE, TO THE DAZZLING MONEY-FORM. BY DOING THIS WE SHALL, AT THE
SAME TIME, SOLVE THE RIDDLE PRESENTED BY MONEY.
THE SIMPLEST VALUE-RELATION IS EVIDENTLY THAT OF ONE COMMODITY TO SOME ONE OTHER COMMODITY OF A
DIFFERENT KIND. HENCE THE RELATION BETWEEN THE VALUES OF TWO COMMODITIES SUPPLIES US WITH THE
SIMPLEST EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF A SINGLE COMMODITY.
A. ELEMENTARY OR ACCIDENTAL FORM OF VALUE
X COMMODITY A = Y COMMODITY B, OR
X COMMODITY A IS WORTH Y COMMODITY B.
20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, OR
20 YARDS OF LINEN ARE WORTH 1 COAT.
1. THE TWO POLES OF THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE. RELATIVE FORM AND EQUIVALENT
FORM
THE WHOLE MYSTERY OF THE FORM OF VALUE LIES HIDDEN IN THIS ELEMENTARY FORM. ITS ANALYSIS,
THEREFORE, IS OUR REAL DIFFICULTY.
HERE TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMODITIES (IN OUR EXAMPLE THE LINEN AND THE COAT), EVIDENTLY PLAY
TWO DIFFERENT PARTS. THE LINEN EXPRESSES ITS VALUE IN THE COAT; THE COAT SERVES AS THE MATERIAL IN
WHICH THAT VALUE IS EXPRESSED. THE FORMER PLAYS AN ACTIVE, THE LATTER A PASSIVE, PART. THE VALUE OF
THE LINEN IS REPRESENTED AS RELATIVE VALUE, OR APPEARS IN RELATIVE FORM. THE COAT OFFICIATES AS
EQUIVALENT, OR APPEARS IN EQUIVALENT FORM.
THE RELATIVE FORM AND THE EQUIVALENT FORM ARE TWO INTIMATELY CONNECTED, MUTUALLY DEPENDENT AND
INSEPARABLE ELEMENTS OF THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE; BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE,
ANTAGONISTIC EXTREMES – I.E., POLES OF THE SAME EXPRESSION. THEY ARE ALLOTTED RESPECTIVELY TO THE
TWO DIFFERENT COMMODITIES BROUGHT INTO RELATION BY THAT EXPRESSION. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXPRESS
THE VALUE OF LINEN IN LINEN. 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 20 YARDS OF LINEN IS NO EXPRESSION OF VALUE. ON THE
CONTRARY, SUCH AN EQUATION MERELY SAYS THAT 20 YARDS OF LINEN ARE NOTHING ELSE THAN 20 YARDS OF
LINEN, A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF THE USE VALUE LINEN. THE VALUE OF THE LINEN CAN THEREFORE BE EXPRESSED
ONLY RELATIVELY – I.E., IN SOME OTHER COMMODITY. THE RELATIVE FORM OF THE VALUE OF THE LINEN
PRESUPPOSES, THEREFORE, THE PRESENCE OF SOME OTHER COMMODITY – HERE THE COAT – UNDER THE FORM OF
AN EQUIVALENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COMMODITY THAT FIGURES AS THE EQUIVALENT CANNOT AT THE SAME
TIME ASSUME THE RELATIVE FORM. THAT SECOND COMMODITY IS NOT THE ONE WHOSE VALUE IS EXPRESSED.
ITS FUNCTION IS MERELY TO SERVE AS THE MATERIAL IN WHICH THE VALUE OF THE FIRST COMMODITY IS
EXPRESSED.
NO DOUBT, THE EXPRESSION 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, OR 20 YARDS OF LINEN ARE WORTH 1 COAT, IMPLIES
THE OPPOSITE RELATION. 1 COAT = 20 YARDS OF LINEN, OR 1 COAT IS WORTH 20 YARDS OF LINEN. BUT, IN THAT
CASE, I MUST REVERSE THE EQUATION, IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THE VALUE OF THE COAT RELATIVELY; AND SO SOON
AS I DO THAT THE LINEN BECOMES THE EQUIVALENT INSTEAD OF THE COAT. A SINGLE COMMODITY CANNOT,
THEREFORE, SIMULTANEOUSLY ASSUME, IN THE SAME EXPRESSION OF VALUE, BOTH FORMS. THE VERY POLARITY
OF THESE FORMS MAKES THEM MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
WHETHER, THEN, A COMMODITY ASSUMES THE RELATIVE FORM, OR THE OPPOSITE EQUIVALENT FORM, DEPENDS
ENTIRELY UPON ITS ACCIDENTAL POSITION IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE – THAT IS, UPON WHETHER IT IS THE
COMMODITY WHOSE VALUE IS BEING EXPRESSED OR THE COMMODITY IN WHICH VALUE IS BEING EXPRESSED.
2. THE RELATIVE FORM OF VALUE
(A.) THE NATURE AND IMPORT OF THIS FORM
35 CHAPTER 1
IN ORDER TO DISCOVER HOW THE ELEMENTARY EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY LIES HIDDEN IN THE
VALUE RELATION OF TWO COMMODITIES, WE MUST, IN THE FIRST PLACE, CONSIDER THE LATTER ENTIRELY APART
FROM ITS QUANTITATIVE ASPECT. THE USUAL MODE OF PROCEDURE IS GENERALLY THE REVERSE, AND IN THE
VALUE RELATION NOTHING IS SEEN BUT THE PROPORTION BETWEEN DEFINITE QUANTITIES OF TWO DIFFERENT SORTS
OF COMMODITIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED EQUAL TO EACH OTHER. IT IS APT TO BE FORGOTTEN THAT THE
MAGNITUDES OF DIFFERENT THINGS CAN BE COMPARED QUANTITATIVELY, ONLY WHEN THOSE MAGNITUDES ARE
EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF THE SAME UNIT. IT IS ONLY AS EXPRESSIONS OF SUCH A UNIT THAT THEY ARE OF THE
SAME DENOMINATION, AND THEREFORE COMMENSURABLE.17
WHETHER 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT OR = 20 COATS OR = X COATS – THAT IS, WHETHER A GIVEN QUANTITY OF
LINEN IS WORTH FEW OR MANY COATS, EVERY SUCH STATEMENT IMPLIES THAT THE LINEN AND COATS, AS
MAGNITUDES OF VALUE, ARE EXPRESSIONS OF THE SAME UNIT, THINGS OF THE SAME KIND. LINEN = COAT IS THE
BASIS OF THE EQUATION.
BUT THE TWO COMMODITIES WHOSE IDENTITY OF QUALITY IS THUS ASSUMED, DO NOT PLAY THE SAME PART. IT
IS ONLY THE VALUE OF THE LINEN THAT IS EXPRESSED. AND HOW? BY ITS REFERENCE TO THE COAT AS ITS
EQUIVALENT, AS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE EXCHANGED FOR IT. IN THIS RELATION THE COAT IS THE MODE OF
EXISTENCE OF VALUE, IS VALUE EMBODIED, FOR ONLY AS SUCH IS IT THE SAME AS THE LINEN. ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE LINEN’S OWN VALUE COMES TO THE FRONT, RECEIVES INDEPENDENT EXPRESSION, FOR IT IS ONLY AS
BEING VALUE THAT IT IS COMPARABLE WITH THE COAT AS A THING OF EQUAL VALUE, OR EXCHANGEABLE WITH THE
COAT. TO BORROW AN ILLUSTRATION FROM CHEMISTRY, BUTYRIC ACID IS A DIFFERENT SUBSTANCE FROM PROPYL
FORMATE. YET BOTH ARE MADE UP OF THE SAME CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES, CARBON (C), HYDROGEN (H), AND
OXYGEN (O), AND THAT, TOO, IN LIKE PROPORTIONS – NAMELY, C4H8O2. IF NOW WE EQUATE BUTYRIC ACID TO
PROPYL FORMATE, THEN, IN THE FIRST PLACE, PROPYL FORMATE WOULD BE, IN THIS RELATION, MERELY A FORM OF
EXISTENCE OF C4H8O2; AND IN THE SECOND PLACE, WE SHOULD BE STATING THAT BUTYRIC ACID ALSO CONSISTS
OF C4H8O2. THEREFORE, BY THUS EQUATING THE TWO SUBSTANCES, EXPRESSION WOULD BE GIVEN TO THEIR
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION, WHILE THEIR DIFFERENT PHYSICAL FORMS WOULD BE NEGLECTED.
IF WE SAY THAT, AS VALUES, COMMODITIES ARE MERE CONGELATIONS OF HUMAN LABOUR, WE REDUCE THEM BY
OUR ANALYSIS, IT IS TRUE, TO THE ABSTRACTION, VALUE; BUT WE ASCRIBE TO THIS VALUE NO FORM APART FROM
THEIR BODILY FORM. IT IS OTHERWISE IN THE VALUE RELATION OF ONE COMMODITY TO ANOTHER. HERE, THE ONE
STANDS FORTH IN ITS CHARACTER OF VALUE BY REASON OF ITS RELATION TO THE OTHER.
BY MAKING THE COAT THE EQUIVALENT OF THE LINEN, WE EQUATE THE LABOUR EMBODIED IN THE FORMER TO
THAT IN THE LATTER. NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT THE TAILORING, WHICH MAKES THE COAT, IS CONCRETE LABOUR OF A
DIFFERENT SORT FROM THE WEAVING WHICH MAKES THE LINEN. BUT THE ACT OF EQUATING IT TO THE WEAVING,
REDUCES THE TAILORING TO THAT WHICH IS REALLY EQUAL IN THE TWO KINDS OF LABOUR, TO THEIR COMMON
CHARACTER OF HUMAN LABOUR. IN THIS ROUNDABOUT WAY, THEN, THE FACT IS EXPRESSED, THAT WEAVING ALSO,
IN SO FAR AS IT WEAVES VALUE, HAS NOTHING TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM TAILORING, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IS
ABSTRACT HUMAN LABOUR. IT IS THE EXPRESSION OF EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT SORTS OF COMMODITIES
THAT ALONE BRINGS INTO RELIEF THE SPECIFIC CHARACTER OF VALUE-CREATING LABOUR, AND THIS IT DOES BY
ACTUALLY REDUCING THE DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF LABOUR EMBODIED IN THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMODITIES
TO THEIR COMMON QUALITY OF HUMAN LABOUR IN THE ABSTRACT.18
THERE IS, HOWEVER, SOMETHING ELSE REQUIRED BEYOND THE EXPRESSION OF THE SPECIFIC CHARACTER OF THE
LABOUR OF WHICH THE VALUE OF THE LINEN CONSISTS. HUMAN LABOUR POWER IN MOTION, OR HUMAN LABOUR,
CREATES VALUE, BUT IS NOT ITSELF VALUE. IT BECOMES VALUE ONLY IN ITS CONGEALED STATE, WHEN EMBODIED
IN THE FORM OF SOME OBJECT. IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THE VALUE OF THE LINEN AS A CONGELATION OF HUMAN
LABOUR, THAT VALUE MUST BE EXPRESSED AS HAVING OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE, AS BEING A SOMETHING
MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LINEN ITSELF, AND YET A SOMETHING COMMON TO THE LINEN AND ALL OTHER
COMMODITIES. THE PROBLEM IS ALREADY SOLVED.
36 CHAPTER 1
WHEN OCCUPYING THE POSITION OF EQUIVALENT IN THE EQUATION OF VALUE, THE COAT RANKS QUALITATIVELY
AS THE EQUAL OF THE LINEN, AS SOMETHING OF THE SAME KIND, BECAUSE IT IS VALUE. IN THIS POSITION IT IS A
THING IN WHICH WE SEE NOTHING BUT VALUE, OR WHOSE PALPABLE BODILY FORM REPRESENTS VALUE. YET THE
COAT ITSELF, THE BODY OF THE COMMODITY, COAT, IS A MERE USE VALUE. A COAT AS SUCH NO MORE TELLS US IT
IS VALUE, THAN DOES THE FIRST PIECE OF LINEN WE TAKE HOLD OF. THIS SHOWS THAT WHEN PLACED IN VALUERELATION TO THE LINEN, THE COAT SIGNIFIES MORE THAN WHEN OUT OF THAT RELATION, JUST AS MANY A MAN
STRUTTING ABOUT IN A GORGEOUS UNIFORM COUNTS FOR MORE THAN WHEN IN MUFTI.
IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE COAT, HUMAN LABOUR POWER, IN THE SHAPE OF TAILORING, MUST HAVE BEEN
ACTUALLY EXPENDED. HUMAN LABOUR IS THEREFORE ACCUMULATED IN IT. IN THIS ASPECT THE COAT IS A
DEPOSITORY OF VALUE, BUT THOUGH WORN TO A THREAD, IT DOES NOT LET THIS FACT SHOW THROUGH. AND AS
EQUIVALENT OF THE LINEN IN THE VALUE EQUATION, IT EXISTS UNDER THIS ASPECT ALONE, COUNTS THEREFORE AS
EMBODIED VALUE, AS A BODY THAT IS VALUE. A, FOR INSTANCE, CANNOT BE “YOUR MAJESTY” TO B, UNLESS AT
THE SAME TIME MAJESTY IN B’S EYES ASSUMES THE BODILY FORM OF A, AND, WHAT IS MORE, WITH EVERY
NEW FATHER OF THE PEOPLE, CHANGES ITS FEATURES, HAIR, AND MANY OTHER THINGS BESIDES.
HENCE, IN THE VALUE EQUATION, IN WHICH THE COAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE LINEN, THE COAT OFFICIATES AS
THE FORM OF VALUE. THE VALUE OF THE COMMODITY LINEN IS EXPRESSED BY THE BODILY FORM OF THE
COMMODITY COAT, THE VALUE OF ONE BY THE USE VALUE OF THE OTHER. AS A USE VALUE, THE LINEN IS
SOMETHING PALPABLY DIFFERENT FROM THE COAT; AS VALUE, IT IS THE SAME AS THE COAT, AND NOW HAS THE
APPEARANCE OF A COAT. THUS THE LINEN ACQUIRES A VALUE FORM DIFFERENT FROM ITS PHYSICAL FORM. THE
FACT THAT IT IS VALUE, IS MADE MANIFEST BY ITS EQUALITY WITH THE COAT, JUST AS THE SHEEP’S NATURE OF A
CHRISTIAN IS SHOWN IN HIS RESEMBLANCE TO THE LAMB OF GOD.
WE SEE, THEN, ALL THAT OUR ANALYSIS OF THE VALUE OF COMMODITIES HAS ALREADY TOLD US, IS TOLD US BY
THE LINEN ITSELF, SO SOON AS IT COMES INTO COMMUNICATION WITH ANOTHER COMMODITY, THE COAT. ONLY IT
BETRAYS ITS THOUGHTS IN THAT LANGUAGE WITH WHICH ALONE IT IS FAMILIAR, THE LANGUAGE OF COMMODITIES.
IN ORDER TO TELL US THAT ITS OWN VALUE IS CREATED BY LABOUR IN ITS ABSTRACT CHARACTER OF HUMAN LABOUR,
IT SAYS THAT THE COAT, IN SO FAR AS IT IS WORTH AS MUCH AS THE LINEN, AND THEREFORE IS VALUE, CONSISTS OF
THE SAME LABOUR AS THE LINEN. IN ORDER TO INFORM US THAT ITS SUBLIME REALITY AS VALUE IS NOT THE SAME
AS ITS BUCKRAM BODY, IT SAYS THAT VALUE HAS THE APPEARANCE OF A COAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT SO FAR
AS THE LINEN IS VALUE, IT AND THE COAT ARE AS LIKE AS TWO PEAS. WE MAY HERE REMARK, THAT THE
LANGUAGE OF COMMODITIES HAS, BESIDES HEBREW, MANY OTHER MORE OR LESS CORRECT DIALECTS. THE
GERMAN “WERTSEIN,” TO BE WORTH, FOR INSTANCE, EXPRESSES IN A LESS STRIKING MANNER THAN THE
ROMANCE VERBS “VALERE,” “VALER,” “VALOIR,” THAT THE EQUATING OF COMMODITY B TO COMMODITY A, IS
COMMODITY A’S OWN MODE OF EXPRESSING ITS VALUE. PARIS VAUT BIEN UNE MESSE. [PARIS IS CERTAINLY
WORTH A MASS]
BY MEANS, THEREFORE, OF THE VALUE-RELATION EXPRESSED IN OUR EQUATION, THE BODILY FORM OF
COMMODITY B BECOMES THE VALUE FORM OF COMMODITY A, OR THE BODY OF COMMODITY B ACTS AS A
MIRROR TO THE VALUE OF COMMODITY A.19 BY PUTTING ITSELF IN RELATION WITH COMMODITY B, AS VALUE IN
PROPRIÂ PERSONÂ, AS THE MATTER OF WHICH HUMAN LABOUR IS MADE UP, THE COMMODITY A CONVERTS THE
VALUE IN USE, B, INTO THE SUBSTANCE IN WHICH TO EXPRESS ITS, A’S, OWN VALUE. THE VALUE OF A, THUS
EXPRESSED IN THE USE VALUE OF B, HAS TAKEN THE FORM OF RELATIVE VALUE.
(B.) QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF RELATIVE VALUE
EVERY COMMODITY, WHOSE VALUE IT IS INTENDED TO EXPRESS, IS A USEFUL OBJECT OF GIVEN QUANTITY, AS 15
BUSHELS OF CORN, OR 100 LBS OF COFFEE. AND A GIVEN QUANTITY OF ANY COMMODITY CONTAINS A DEFINITE
QUANTITY OF HUMAN LABOUR. THE VALUE FORM MUST THEREFORE NOT ONLY EXPRESS VALUE GENERALLY, BUT
ALSO VALUE IN DEFINITE QUANTITY. THEREFORE, IN THE VALUE RELATION OF COMMODITY A TO COMMODITY B,
OF THE LINEN TO THE COAT, NOT ONLY IS THE LATTER, AS VALUE IN GENERAL, MADE THE EQUAL IN QUALITY OF THE
37 CHAPTER 1
LINEN, BUT A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF COAT (1 COAT) IS MADE THE EQUIVALENT OF A DEFINITE QUANTITY (20
YARDS) OF LINEN.
THE EQUATION, 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, OR 20 YARDS OF LINEN ARE WORTH ONE COAT, IMPLIES THAT THE
SAME QUANTITY OF VALUE SUBSTANCE (CONGEALED LABOUR) IS EMBODIED IN BOTH; THAT THE TWO
COMMODITIES HAVE EACH COST THE SAME AMOUNT OF LABOUR OF THE SAME QUANTITY OF LABOUR TIME. BUT
THE LABOUR TIME NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 20 YARDS OF LINEN OR 1 COAT VARIES WITH EVERY
CHANGE IN THE PRODUCTIVENESS OF WEAVING OR TAILORING. WE HAVE NOW TO CONSIDER THE INFLUENCE OF
SUCH CHANGES ON THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECT OF THE RELATIVE EXPRESSION OF VALUE.
I. LET THE VALUE OF THE LINEN VARY,20 THAT OF THE COAT REMAINING CONSTANT. IF, SAY IN CONSEQUENCE
OF THE EXHAUSTION OF FLAX-GROWING SOIL, THE LABOUR TIME NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE LINEN
BE DOUBLED, THE VALUE OF THE LINEN WILL ALSO BE DOUBLED. INSTEAD OF THE EQUATION, 20 YARDS OF LINEN
= 1 COAT, WE SHOULD HAVE 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 2 COATS, SINCE 1 COAT WOULD NOW CONTAIN ONLY HALF THE
LABOUR TIME EMBODIED IN 20 YARDS OF LINEN. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, IN CONSEQUENCE, SAY, OF
IMPROVED LOOMS, THIS LABOUR TIME BE REDUCED BY ONE-HALF, THE VALUE OF THE LINEN WOULD FALL BY
ONE-HALF. CONSEQUENTLY, WE SHOULD HAVE 20 YARDS OF LINEN = ½ COAT. THE RELATIVE VALUE OF
COMMODITY A, I.E., ITS VALUE EXPRESSED IN COMMODITY B, RISES AND FALLS DIRECTLY AS THE VALUE OF A,
THE VALUE OF B BEING SUPPOSED CONSTANT.
II. LET THE VALUE OF THE LINEN REMAIN CONSTANT, WHILE THE VALUE OF THE COAT VARIES. IF, UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN CONSEQUENCE, FOR INSTANCE, OF A POOR CROP OF WOOL, THE LABOUR TIME
NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A COAT BECOMES DOUBLED, WE HAVE INSTEAD OF 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1
COAT, 20 YARDS OF LINEN = ½ COAT. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE VALUE OF THE COAT SINKS BY ONE-HALF, THEN
20 YARDS OF LINEN = 2 COATS. HENCE, IF THE VALUE OF COMMODITY A REMAIN CONSTANT, ITS RELATIVE VALUE
EXPRESSED IN COMMODITY B RISES AND FALLS INVERSELY AS THE VALUE OF B.
IF WE COMPARE THE DIFFERENT CASES IN I AND II, WE SEE THAT THE SAME CHANGE OF MAGNITUDE IN RELATIVE
VALUE MAY ARISE FROM TOTALLY OPPOSITE CAUSES. THUS, THE EQUATION, 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT,
BECOMES 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 2 COATS, EITHER, BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE LINEN HAS DOUBLED, OR
BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE COAT HAS FALLEN BY ONE-HALF; AND IT BECOMES 20 YARDS OF LINEN = ½ COAT,
EITHER, BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE LINEN HAS FALLEN BY ONE-HALF, OR BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE COAT HAS
DOUBLED.
III. LET THE QUANTITIES OF LABOUR TIME RESPECTIVELY NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE LINEN AND
THE COAT VARY SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE SAME DIRECTION AND IN THE SAME PROPORTION. IN THIS CASE 20
YARDS OF LINEN CONTINUE EQUAL TO 1 COAT, HOWEVER MUCH THEIR VALUES MAY HAVE ALTERED. THEIR
CHANGE OF VALUE IS SEEN AS SOON AS THEY ARE COMPARED WITH A THIRD COMMODITY, WHOSE VALUE HAS
REMAINED CONSTANT. IF THE VALUES OF ALL COMMODITIES ROSE OR FELL SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND IN THE SAME
PROPORTION, THEIR RELATIVE VALUES WOULD REMAIN UNALTERED. THEIR REAL CHANGE OF VALUE WOULD APPEAR
FROM THE DIMINISHED OR INCREASED QUANTITY OF COMMODITIES PRODUCED IN A GIVEN TIME.
IV. THE LABOUR TIME RESPECTIVELY NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE LINEN AND THE COAT, AND
THEREFORE THE VALUE OF THESE COMMODITIES MAY SIMULTANEOUSLY VARY IN THE SAME DIRECTION, BUT AT
UNEQUAL RATES OR IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, OR IN OTHER WAYS. THE EFFECT OF ALL THESE POSSIBLE DIFFERENT
VARIATIONS, ON THE RELATIVE VALUE OF A COMMODITY, MAY BE DEDUCED FROM THE RESULTS OF I, II, AND III.
THUS REAL CHANGES IN THE MAGNITUDE OF VALUE ARE NEITHER UNEQUIVOCALLY NOR EXHAUSTIVELY REFLECTED
IN THEIR RELATIVE EXPRESSION, THAT IS, IN THE EQUATION EXPRESSING THE MAGNITUDE OF RELATIVE VALUE. THE
RELATIVE VALUE OF A COMMODITY MAY VARY, ALTHOUGH ITS VALUE REMAINS CONSTANT. ITS RELATIVE VALUE
MAY REMAIN CONSTANT, ALTHOUGH ITS VALUE VARIES; AND FINALLY, SIMULTANEOUS VARIATIONS IN THE
38 CHAPTER 1
MAGNITUDE OF VALUE AND IN THAT OF ITS RELATIVE EXPRESSION BY NO MEANS NECESSARILY CORRESPOND IN
AMOUNT.21
3. THE EQUIVALENT FORM OF VALUE
WE HAVE SEEN THAT COMMODITY A (THE LINEN), BY EXPRESSING ITS VALUE IN THE USE VALUE OF A
COMMODITY DIFFERING IN KIND (THE COAT), AT THE SAME TIME IMPRESSES UPON THE LATTER A SPECIFIC FORM
OF VALUE, NAMELY THAT OF THE EQUIVALENT. THE COMMODITY LINEN MANIFESTS ITS QUALITY OF HAVING A
VALUE BY THE FACT THAT THE COAT, WITHOUT HAVING ASSUMED A VALUE FORM DIFFERENT FROM ITS BODILY
FORM, IS EQUATED TO THE LINEN. THE FACT THAT THE LATTER THEREFORE HAS A VALUE IS EXPRESSED BY SAYING
THAT THE COAT IS DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE WITH IT. THEREFORE, WHEN WE SAY THAT A COMMODITY IS IN THE
EQUIVALENT FORM, WE EXPRESS THE FACT THAT IT IS DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE WITH OTHER COMMODITIES.
WHEN ONE COMMODITY, SUCH AS A COAT, SERVES AS THE EQUIVALENT OF ANOTHER, SUCH AS LINEN, AND COATS
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIRE THE CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTY OF BEING DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE WITH LINEN, WE ARE
FAR FROM KNOWING IN WHAT PROPORTION THE TWO ARE EXCHANGEABLE. THE VALUE OF THE LINEN BEING
GIVEN IN MAGNITUDE, THAT PROPORTION DEPENDS ON THE VALUE OF THE COAT. WHETHER THE COAT SERVES AS
THE EQUIVALENT AND THE LINEN AS RELATIVE VALUE, OR THE LINEN AS THE EQUIVALENT AND THE COAT AS RELATIVE
VALUE, THE MAGNITUDE OF THE COAT’S VALUE IS DETERMINED, INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS VALUE FORM, BY THE
LABOUR TIME NECESSARY FOR ITS PRODUCTION. BUT WHENEVER THE COAT ASSUMES IN THE EQUATION OF VALUE,
THE POSITION OF EQUIVALENT, ITS VALUE ACQUIRES NO QUANTITATIVE EXPRESSION; ON THE CONTRARY, THE
COMMODITY COAT NOW FIGURES ONLY AS A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF SOME ARTICLE.
FOR INSTANCE, 40 YARDS OF LINEN ARE WORTH – WHAT? 2 COATS. BECAUSE THE COMMODITY COAT HERE PLAYS
THE PART OF EQUIVALENT, BECAUSE THE USE-VALUE COAT, AS OPPOSED TO THE LINEN, FIGURES AS AN
EMBODIMENT OF VALUE, THEREFORE A DEFINITE NUMBER OF COATS SUFFICES TO EXPRESS THE DEFINITE QUANTITY
OF VALUE IN THE LINEN. TWO COATS MAY THEREFORE EXPRESS THE QUANTITY OF VALUE OF 40 YARDS OF LINEN,
BUT THEY CAN NEVER EXPRESS THE QUANTITY OF THEIR OWN VALUE. A SUPERFICIAL OBSERVATION OF THIS FACT,
NAMELY, THAT IN THE EQUATION OF VALUE, THE EQUIVALENT FIGURES EXCLUSIVELY AS A SIMPLE QUANTITY OF
SOME ARTICLE, OF SOME USE VALUE, HAS MISLED BAILEY, AS ALSO MANY OTHERS, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
HIM, INTO SEEING, IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE, MERELY A QUANTITATIVE RELATION. THE TRUTH BEING, THAT
WHEN A COMMODITY ACTS AS EQUIVALENT, NO QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF ITS VALUE IS EXPRESSED.
THE FIRST PECULIARITY THAT STRIKES US, IN CONSIDERING THE FORM OF THE EQUIVALENT, IS THIS: USE VALUE
BECOMES THE FORM OF MANIFESTATION, THE PHENOMENAL FORM OF ITS OPPOSITE, VALUE.
THE BODILY FORM OF THE COMMODITY BECOMES ITS VALUE FORM. BUT, MARK WELL, THAT THIS QUID PRO QUO
EXISTS IN THE CASE OF ANY COMMODITY B, ONLY WHEN SOME OTHER COMMODITY A ENTERS INTO A VALUE
RELATION WITH IT, AND THEN ONLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIS RELATION. SINCE NO COMMODITY CAN STAND IN
THE RELATION OF EQUIVALENT TO ITSELF, AND THUS TURN ITS OWN BODILY SHAPE INTO THE EXPRESSION OF ITS
OWN VALUE, EVERY COMMODITY IS COMPELLED TO CHOOSE SOME OTHER COMMODITY FOR ITS EQUIVALENT,
AND TO ACCEPT THE USE VALUE, THAT IS TO SAY, THE BODILY SHAPE OF THAT OTHER COMMODITY AS THE FORM OF
ITS OWN VALUE.
ONE OF THE MEASURES THAT WE APPLY TO COMMODITIES AS MATERIAL SUBSTANCES, AS USE VALUES, WILL
SERVE TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT. A SUGAR-LOAF BEING A BODY, IS HEAVY, AND THEREFORE HAS WEIGHT: BUT WE
CAN NEITHER SEE NOR TOUCH THIS WEIGHT. WE THEN TAKE VARIOUS PIECES OF IRON, WHOSE WEIGHT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED BEFOREHAND. THE IRON, AS IRON, IS NO MORE THE FORM OF MANIFESTATION OF WEIGHT, THAN IS
THE SUGAR-LOAF. NEVERTHELESS, IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THE SUGAR-LOAF AS SO MUCH WEIGHT, WE PUT IT INTO A
WEIGHT-RELATION WITH THE IRON. IN THIS RELATION, THE IRON OFFICIATES AS A BODY REPRESENTING NOTHING
BUT WEIGHT. A CERTAIN QUANTITY OF IRON THEREFORE SERVES AS THE MEASURE OF THE WEIGHT OF THE SUGAR,
AND REPRESENTS, IN RELATION TO THE SUGAR-LOAF, WEIGHT EMBODIED, THE FORM OF MANIFESTATION OF
WEIGHT. THIS PART IS PLAYED BY THE IRON ONLY WITHIN THIS RELATION, INTO WHICH THE SUGAR OR ANY OTHER
39 CHAPTER 1
BODY, WHOSE WEIGHT HAS TO BE DETERMINED, ENTERS WITH THE IRON. WERE THEY NOT BOTH HEAVY, THEY
COULD NOT ENTER INTO THIS RELATION, AND THE ONE COULD THEREFORE NOT SERVE AS THE EXPRESSION OF THE
WEIGHT OF THE OTHER. WHEN WE THROW BOTH INTO THE SCALES, WE SEE IN REALITY, THAT AS WEIGHT THEY ARE
BOTH THE SAME, AND THAT, THEREFORE, WHEN TAKEN IN PROPER PROPORTIONS, THEY HAVE THE SAME WEIGHT.
JUST AS THE SUBSTANCE IRON, AS A MEASURE OF WEIGHT, REPRESENTS IN RELATION TO THE SUGAR-LOAF WEIGHT
ALONE, SO, IN OUR EXPRESSION OF VALUE, THE MATERIAL OBJECT, COAT, IN RELATION TO THE LINEN, REPRESENTS
VALUE ALONE.
HERE, HOWEVER, THE ANALOGY CEASES. THE IRON, IN THE EXPRESSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE SUGAR-LOAF,
REPRESENTS A NATURAL PROPERTY COMMON TO BOTH BODIES, NAMELY THEIR WEIGHT; BUT THE COAT, IN THE
EXPRESSION OF VALUE OF THE LINEN, REPRESENTS A NON-NATURAL PROPERTY OF BOTH, SOMETHING PURELY
SOCIAL, NAMELY, THEIR VALUE.
SINCE THE RELATIVE FORM OF VALUE OF A COMMODITY – THE LINEN, FOR EXAMPLE – EXPRESSES THE VALUE OF
THAT COMMODITY, AS BEING SOMETHING WHOLLY DIFFERENT FROM ITS SUBSTANCE AND PROPERTIES, AS BEING,
FOR INSTANCE, COAT-LIKE, WE SEE THAT THIS EXPRESSION ITSELF INDICATES THAT SOME SOCIAL RELATION LIES AT
THE BOTTOM OF IT. WITH THE EQUIVALENT FORM IT IS JUST THE CONTRARY. THE VERY ESSENCE OF THIS FORM IS
THAT THE MATERIAL COMMODITY ITSELF – THE COAT – JUST AS IT IS, EXPRESSES VALUE, AND IS ENDOWED WITH
THE FORM OF VALUE BY NATURE ITSELF. OF COURSE THIS HOLDS GOOD ONLY SO LONG AS THE VALUE RELATION
EXISTS, IN WHICH THE COAT STANDS IN THE POSITION OF EQUIVALENT TO THE LINEN.22 SINCE, HOWEVER, THE
PROPERTIES OF A THING ARE NOT THE RESULT OF ITS RELATIONS TO OTHER THINGS, BUT ONLY MANIFEST THEMSELVES
IN SUCH RELATIONS, THE COAT SEEMS TO BE ENDOWED WITH ITS EQUIVALENT FORM, ITS PROPERTY OF BEING
DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE, JUST AS MUCH BY NATURE AS IT IS ENDOWED WITH THE PROPERTY OF BEING HEAVY,
OR THE CAPACITY TO KEEP US WARM. HENCE THE ENIGMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM WHICH
ESCAPES THE NOTICE OF THE BOURGEOIS POLITICAL ECONOMIST, UNTIL THIS FORM, COMPLETELY DEVELOPED,
CONFRONTS HIM IN THE SHAPE OF MONEY. HE THEN SEEKS TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE MYSTICAL CHARACTER OF
GOLD AND SILVER, BY SUBSTITUTING FOR THEM LESS DAZZLING COMMODITIES, AND BY RECITING, WITH EVER
RENEWED SATISFACTION, THE CATALOGUE OF ALL POSSIBLE COMMODITIES WHICH AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER HAVE
PLAYED THE PART OF EQUIVALENT. HE HAS NOT THE LEAST SUSPICION THAT THE MOST SIMPLE EXPRESSION OF
VALUE, SUCH AS 20 YDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, ALREADY PROPOUNDS THE RIDDLE OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM FOR
OUR SOLUTION.
THE BODY OF THE COMMODITY THAT SERVES AS THE EQUIVALENT, FIGURES AS THE MATERIALISATION OF HUMAN
LABOUR IN THE ABSTRACT, AND IS AT THE SAME TIME THE PRODUCT OF SOME SPECIFICALLY USEFUL CONCRETE
LABOUR. THIS CONCRETE LABOUR BECOMES, THEREFORE, THE MEDIUM FOR EXPRESSING ABSTRACT HUMAN
LABOUR. IF ON THE ONE HAND THE COAT RANKS AS NOTHING BUT THE EMBODIMENT OF ABSTRACT HUMAN LABOUR,
SO, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TAILORING WHICH IS ACTUALLY EMBODIED IN IT, COUNTS AS NOTHING BUT THE
FORM UNDER WHICH THAT ABSTRACT LABOUR IS REALISED. IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE OF THE LINEN, THE
UTILITY OF THE TAILORING CONSISTS, NOT IN MAKING CLOTHES, BUT IN MAKING AN OBJECT, WHICH WE AT ONCE
RECOGNISE TO BE VALUE, AND THEREFORE TO BE A CONGELATION OF LABOUR, BUT OF LABOUR INDISTINGUISHABLE
FROM THAT REALISED IN THE VALUE OF THE LINEN. IN ORDER TO ACT AS SUCH A MIRROR OF VALUE, THE LABOUR OF
TAILORING MUST REFLECT NOTHING BESIDES ITS OWN ABSTRACT QUALITY OF BEING HUMAN LABOUR GENERALLY.
IN TAILORING, AS WELL AS IN WEAVING, HUMAN LABOUR POWER IS EXPENDED. BOTH, THEREFORE, POSSESS THE
GENERAL PROPERTY OF BEING HUMAN LABOUR, AND MAY, THEREFORE, IN CERTAIN CASES, SUCH AS IN THE
PRODUCTION OF VALUE, HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THIS ASPECT ALONE. THERE IS NOTHING MYSTERIOUS IN
THIS. BUT IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE THERE IS A COMPLETE TURN OF THE TABLES. FOR INSTANCE, HOW IS THE
FACT TO BE EXPRESSED THAT WEAVING CREATES THE VALUE OF THE LINEN, NOT BY VIRTUE OF BEING WEAVING, AS
SUCH, BUT BY REASON OF ITS GENERAL PROPERTY OF BEING HUMAN LABOUR? SIMPLY BY OPPOSING TO
WEAVING THAT OTHER PARTICULAR FORM OF CONCRETE LABOUR (IN THIS INSTANCE TAILORING), WHICH PRODUCES
THE EQUIVALENT OF THE PRODUCT OF WEAVING. JUST AS THE COAT IN ITS BODILY FORM BECAME A DIRECT
40 CHAPTER 1
EXPRESSION OF VALUE, SO NOW DOES TAILORING, A CONCRETE FORM OF LABOUR, APPEAR AS THE DIRECT AND
PALPABLE EMBODIMENT OF HUMAN LABOUR GENERALLY.
HENCE, THE SECOND PECULIARITY OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM IS, THAT CONCRETE LABOUR BECOMES THE FORM
UNDER WHICH ITS OPPOSITE, ABSTRACT HUMAN LABOUR, MANIFESTS ITSELF.
BUT BECAUSE THIS CONCRETE LABOUR, TAILORING IN OUR CASE, RANKS AS, AND IS DIRECTLY IDENTIFIED WITH,
UNDIFFERENTIATED HUMAN LABOUR, IT ALSO RANKS AS IDENTICAL WITH ANY OTHER SORT OF LABOUR, AND
THEREFORE WITH THAT EMBODIED IN THE LINEN. CONSEQUENTLY, ALTHOUGH, LIKE ALL OTHER COMMODITYPRODUCING LABOUR, IT IS THE LABOUR OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, YET, AT THE SAME TIME, IT RANKS AS LABOUR
DIRECTLY SOCIAL IN ITS CHARACTER. THIS IS THE REASON WHY IT RESULTS IN A PRODUCT DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE
WITH OTHER COMMODITIES. WE HAVE THEN A THIRD PECULIARITY OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM, NAMELY, THAT THE
LABOUR OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TAKES THE FORM OF ITS OPPOSITE, LABOUR DIRECTLY SOCIAL IN ITS FORM.
THE TWO LATTER PECULIARITIES OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM WILL BECOME MORE INTELLIGIBLE IF WE GO BACK TO
THE GREAT THINKER WHO WAS THE FIRST TO ANALYSE SO MANY FORMS, WHETHER OF THOUGHT, SOCIETY, OR
NATURE, AND AMONGST THEM ALSO THE FORM OF VALUE. I MEAN ARISTOTLE.
IN THE FIRST PLACE, HE CLEARLY ENUNCIATES THAT THE MONEY FORM OF COMMODITIES IS ONLY THE FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SIMPLE FORM OF VALUE – I.E., OF THE EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF ONE COMMODITY
IN SOME OTHER COMMODITY TAKEN AT RANDOM; FOR HE SAYS:
5 BEDS = 1 HOUSE (ΧΛΙΝΑΙ ΠΕΝΤΕ ΑΝΤΙ ΟΙΧΙΑΣ)
IS NOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM
5 BEDS = SO MUCH MONEY. (ΧΛΙΝΑΙ ΠΕΝΤΕ ΑΝΤΙ ... ΟΣΟΝ ΑΙ ΠΕΝΤΕ ΧΛΙΝΑΙ)
HE FURTHER SEES THAT THE VALUE RELATION WHICH GIVES RISE TO THIS EXPRESSION MAKES IT NECESSARY THAT
THE HOUSE SHOULD QUALITATIVELY BE MADE THE EQUAL OF THE BED, AND THAT, WITHOUT SUCH AN
EQUALISATION, THESE TWO CLEARLY DIFFERENT THINGS COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH EACH OTHER AS
COMMENSURABLE QUANTITIES. “EXCHANGE,” HE SAYS, “CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT EQUALITY, AND
EQUALITY NOT WITHOUT COMMENSURABILITY". (ΟΥΤ ΙΣΟΤΗΣ ΜΗ ΟΥΣΗΣ ΣΝΜΜΕΤΡΙΑΣ). HERE, HOWEVER,
HE COMES TO A STOP, AND GIVES UP THE FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE FORM OF VALUE. “IT IS, HOWEVER, IN
REALITY, IMPOSSIBLE (ΤΗ ΜΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΑΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ), THAT SUCH UNLIKE THINGS CAN BE
COMMENSURABLE” – I.E., QUALITATIVELY EQUAL. SUCH AN EQUALISATION CAN ONLY BE SOMETHING FOREIGN TO
THEIR REAL NATURE, CONSEQUENTLY ONLY “A MAKESHIFT FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES.”
ARISTOTLE THEREFORE, HIMSELF, TELLS US WHAT BARRED THE WAY TO HIS FURTHER ANALYSIS; IT WAS THE ABSENCE
OF ANY CONCEPT OF VALUE. WHAT IS THAT EQUAL SOMETHING, THAT COMMON SUBSTANCE, WHICH ADMITS OF
THE VALUE OF THE BEDS BEING EXPRESSED BY A HOUSE? SUCH A THING, IN TRUTH, CANNOT EXIST, SAYS
ARISTOTLE. AND WHY NOT? COMPARED WITH THE BEDS, THE HOUSE DOES REPRESENT SOMETHING EQUAL TO
THEM, IN SO FAR AS IT REPRESENTS WHAT IS REALLY EQUAL, BOTH IN THE BEDS AND THE HOUSE. AND THAT IS –
HUMAN LABOUR.
THERE WAS, HOWEVER, AN IMPORTANT FACT WHICH PREVENTED ARISTOTLE FROM SEEING THAT, TO ATTRIBUTE
VALUE TO COMMODITIES, IS MERELY A MODE OF EXPRESSING ALL LABOUR AS EQUAL HUMAN LABOUR, AND
CONSEQUENTLY AS LABOUR OF EQUAL QUALITY. GREEK SOCIETY WAS FOUNDED UPON SLAVERY, AND HAD,
THEREFORE, FOR ITS NATURAL BASIS, THE INEQUALITY OF MEN AND OF THEIR LABOUR POWERS. THE SECRET OF THE
EXPRESSION OF VALUE, NAMELY, THAT ALL KINDS OF LABOUR ARE EQUAL AND EQUIVALENT, BECAUSE, AND SO FAR
AS THEY ARE HUMAN LABOUR IN GENERAL, CANNOT BE DECIPHERED, UNTIL THE NOTION OF HUMAN EQUALITY HAS
ALREADY ACQUIRED THE FIXITY OF A POPULAR PREJUDICE. THIS, HOWEVER, IS POSSIBLE ONLY IN A SOCIETY IN
WHICH THE GREAT MASS OF THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR TAKES THE FORM OF COMMODITIES, IN WHICH,
CONSEQUENTLY, THE DOMINANT RELATION BETWEEN MAN AND MAN, IS THAT OF OWNERS OF COMMODITIES. THE
BRILLIANCY OF ARISTOTLE’S GENIUS IS SHOWN BY THIS ALONE, THAT HE DISCOVERED, IN THE EXPRESSION OF THE
41 CHAPTER 1
VALUE OF COMMODITIES, A RELATION OF EQUALITY. THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH HE
LIVED, ALONE PREVENTED HIM FROM DISCOVERING WHAT, “IN TRUTH,” WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EQUALITY.
4. THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE
THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE OF A COMMODITY IS CONTAINED IN THE EQUATION, EXPRESSING ITS VALUE
RELATION TO ANOTHER COMMODITY OF A DIFFERENT KIND, OR IN ITS EXCHANGE RELATION TO THE SAME. THE
VALUE OF COMMODITY A, IS QUALITATIVELY EXPRESSED, BY THE FACT THAT COMMODITY B IS DIRECTLY
EXCHANGEABLE WITH IT. ITS VALUE IS QUANTITATIVELY EXPRESSED BY THE FACT, THAT A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF B
IS EXCHANGEABLE WITH A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF A. IN OTHER WORDS, THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY OBTAINS
INDEPENDENT AND DEFINITE EXPRESSION, BY TAKING THE FORM OF EXCHANGE VALUE. WHEN, AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS CHAPTER, WE SAID, IN COMMON PARLANCE, THAT A COMMODITY IS BOTH A USE VALUE AND
AN EXCHANGE VALUE, WE WERE, ACCURATELY SPEAKING, WRONG. A COMMODITY IS A USE VALUE OR OBJECT OF
UTILITY, AND A VALUE. IT MANIFESTS ITSELF AS THIS TWO-FOLD THING, THAT IT IS, AS SOON AS ITS VALUE ASSUMES
AN INDEPENDENT FORM – VIZ., THE FORM OF EXCHANGE VALUE. IT NEVER ASSUMES THIS FORM WHEN ISOLATED,
BUT ONLY WHEN PLACED IN A VALUE OR EXCHANGE RELATION WITH ANOTHER COMMODITY OF A DIFFERENT KIND.
WHEN ONCE WE KNOW THIS, SUCH A MODE OF EXPRESSION DOES NO HARM; IT SIMPLY SERVES AS AN
ABBREVIATION.
OUR ANALYSIS HAS SHOWN, THAT THE FORM OR EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY ORIGINATES IN THE
NATURE OF VALUE, AND NOT THAT VALUE AND ITS MAGNITUDE ORIGINATE IN THE MODE OF THEIR EXPRESSION AS
EXCHANGE VALUE. THIS, HOWEVER, IS THE DELUSION AS WELL OF THE MERCANTILISTS AND THEIR RECENT
REVIVERS, FERRIER, GANILH,23 AND OTHERS, AS ALSO OF THEIR ANTIPODES, THE MODERN BAGMEN OF FREETRADE, SUCH AS BASTIAT. THE MERCANTILISTS LAY SPECIAL STRESS ON THE QUALITATIVE ASPECT OF THE
EXPRESSION OF VALUE, AND CONSEQUENTLY ON THE EQUIVALENT FORM OF COMMODITIES, WHICH ATTAINS ITS
FULL PERFECTION IN MONEY. THE MODERN HAWKERS OF FREE-TRADE, WHO MUST GET RID OF THEIR ARTICLE AT
ANY PRICE, ON THE OTHER HAND, LAY MOST STRESS ON THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECT OF THE RELATIVE FORM OF
VALUE. FOR THEM THERE CONSEQUENTLY EXISTS NEITHER VALUE, NOR MAGNITUDE OF VALUE, ANYWHERE EXCEPT
IN ITS EXPRESSION BY MEANS OF THE EXCHANGE RELATION OF COMMODITIES, THAT IS, IN THE DAILY LIST OF
PRICES CURRENT. MACLEOD, WHO HAS TAKEN UPON HIMSELF TO DRESS UP THE CONFUSED IDEAS OF LOMBARD
STREET IN THE MOST LEARNED FINERY, IS A SUCCESSFUL CROSS BETWEEN THE SUPERSTITIOUS MERCANTILISTS, AND
THE ENLIGHTENED FREE-TRADE BAGMEN.
A CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF A IN TERMS OF B, CONTAINED IN THE EQUATION
EXPRESSING THE VALUE RELATION OF A TO B, HAS SHOWN US THAT, WITHIN THAT RELATION, THE BODILY FORM OF
A FIGURES ONLY AS A USE VALUE, THE BODILY FORM OF B ONLY AS THE FORM OR ASPECT OF VALUE. THE
OPPOSITION OR CONTRAST EXISTING INTERNALLY IN EACH COMMODITY BETWEEN USE VALUE AND VALUE, IS,
THEREFORE, MADE EVIDENT EXTERNALLY BY TWO COMMODITIES BEING PLACED IN SUCH RELATION TO EACH
OTHER, THAT THE COMMODITY WHOSE VALUE IT IS SOUGHT TO EXPRESS, FIGURES DIRECTLY AS A MERE USE
VALUE, WHILE THE COMMODITY IN WHICH THAT VALUE IS TO BE EXPRESSED, FIGURES DIRECTLY AS MERE
EXCHANGE VALUE. HENCE THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE OF A COMMODITY IS THE ELEMENTARY FORM IN
WHICH THE CONTRAST CONTAINED IN THAT COMMODITY, BETWEEN USE VALUE AND VALUE, BECOMES APPARENT.
EVERY PRODUCT OF LABOUR IS, IN ALL STATES OF SOCIETY, A USE VALUE; BUT IT IS ONLY AT A DEFINITE HISTORICAL
EPOCH IN A SOCIETY’S DEVELOPMENT THAT SUCH A PRODUCT BECOMES A COMMODITY, VIZ., AT THE EPOCH
WHEN THE LABOUR SPENT ON THE PRODUCTION OF A USEFUL ARTICLE BECOMES EXPRESSED AS ONE OF THE
OBJECTIVE QUALITIES OF THAT ARTICLE, I.E., AS ITS VALUE. IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT THE ELEMENTARY VALUE
FORM IS ALSO THE PRIMITIVE FORM UNDER WHICH A PRODUCT OF LABOUR APPEARS HISTORICALLY AS A
COMMODITY, AND THAT THE GRADUAL TRANSFORMATION OF SUCH PRODUCTS INTO COMMODITIES, PROCEEDS PARI
PASSU WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VALUE FORM.
42 CHAPTER 1
WE PERCEIVE, AT FIRST SIGHT, THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE: IT IS A MERE GERM,
WHICH MUST UNDERGO A SERIES OF METAMORPHOSES BEFORE IT CAN RIPEN INTO THE PRICE FORM.
THE EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF COMMODITY A IN TERMS OF ANY OTHER COMMODITY B, MERELY
DISTINGUISHES THE VALUE FROM THE USE VALUE OF A, AND THEREFORE PLACES A MERELY IN A RELATION OF
EXCHANGE WITH A SINGLE DIFFERENT COMMODITY, B; BUT IT IS STILL FAR FROM EXPRESSING A’S QUALITATIVE
EQUALITY, AND QUANTITATIVE PROPORTIONALITY, TO ALL COMMODITIES. TO THE ELEMENTARY RELATIVE VALUE
FORM OF A COMMODITY, THERE CORRESPONDS THE SINGLE EQUIVALENT FORM OF ONE OTHER COMMODITY.
THUS, IN THE RELATIVE EXPRESSION OF VALUE OF THE LINEN, THE COAT ASSUMES THE FORM OF EQUIVALENT, OR
OF BEING DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE, ONLY IN RELATION TO A SINGLE COMMODITY, THE LINEN.
NEVERTHELESS, THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE PASSES BY AN EASY TRANSITION INTO A MORE COMPLETE
FORM. IT IS TRUE THAT BY MEANS OF THE ELEMENTARY FORM, THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY A, BECOMES
EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF ONE, AND ONLY ONE, OTHER COMMODITY. BUT THAT ONE MAY BE A COMMODITY OF
ANY KIND, COAT, IRON, CORN, OR ANYTHING ELSE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING AS A IS PLACED IN RELATION WITH
ONE OR THE OTHER, WE GET FOR ONE AND THE SAME COMMODITY, DIFFERENT ELEMENTARY EXPRESSIONS OF
VALUE.24 THE NUMBER OF SUCH POSSIBLE EXPRESSIONS IS LIMITED ONLY BY THE NUMBER OF THE DIFFERENT
KINDS OF COMMODITIES DISTINCT FROM IT. THE ISOLATED EXPRESSION OF A’S VALUE, IS THEREFORE
CONVERTIBLE INTO A SERIES, PROLONGED TO ANY LENGTH, OF THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTARY EXPRESSIONS OF THAT
VALUE.
B. TOTAL OR EXPANDED FORM OF VALUE
Z COM. A = U COM. B OR = V COM. C OR = W COM. D OR = COM. E OR = &C.
(20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT OR = 10 LBS TEA OR = 40 LBS. COFFEE OR
= 1 QUARTER CORN OR = 2 OUNCES GOLD OR = ½ TON IRON OR = &C.)
1. THE EXPANDED RELATIVE FORM OF VALUE
THE VALUE OF A SINGLE COMMODITY, THE LINEN, FOR EXAMPLE, IS NOW EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF NUMBERLESS
OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD OF COMMODITIES. EVERY OTHER COMMODITY NOW BECOMES A MIRROR OF THE
LINEN’S VALUE.25 IT IS THUS, THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, THIS VALUE SHOWS ITSELF IN ITS TRUE LIGHT AS A
CONGELATION OF UNDIFFERENTIATED HUMAN LABOUR. FOR THE LABOUR THAT CREATES IT, NOW STANDS EXPRESSLY
REVEALED, AS LABOUR THAT RANKS EQUALLY WITH EVERY OTHER SORT OF HUMAN LABOUR, NO MATTER WHAT ITS
FORM, WHETHER TAILORING, PLOUGHING, MINING, &C., AND NO MATTER, THEREFORE, WHETHER IT IS REALISED IN
COATS, CORN, IRON, OR GOLD. THE LINEN, BY VIRTUE OF THE FORM OF ITS VALUE, NOW STANDS IN A SOCIAL
RELATION, NO LONGER WITH ONLY ONE OTHER KIND OF COMMODITY, BUT WITH THE WHOLE WORLD OF
COMMODITIES. AS A COMMODITY, IT IS A CITIZEN OF THAT WORLD. AT THE SAME TIME, THE INTERMINABLE
SERIES OF VALUE EQUATIONS IMPLIES, THAT AS REGARDS THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY, IT IS A MATTER OF
INDIFFERENCE UNDER WHAT PARTICULAR FORM, OR KIND, OF USE VALUE IT APPEARS.
IN THE FIRST FORM, 20 YDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, IT MIGHT, FOR OUGHT THAT OTHERWISE APPEARS, BE PURE
ACCIDENT, THAT THESE TWO COMMODITIES ARE EXCHANGEABLE IN DEFINITE QUANTITIES. IN THE SECOND FORM,
ON THE CONTRARY, WE PERCEIVE AT ONCE THE BACKGROUND THAT DETERMINES, AND IS ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT
FROM, THIS ACCIDENTAL APPEARANCE. THE VALUE OF THE LINEN REMAINS UNALTERED IN MAGNITUDE, WHETHER
EXPRESSED IN COATS, COFFEE, OR IRON, OR IN NUMBERLESS DIFFERENT COMMODITIES, THE PROPERTY OF AS
MANY DIFFERENT OWNERS. THE ACCIDENTAL RELATION BETWEEN TWO INDIVIDUAL COMMODITY-OWNERS
DISAPPEARS. IT BECOMES PLAIN, THAT IT IS NOT THE EXCHANGE OF COMMODITIES WHICH REGULATES THE
MAGNITUDE OF THEIR VALUE; BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT IT IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THEIR VALUE WHICH
CONTROLS THEIR EXCHANGE PROPORTIONS.
43 CHAPTER 1
2. THE PARTICULAR EQUIVALENT FORM
EACH COMMODITY, SUCH AS, COAT, TEA, CORN, IRON, &C., FIGURES IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE OF THE LINEN,
AS AN EQUIVALENT, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, AS A THING THAT IS VALUE. THE BODILY FORM OF EACH OF THESE
COMMODITIES FIGURES NOW AS A PARTICULAR EQUIVALENT FORM, ONE OUT OF MANY. IN THE SAME WAY THE
MANIFOLD CONCRETE USEFUL KINDS OF LABOUR, EMBODIED IN THESE DIFFERENT COMMODITIES, RANK NOW AS
SO MANY DIFFERENT FORMS OF THE REALISATION, OR MANIFESTATION, OF UNDIFFERENTIATED HUMAN LABOUR.
3. DEFECTS OF THE TOTAL OR EXPANDED FORM OF VALUE
IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE RELATIVE EXPRESSION OF VALUE IS INCOMPLETE BECAUSE THE SERIES REPRESENTING IT
IS INTERMINABLE. THE CHAIN OF WHICH EACH EQUATION OF VALUE IS A LINK, IS LIABLE AT ANY MOMENT TO BE
LENGTHENED BY EACH NEW KIND OF COMMODITY THAT COMES INTO EXISTENCE AND FURNISHES THE MATERIAL
FOR A FRESH EXPRESSION OF VALUE. IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT IS A MANY-COLOURED MOSAIC OF DISPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT EXPRESSIONS OF VALUE. AND LASTLY, IF, AS MUST BE THE CASE, THE RELATIVE VALUE OF EACH
COMMODITY IN TURN, BECOMES EXPRESSED IN THIS EXPANDED FORM, WE GET FOR EACH OF THEM A RELATIVE
VALUE FORM, DIFFERENT IN EVERY CASE, AND CONSISTING OF AN INTERMINABLE SERIES OF EXPRESSIONS OF
VALUE. THE DEFECTS OF THE EXPANDED RELATIVE VALUE FORM ARE REFLECTED IN THE CORRESPONDING
EQUIVALENT FORM. SINCE THE BODILY FORM OF EACH SINGLE COMMODITY IS ONE PARTICULAR EQUIVALENT
FORM AMONGST NUMBERLESS OTHERS, WE HAVE, ON THE WHOLE, NOTHING BUT FRAGMENTARY EQUIVALENT
FORMS, EACH EXCLUDING THE OTHERS. IN THE SAME WAY, ALSO, THE SPECIAL, CONCRETE, USEFUL KIND OF
LABOUR EMBODIED IN EACH PARTICULAR EQUIVALENT, IS PRESENTED ONLY AS A PARTICULAR KIND OF LABOUR,
AND THEREFORE NOT AS AN EXHAUSTIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF HUMAN LABOUR GENERALLY. THE LATTER, INDEED,
GAINS ADEQUATE MANIFESTATION IN THE TOTALITY OF ITS MANIFOLD, PARTICULAR, CONCRETE FORMS. BUT, IN THAT
CASE, ITS EXPRESSION IN AN INFINITE SERIES IS EVER INCOMPLETE AND DEFICIENT IN UNITY.
THE EXPANDED RELATIVE VALUE FORM IS, HOWEVER, NOTHING BUT THE SUM OF THE ELEMENTARY RELATIVE
EXPRESSIONS OR EQUATIONS OF THE FIRST KIND, SUCH AS:
20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT
20 YARDS OF LINEN = 10 LBS OF TEA, ETC.
EACH OF THESE IMPLIES THE CORRESPONDING INVERTED EQUATION,
1 COAT = 20 YARDS OF LINEN
10 LBS OF TEA = 20 YARDS OF LINEN, ETC.
IN FACT, WHEN A PERSON EXCHANGES HIS LINEN FOR MANY OTHER COMMODITIES, AND THUS EXPRESSES ITS
VALUE IN A SERIES OF OTHER COMMODITIES, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS, THAT THE VARIOUS OWNERS OF THE LATTER
EXCHANGE THEM FOR THE LINEN, AND CONSEQUENTLY EXPRESS THE VALUE OF THEIR VARIOUS COMMODITIES IN
ONE AND THE SAME THIRD COMMODITY, THE LINEN. IF THEN, WE REVERSE THE SERIES, 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1
COAT OR = 10 LBS OF TEA, ETC., THAT IS TO SAY, IF WE GIVE EXPRESSION TO THE CONVERSE RELATION ALREADY
IMPLIED IN THE SERIES, WE GET,
C. THE GENERAL FORM OF VALUE
1 COAT
10 LBS OF TEA
40 LBS OF COFFEE
1 QUARTER OF CORN
2 OUNCES OF GOLD
½ A TON OF IRON
X COMMODITY A, ETC.
= 20 YARDS OF LINEN; VOLUME 1 SECTION 3 DAS KAPITAL
Caption this Meme
![Blank White Template | SECTION 3: THE FORM OF VALUE OR EXCHANGE-VALUE
COMMODITIES COME INTO THE WORLD IN THE SHAPE OF USE VALUES, ARTICLES, OR GOODS, SUCH AS IRON,
LINEN, CORN, &C. THIS IS THEIR PLAIN, HOMELY, BODILY FORM. THEY ARE, HOWEVER, COMMODITIES, ONLY
BECAUSE THEY ARE SOMETHING TWO-FOLD, BOTH OBJECTS OF UTILITY, AND, AT THE SAME TIME, DEPOSITORIES OF
VALUE. THEY MANIFEST THEMSELVES THEREFORE AS COMMODITIES, OR HAVE THE FORM OF COMMODITIES,
ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY HAVE TWO FORMS, A PHYSICAL OR NATURAL FORM, AND A VALUE FORM.
THE REALITY OF THE VALUE OF COMMODITIES DIFFERS IN THIS RESPECT FROM DAME QUICKLY, THAT WE DON’T
KNOW “WHERE TO HAVE IT.” THE VALUE OF COMMODITIES IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF THE COARSE MATERIALITY
OF THEIR SUBSTANCE, NOT AN ATOM OF MATTER ENTERS INTO ITS COMPOSITION. TURN AND EXAMINE A SINGLE
COMMODITY, BY ITSELF, AS WE WILL, YET IN SO FAR AS IT REMAINS AN OBJECT OF VALUE, IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE
TO GRASP IT. IF, HOWEVER, WE BEAR IN MIND THAT THE VALUE OF COMMODITIES HAS A PURELY SOCIAL REALITY,
AND THAT THEY ACQUIRE THIS REALITY ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE EXPRESSIONS OR EMBODIMENTS OF ONE
IDENTICAL SOCIAL SUBSTANCE, VIZ., HUMAN LABOUR, IT FOLLOWS AS A MATTER OF COURSE, THAT VALUE CAN ONLY
MANIFEST ITSELF IN THE SOCIAL RELATION OF COMMODITY TO COMMODITY. IN FACT WE STARTED FROM
EXCHANGE VALUE, OR THE EXCHANGE RELATION OF COMMODITIES, IN ORDER TO GET AT THE VALUE THAT LIES
HIDDEN BEHIND IT. WE MUST NOW RETURN TO THIS FORM UNDER WHICH VALUE FIRST APPEARED TO US.
EVERY ONE KNOWS, IF HE KNOWS NOTHING ELSE, THAT COMMODITIES HAVE A VALUE FORM COMMON TO THEM
ALL, AND PRESENTING A MARKED CONTRAST WITH THE VARIED BODILY FORMS OF THEIR USE VALUES. I MEAN THEIR
MONEY FORM. HERE, HOWEVER, A TASK IS SET US, THE PERFORMANCE OF WHICH HAS NEVER YET EVEN BEEN
ATTEMPTED BY BOURGEOIS ECONOMY, THE TASK OF TRACING THE GENESIS OF THIS MONEY FORM, OF
34 CHAPTER 1
DEVELOPING THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE IMPLIED IN THE VALUE RELATION OF COMMODITIES, FROM ITS
SIMPLEST, ALMOST IMPERCEPTIBLE OUTLINE, TO THE DAZZLING MONEY-FORM. BY DOING THIS WE SHALL, AT THE
SAME TIME, SOLVE THE RIDDLE PRESENTED BY MONEY.
THE SIMPLEST VALUE-RELATION IS EVIDENTLY THAT OF ONE COMMODITY TO SOME ONE OTHER COMMODITY OF A
DIFFERENT KIND. HENCE THE RELATION BETWEEN THE VALUES OF TWO COMMODITIES SUPPLIES US WITH THE
SIMPLEST EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF A SINGLE COMMODITY.
A. ELEMENTARY OR ACCIDENTAL FORM OF VALUE
X COMMODITY A = Y COMMODITY B, OR
X COMMODITY A IS WORTH Y COMMODITY B.
20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, OR
20 YARDS OF LINEN ARE WORTH 1 COAT.
1. THE TWO POLES OF THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE. RELATIVE FORM AND EQUIVALENT
FORM
THE WHOLE MYSTERY OF THE FORM OF VALUE LIES HIDDEN IN THIS ELEMENTARY FORM. ITS ANALYSIS,
THEREFORE, IS OUR REAL DIFFICULTY.
HERE TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMODITIES (IN OUR EXAMPLE THE LINEN AND THE COAT), EVIDENTLY PLAY
TWO DIFFERENT PARTS. THE LINEN EXPRESSES ITS VALUE IN THE COAT; THE COAT SERVES AS THE MATERIAL IN
WHICH THAT VALUE IS EXPRESSED. THE FORMER PLAYS AN ACTIVE, THE LATTER A PASSIVE, PART. THE VALUE OF
THE LINEN IS REPRESENTED AS RELATIVE VALUE, OR APPEARS IN RELATIVE FORM. THE COAT OFFICIATES AS
EQUIVALENT, OR APPEARS IN EQUIVALENT FORM.
THE RELATIVE FORM AND THE EQUIVALENT FORM ARE TWO INTIMATELY CONNECTED, MUTUALLY DEPENDENT AND
INSEPARABLE ELEMENTS OF THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE; BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE,
ANTAGONISTIC EXTREMES – I.E., POLES OF THE SAME EXPRESSION. THEY ARE ALLOTTED RESPECTIVELY TO THE
TWO DIFFERENT COMMODITIES BROUGHT INTO RELATION BY THAT EXPRESSION. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXPRESS
THE VALUE OF LINEN IN LINEN. 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 20 YARDS OF LINEN IS NO EXPRESSION OF VALUE. ON THE
CONTRARY, SUCH AN EQUATION MERELY SAYS THAT 20 YARDS OF LINEN ARE NOTHING ELSE THAN 20 YARDS OF
LINEN, A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF THE USE VALUE LINEN. THE VALUE OF THE LINEN CAN THEREFORE BE EXPRESSED
ONLY RELATIVELY – I.E., IN SOME OTHER COMMODITY. THE RELATIVE FORM OF THE VALUE OF THE LINEN
PRESUPPOSES, THEREFORE, THE PRESENCE OF SOME OTHER COMMODITY – HERE THE COAT – UNDER THE FORM OF
AN EQUIVALENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COMMODITY THAT FIGURES AS THE EQUIVALENT CANNOT AT THE SAME
TIME ASSUME THE RELATIVE FORM. THAT SECOND COMMODITY IS NOT THE ONE WHOSE VALUE IS EXPRESSED.
ITS FUNCTION IS MERELY TO SERVE AS THE MATERIAL IN WHICH THE VALUE OF THE FIRST COMMODITY IS
EXPRESSED.
NO DOUBT, THE EXPRESSION 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, OR 20 YARDS OF LINEN ARE WORTH 1 COAT, IMPLIES
THE OPPOSITE RELATION. 1 COAT = 20 YARDS OF LINEN, OR 1 COAT IS WORTH 20 YARDS OF LINEN. BUT, IN THAT
CASE, I MUST REVERSE THE EQUATION, IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THE VALUE OF THE COAT RELATIVELY; AND SO SOON
AS I DO THAT THE LINEN BECOMES THE EQUIVALENT INSTEAD OF THE COAT. A SINGLE COMMODITY CANNOT,
THEREFORE, SIMULTANEOUSLY ASSUME, IN THE SAME EXPRESSION OF VALUE, BOTH FORMS. THE VERY POLARITY
OF THESE FORMS MAKES THEM MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
WHETHER, THEN, A COMMODITY ASSUMES THE RELATIVE FORM, OR THE OPPOSITE EQUIVALENT FORM, DEPENDS
ENTIRELY UPON ITS ACCIDENTAL POSITION IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE – THAT IS, UPON WHETHER IT IS THE
COMMODITY WHOSE VALUE IS BEING EXPRESSED OR THE COMMODITY IN WHICH VALUE IS BEING EXPRESSED.
2. THE RELATIVE FORM OF VALUE
(A.) THE NATURE AND IMPORT OF THIS FORM
35 CHAPTER 1
IN ORDER TO DISCOVER HOW THE ELEMENTARY EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY LIES HIDDEN IN THE
VALUE RELATION OF TWO COMMODITIES, WE MUST, IN THE FIRST PLACE, CONSIDER THE LATTER ENTIRELY APART
FROM ITS QUANTITATIVE ASPECT. THE USUAL MODE OF PROCEDURE IS GENERALLY THE REVERSE, AND IN THE
VALUE RELATION NOTHING IS SEEN BUT THE PROPORTION BETWEEN DEFINITE QUANTITIES OF TWO DIFFERENT SORTS
OF COMMODITIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED EQUAL TO EACH OTHER. IT IS APT TO BE FORGOTTEN THAT THE
MAGNITUDES OF DIFFERENT THINGS CAN BE COMPARED QUANTITATIVELY, ONLY WHEN THOSE MAGNITUDES ARE
EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF THE SAME UNIT. IT IS ONLY AS EXPRESSIONS OF SUCH A UNIT THAT THEY ARE OF THE
SAME DENOMINATION, AND THEREFORE COMMENSURABLE.17
WHETHER 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT OR = 20 COATS OR = X COATS – THAT IS, WHETHER A GIVEN QUANTITY OF
LINEN IS WORTH FEW OR MANY COATS, EVERY SUCH STATEMENT IMPLIES THAT THE LINEN AND COATS, AS
MAGNITUDES OF VALUE, ARE EXPRESSIONS OF THE SAME UNIT, THINGS OF THE SAME KIND. LINEN = COAT IS THE
BASIS OF THE EQUATION.
BUT THE TWO COMMODITIES WHOSE IDENTITY OF QUALITY IS THUS ASSUMED, DO NOT PLAY THE SAME PART. IT
IS ONLY THE VALUE OF THE LINEN THAT IS EXPRESSED. AND HOW? BY ITS REFERENCE TO THE COAT AS ITS
EQUIVALENT, AS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE EXCHANGED FOR IT. IN THIS RELATION THE COAT IS THE MODE OF
EXISTENCE OF VALUE, IS VALUE EMBODIED, FOR ONLY AS SUCH IS IT THE SAME AS THE LINEN. ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE LINEN’S OWN VALUE COMES TO THE FRONT, RECEIVES INDEPENDENT EXPRESSION, FOR IT IS ONLY AS
BEING VALUE THAT IT IS COMPARABLE WITH THE COAT AS A THING OF EQUAL VALUE, OR EXCHANGEABLE WITH THE
COAT. TO BORROW AN ILLUSTRATION FROM CHEMISTRY, BUTYRIC ACID IS A DIFFERENT SUBSTANCE FROM PROPYL
FORMATE. YET BOTH ARE MADE UP OF THE SAME CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES, CARBON (C), HYDROGEN (H), AND
OXYGEN (O), AND THAT, TOO, IN LIKE PROPORTIONS – NAMELY, C4H8O2. IF NOW WE EQUATE BUTYRIC ACID TO
PROPYL FORMATE, THEN, IN THE FIRST PLACE, PROPYL FORMATE WOULD BE, IN THIS RELATION, MERELY A FORM OF
EXISTENCE OF C4H8O2; AND IN THE SECOND PLACE, WE SHOULD BE STATING THAT BUTYRIC ACID ALSO CONSISTS
OF C4H8O2. THEREFORE, BY THUS EQUATING THE TWO SUBSTANCES, EXPRESSION WOULD BE GIVEN TO THEIR
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION, WHILE THEIR DIFFERENT PHYSICAL FORMS WOULD BE NEGLECTED.
IF WE SAY THAT, AS VALUES, COMMODITIES ARE MERE CONGELATIONS OF HUMAN LABOUR, WE REDUCE THEM BY
OUR ANALYSIS, IT IS TRUE, TO THE ABSTRACTION, VALUE; BUT WE ASCRIBE TO THIS VALUE NO FORM APART FROM
THEIR BODILY FORM. IT IS OTHERWISE IN THE VALUE RELATION OF ONE COMMODITY TO ANOTHER. HERE, THE ONE
STANDS FORTH IN ITS CHARACTER OF VALUE BY REASON OF ITS RELATION TO THE OTHER.
BY MAKING THE COAT THE EQUIVALENT OF THE LINEN, WE EQUATE THE LABOUR EMBODIED IN THE FORMER TO
THAT IN THE LATTER. NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT THE TAILORING, WHICH MAKES THE COAT, IS CONCRETE LABOUR OF A
DIFFERENT SORT FROM THE WEAVING WHICH MAKES THE LINEN. BUT THE ACT OF EQUATING IT TO THE WEAVING,
REDUCES THE TAILORING TO THAT WHICH IS REALLY EQUAL IN THE TWO KINDS OF LABOUR, TO THEIR COMMON
CHARACTER OF HUMAN LABOUR. IN THIS ROUNDABOUT WAY, THEN, THE FACT IS EXPRESSED, THAT WEAVING ALSO,
IN SO FAR AS IT WEAVES VALUE, HAS NOTHING TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM TAILORING, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IS
ABSTRACT HUMAN LABOUR. IT IS THE EXPRESSION OF EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT SORTS OF COMMODITIES
THAT ALONE BRINGS INTO RELIEF THE SPECIFIC CHARACTER OF VALUE-CREATING LABOUR, AND THIS IT DOES BY
ACTUALLY REDUCING THE DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF LABOUR EMBODIED IN THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMODITIES
TO THEIR COMMON QUALITY OF HUMAN LABOUR IN THE ABSTRACT.18
THERE IS, HOWEVER, SOMETHING ELSE REQUIRED BEYOND THE EXPRESSION OF THE SPECIFIC CHARACTER OF THE
LABOUR OF WHICH THE VALUE OF THE LINEN CONSISTS. HUMAN LABOUR POWER IN MOTION, OR HUMAN LABOUR,
CREATES VALUE, BUT IS NOT ITSELF VALUE. IT BECOMES VALUE ONLY IN ITS CONGEALED STATE, WHEN EMBODIED
IN THE FORM OF SOME OBJECT. IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THE VALUE OF THE LINEN AS A CONGELATION OF HUMAN
LABOUR, THAT VALUE MUST BE EXPRESSED AS HAVING OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE, AS BEING A SOMETHING
MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LINEN ITSELF, AND YET A SOMETHING COMMON TO THE LINEN AND ALL OTHER
COMMODITIES. THE PROBLEM IS ALREADY SOLVED.
36 CHAPTER 1
WHEN OCCUPYING THE POSITION OF EQUIVALENT IN THE EQUATION OF VALUE, THE COAT RANKS QUALITATIVELY
AS THE EQUAL OF THE LINEN, AS SOMETHING OF THE SAME KIND, BECAUSE IT IS VALUE. IN THIS POSITION IT IS A
THING IN WHICH WE SEE NOTHING BUT VALUE, OR WHOSE PALPABLE BODILY FORM REPRESENTS VALUE. YET THE
COAT ITSELF, THE BODY OF THE COMMODITY, COAT, IS A MERE USE VALUE. A COAT AS SUCH NO MORE TELLS US IT
IS VALUE, THAN DOES THE FIRST PIECE OF LINEN WE TAKE HOLD OF. THIS SHOWS THAT WHEN PLACED IN VALUERELATION TO THE LINEN, THE COAT SIGNIFIES MORE THAN WHEN OUT OF THAT RELATION, JUST AS MANY A MAN
STRUTTING ABOUT IN A GORGEOUS UNIFORM COUNTS FOR MORE THAN WHEN IN MUFTI.
IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE COAT, HUMAN LABOUR POWER, IN THE SHAPE OF TAILORING, MUST HAVE BEEN
ACTUALLY EXPENDED. HUMAN LABOUR IS THEREFORE ACCUMULATED IN IT. IN THIS ASPECT THE COAT IS A
DEPOSITORY OF VALUE, BUT THOUGH WORN TO A THREAD, IT DOES NOT LET THIS FACT SHOW THROUGH. AND AS
EQUIVALENT OF THE LINEN IN THE VALUE EQUATION, IT EXISTS UNDER THIS ASPECT ALONE, COUNTS THEREFORE AS
EMBODIED VALUE, AS A BODY THAT IS VALUE. A, FOR INSTANCE, CANNOT BE “YOUR MAJESTY” TO B, UNLESS AT
THE SAME TIME MAJESTY IN B’S EYES ASSUMES THE BODILY FORM OF A, AND, WHAT IS MORE, WITH EVERY
NEW FATHER OF THE PEOPLE, CHANGES ITS FEATURES, HAIR, AND MANY OTHER THINGS BESIDES.
HENCE, IN THE VALUE EQUATION, IN WHICH THE COAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE LINEN, THE COAT OFFICIATES AS
THE FORM OF VALUE. THE VALUE OF THE COMMODITY LINEN IS EXPRESSED BY THE BODILY FORM OF THE
COMMODITY COAT, THE VALUE OF ONE BY THE USE VALUE OF THE OTHER. AS A USE VALUE, THE LINEN IS
SOMETHING PALPABLY DIFFERENT FROM THE COAT; AS VALUE, IT IS THE SAME AS THE COAT, AND NOW HAS THE
APPEARANCE OF A COAT. THUS THE LINEN ACQUIRES A VALUE FORM DIFFERENT FROM ITS PHYSICAL FORM. THE
FACT THAT IT IS VALUE, IS MADE MANIFEST BY ITS EQUALITY WITH THE COAT, JUST AS THE SHEEP’S NATURE OF A
CHRISTIAN IS SHOWN IN HIS RESEMBLANCE TO THE LAMB OF GOD.
WE SEE, THEN, ALL THAT OUR ANALYSIS OF THE VALUE OF COMMODITIES HAS ALREADY TOLD US, IS TOLD US BY
THE LINEN ITSELF, SO SOON AS IT COMES INTO COMMUNICATION WITH ANOTHER COMMODITY, THE COAT. ONLY IT
BETRAYS ITS THOUGHTS IN THAT LANGUAGE WITH WHICH ALONE IT IS FAMILIAR, THE LANGUAGE OF COMMODITIES.
IN ORDER TO TELL US THAT ITS OWN VALUE IS CREATED BY LABOUR IN ITS ABSTRACT CHARACTER OF HUMAN LABOUR,
IT SAYS THAT THE COAT, IN SO FAR AS IT IS WORTH AS MUCH AS THE LINEN, AND THEREFORE IS VALUE, CONSISTS OF
THE SAME LABOUR AS THE LINEN. IN ORDER TO INFORM US THAT ITS SUBLIME REALITY AS VALUE IS NOT THE SAME
AS ITS BUCKRAM BODY, IT SAYS THAT VALUE HAS THE APPEARANCE OF A COAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT SO FAR
AS THE LINEN IS VALUE, IT AND THE COAT ARE AS LIKE AS TWO PEAS. WE MAY HERE REMARK, THAT THE
LANGUAGE OF COMMODITIES HAS, BESIDES HEBREW, MANY OTHER MORE OR LESS CORRECT DIALECTS. THE
GERMAN “WERTSEIN,” TO BE WORTH, FOR INSTANCE, EXPRESSES IN A LESS STRIKING MANNER THAN THE
ROMANCE VERBS “VALERE,” “VALER,” “VALOIR,” THAT THE EQUATING OF COMMODITY B TO COMMODITY A, IS
COMMODITY A’S OWN MODE OF EXPRESSING ITS VALUE. PARIS VAUT BIEN UNE MESSE. [PARIS IS CERTAINLY
WORTH A MASS]
BY MEANS, THEREFORE, OF THE VALUE-RELATION EXPRESSED IN OUR EQUATION, THE BODILY FORM OF
COMMODITY B BECOMES THE VALUE FORM OF COMMODITY A, OR THE BODY OF COMMODITY B ACTS AS A
MIRROR TO THE VALUE OF COMMODITY A.19 BY PUTTING ITSELF IN RELATION WITH COMMODITY B, AS VALUE IN
PROPRIÂ PERSONÂ, AS THE MATTER OF WHICH HUMAN LABOUR IS MADE UP, THE COMMODITY A CONVERTS THE
VALUE IN USE, B, INTO THE SUBSTANCE IN WHICH TO EXPRESS ITS, A’S, OWN VALUE. THE VALUE OF A, THUS
EXPRESSED IN THE USE VALUE OF B, HAS TAKEN THE FORM OF RELATIVE VALUE.
(B.) QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF RELATIVE VALUE
EVERY COMMODITY, WHOSE VALUE IT IS INTENDED TO EXPRESS, IS A USEFUL OBJECT OF GIVEN QUANTITY, AS 15
BUSHELS OF CORN, OR 100 LBS OF COFFEE. AND A GIVEN QUANTITY OF ANY COMMODITY CONTAINS A DEFINITE
QUANTITY OF HUMAN LABOUR. THE VALUE FORM MUST THEREFORE NOT ONLY EXPRESS VALUE GENERALLY, BUT
ALSO VALUE IN DEFINITE QUANTITY. THEREFORE, IN THE VALUE RELATION OF COMMODITY A TO COMMODITY B,
OF THE LINEN TO THE COAT, NOT ONLY IS THE LATTER, AS VALUE IN GENERAL, MADE THE EQUAL IN QUALITY OF THE
37 CHAPTER 1
LINEN, BUT A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF COAT (1 COAT) IS MADE THE EQUIVALENT OF A DEFINITE QUANTITY (20
YARDS) OF LINEN.
THE EQUATION, 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, OR 20 YARDS OF LINEN ARE WORTH ONE COAT, IMPLIES THAT THE
SAME QUANTITY OF VALUE SUBSTANCE (CONGEALED LABOUR) IS EMBODIED IN BOTH; THAT THE TWO
COMMODITIES HAVE EACH COST THE SAME AMOUNT OF LABOUR OF THE SAME QUANTITY OF LABOUR TIME. BUT
THE LABOUR TIME NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 20 YARDS OF LINEN OR 1 COAT VARIES WITH EVERY
CHANGE IN THE PRODUCTIVENESS OF WEAVING OR TAILORING. WE HAVE NOW TO CONSIDER THE INFLUENCE OF
SUCH CHANGES ON THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECT OF THE RELATIVE EXPRESSION OF VALUE.
I. LET THE VALUE OF THE LINEN VARY,20 THAT OF THE COAT REMAINING CONSTANT. IF, SAY IN CONSEQUENCE
OF THE EXHAUSTION OF FLAX-GROWING SOIL, THE LABOUR TIME NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE LINEN
BE DOUBLED, THE VALUE OF THE LINEN WILL ALSO BE DOUBLED. INSTEAD OF THE EQUATION, 20 YARDS OF LINEN
= 1 COAT, WE SHOULD HAVE 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 2 COATS, SINCE 1 COAT WOULD NOW CONTAIN ONLY HALF THE
LABOUR TIME EMBODIED IN 20 YARDS OF LINEN. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, IN CONSEQUENCE, SAY, OF
IMPROVED LOOMS, THIS LABOUR TIME BE REDUCED BY ONE-HALF, THE VALUE OF THE LINEN WOULD FALL BY
ONE-HALF. CONSEQUENTLY, WE SHOULD HAVE 20 YARDS OF LINEN = ½ COAT. THE RELATIVE VALUE OF
COMMODITY A, I.E., ITS VALUE EXPRESSED IN COMMODITY B, RISES AND FALLS DIRECTLY AS THE VALUE OF A,
THE VALUE OF B BEING SUPPOSED CONSTANT.
II. LET THE VALUE OF THE LINEN REMAIN CONSTANT, WHILE THE VALUE OF THE COAT VARIES. IF, UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN CONSEQUENCE, FOR INSTANCE, OF A POOR CROP OF WOOL, THE LABOUR TIME
NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A COAT BECOMES DOUBLED, WE HAVE INSTEAD OF 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1
COAT, 20 YARDS OF LINEN = ½ COAT. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE VALUE OF THE COAT SINKS BY ONE-HALF, THEN
20 YARDS OF LINEN = 2 COATS. HENCE, IF THE VALUE OF COMMODITY A REMAIN CONSTANT, ITS RELATIVE VALUE
EXPRESSED IN COMMODITY B RISES AND FALLS INVERSELY AS THE VALUE OF B.
IF WE COMPARE THE DIFFERENT CASES IN I AND II, WE SEE THAT THE SAME CHANGE OF MAGNITUDE IN RELATIVE
VALUE MAY ARISE FROM TOTALLY OPPOSITE CAUSES. THUS, THE EQUATION, 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT,
BECOMES 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 2 COATS, EITHER, BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE LINEN HAS DOUBLED, OR
BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE COAT HAS FALLEN BY ONE-HALF; AND IT BECOMES 20 YARDS OF LINEN = ½ COAT,
EITHER, BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE LINEN HAS FALLEN BY ONE-HALF, OR BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE COAT HAS
DOUBLED.
III. LET THE QUANTITIES OF LABOUR TIME RESPECTIVELY NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE LINEN AND
THE COAT VARY SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE SAME DIRECTION AND IN THE SAME PROPORTION. IN THIS CASE 20
YARDS OF LINEN CONTINUE EQUAL TO 1 COAT, HOWEVER MUCH THEIR VALUES MAY HAVE ALTERED. THEIR
CHANGE OF VALUE IS SEEN AS SOON AS THEY ARE COMPARED WITH A THIRD COMMODITY, WHOSE VALUE HAS
REMAINED CONSTANT. IF THE VALUES OF ALL COMMODITIES ROSE OR FELL SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND IN THE SAME
PROPORTION, THEIR RELATIVE VALUES WOULD REMAIN UNALTERED. THEIR REAL CHANGE OF VALUE WOULD APPEAR
FROM THE DIMINISHED OR INCREASED QUANTITY OF COMMODITIES PRODUCED IN A GIVEN TIME.
IV. THE LABOUR TIME RESPECTIVELY NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE LINEN AND THE COAT, AND
THEREFORE THE VALUE OF THESE COMMODITIES MAY SIMULTANEOUSLY VARY IN THE SAME DIRECTION, BUT AT
UNEQUAL RATES OR IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, OR IN OTHER WAYS. THE EFFECT OF ALL THESE POSSIBLE DIFFERENT
VARIATIONS, ON THE RELATIVE VALUE OF A COMMODITY, MAY BE DEDUCED FROM THE RESULTS OF I, II, AND III.
THUS REAL CHANGES IN THE MAGNITUDE OF VALUE ARE NEITHER UNEQUIVOCALLY NOR EXHAUSTIVELY REFLECTED
IN THEIR RELATIVE EXPRESSION, THAT IS, IN THE EQUATION EXPRESSING THE MAGNITUDE OF RELATIVE VALUE. THE
RELATIVE VALUE OF A COMMODITY MAY VARY, ALTHOUGH ITS VALUE REMAINS CONSTANT. ITS RELATIVE VALUE
MAY REMAIN CONSTANT, ALTHOUGH ITS VALUE VARIES; AND FINALLY, SIMULTANEOUS VARIATIONS IN THE
38 CHAPTER 1
MAGNITUDE OF VALUE AND IN THAT OF ITS RELATIVE EXPRESSION BY NO MEANS NECESSARILY CORRESPOND IN
AMOUNT.21
3. THE EQUIVALENT FORM OF VALUE
WE HAVE SEEN THAT COMMODITY A (THE LINEN), BY EXPRESSING ITS VALUE IN THE USE VALUE OF A
COMMODITY DIFFERING IN KIND (THE COAT), AT THE SAME TIME IMPRESSES UPON THE LATTER A SPECIFIC FORM
OF VALUE, NAMELY THAT OF THE EQUIVALENT. THE COMMODITY LINEN MANIFESTS ITS QUALITY OF HAVING A
VALUE BY THE FACT THAT THE COAT, WITHOUT HAVING ASSUMED A VALUE FORM DIFFERENT FROM ITS BODILY
FORM, IS EQUATED TO THE LINEN. THE FACT THAT THE LATTER THEREFORE HAS A VALUE IS EXPRESSED BY SAYING
THAT THE COAT IS DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE WITH IT. THEREFORE, WHEN WE SAY THAT A COMMODITY IS IN THE
EQUIVALENT FORM, WE EXPRESS THE FACT THAT IT IS DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE WITH OTHER COMMODITIES.
WHEN ONE COMMODITY, SUCH AS A COAT, SERVES AS THE EQUIVALENT OF ANOTHER, SUCH AS LINEN, AND COATS
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIRE THE CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTY OF BEING DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE WITH LINEN, WE ARE
FAR FROM KNOWING IN WHAT PROPORTION THE TWO ARE EXCHANGEABLE. THE VALUE OF THE LINEN BEING
GIVEN IN MAGNITUDE, THAT PROPORTION DEPENDS ON THE VALUE OF THE COAT. WHETHER THE COAT SERVES AS
THE EQUIVALENT AND THE LINEN AS RELATIVE VALUE, OR THE LINEN AS THE EQUIVALENT AND THE COAT AS RELATIVE
VALUE, THE MAGNITUDE OF THE COAT’S VALUE IS DETERMINED, INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS VALUE FORM, BY THE
LABOUR TIME NECESSARY FOR ITS PRODUCTION. BUT WHENEVER THE COAT ASSUMES IN THE EQUATION OF VALUE,
THE POSITION OF EQUIVALENT, ITS VALUE ACQUIRES NO QUANTITATIVE EXPRESSION; ON THE CONTRARY, THE
COMMODITY COAT NOW FIGURES ONLY AS A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF SOME ARTICLE.
FOR INSTANCE, 40 YARDS OF LINEN ARE WORTH – WHAT? 2 COATS. BECAUSE THE COMMODITY COAT HERE PLAYS
THE PART OF EQUIVALENT, BECAUSE THE USE-VALUE COAT, AS OPPOSED TO THE LINEN, FIGURES AS AN
EMBODIMENT OF VALUE, THEREFORE A DEFINITE NUMBER OF COATS SUFFICES TO EXPRESS THE DEFINITE QUANTITY
OF VALUE IN THE LINEN. TWO COATS MAY THEREFORE EXPRESS THE QUANTITY OF VALUE OF 40 YARDS OF LINEN,
BUT THEY CAN NEVER EXPRESS THE QUANTITY OF THEIR OWN VALUE. A SUPERFICIAL OBSERVATION OF THIS FACT,
NAMELY, THAT IN THE EQUATION OF VALUE, THE EQUIVALENT FIGURES EXCLUSIVELY AS A SIMPLE QUANTITY OF
SOME ARTICLE, OF SOME USE VALUE, HAS MISLED BAILEY, AS ALSO MANY OTHERS, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
HIM, INTO SEEING, IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE, MERELY A QUANTITATIVE RELATION. THE TRUTH BEING, THAT
WHEN A COMMODITY ACTS AS EQUIVALENT, NO QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF ITS VALUE IS EXPRESSED.
THE FIRST PECULIARITY THAT STRIKES US, IN CONSIDERING THE FORM OF THE EQUIVALENT, IS THIS: USE VALUE
BECOMES THE FORM OF MANIFESTATION, THE PHENOMENAL FORM OF ITS OPPOSITE, VALUE.
THE BODILY FORM OF THE COMMODITY BECOMES ITS VALUE FORM. BUT, MARK WELL, THAT THIS QUID PRO QUO
EXISTS IN THE CASE OF ANY COMMODITY B, ONLY WHEN SOME OTHER COMMODITY A ENTERS INTO A VALUE
RELATION WITH IT, AND THEN ONLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIS RELATION. SINCE NO COMMODITY CAN STAND IN
THE RELATION OF EQUIVALENT TO ITSELF, AND THUS TURN ITS OWN BODILY SHAPE INTO THE EXPRESSION OF ITS
OWN VALUE, EVERY COMMODITY IS COMPELLED TO CHOOSE SOME OTHER COMMODITY FOR ITS EQUIVALENT,
AND TO ACCEPT THE USE VALUE, THAT IS TO SAY, THE BODILY SHAPE OF THAT OTHER COMMODITY AS THE FORM OF
ITS OWN VALUE.
ONE OF THE MEASURES THAT WE APPLY TO COMMODITIES AS MATERIAL SUBSTANCES, AS USE VALUES, WILL
SERVE TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT. A SUGAR-LOAF BEING A BODY, IS HEAVY, AND THEREFORE HAS WEIGHT: BUT WE
CAN NEITHER SEE NOR TOUCH THIS WEIGHT. WE THEN TAKE VARIOUS PIECES OF IRON, WHOSE WEIGHT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED BEFOREHAND. THE IRON, AS IRON, IS NO MORE THE FORM OF MANIFESTATION OF WEIGHT, THAN IS
THE SUGAR-LOAF. NEVERTHELESS, IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THE SUGAR-LOAF AS SO MUCH WEIGHT, WE PUT IT INTO A
WEIGHT-RELATION WITH THE IRON. IN THIS RELATION, THE IRON OFFICIATES AS A BODY REPRESENTING NOTHING
BUT WEIGHT. A CERTAIN QUANTITY OF IRON THEREFORE SERVES AS THE MEASURE OF THE WEIGHT OF THE SUGAR,
AND REPRESENTS, IN RELATION TO THE SUGAR-LOAF, WEIGHT EMBODIED, THE FORM OF MANIFESTATION OF
WEIGHT. THIS PART IS PLAYED BY THE IRON ONLY WITHIN THIS RELATION, INTO WHICH THE SUGAR OR ANY OTHER
39 CHAPTER 1
BODY, WHOSE WEIGHT HAS TO BE DETERMINED, ENTERS WITH THE IRON. WERE THEY NOT BOTH HEAVY, THEY
COULD NOT ENTER INTO THIS RELATION, AND THE ONE COULD THEREFORE NOT SERVE AS THE EXPRESSION OF THE
WEIGHT OF THE OTHER. WHEN WE THROW BOTH INTO THE SCALES, WE SEE IN REALITY, THAT AS WEIGHT THEY ARE
BOTH THE SAME, AND THAT, THEREFORE, WHEN TAKEN IN PROPER PROPORTIONS, THEY HAVE THE SAME WEIGHT.
JUST AS THE SUBSTANCE IRON, AS A MEASURE OF WEIGHT, REPRESENTS IN RELATION TO THE SUGAR-LOAF WEIGHT
ALONE, SO, IN OUR EXPRESSION OF VALUE, THE MATERIAL OBJECT, COAT, IN RELATION TO THE LINEN, REPRESENTS
VALUE ALONE.
HERE, HOWEVER, THE ANALOGY CEASES. THE IRON, IN THE EXPRESSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE SUGAR-LOAF,
REPRESENTS A NATURAL PROPERTY COMMON TO BOTH BODIES, NAMELY THEIR WEIGHT; BUT THE COAT, IN THE
EXPRESSION OF VALUE OF THE LINEN, REPRESENTS A NON-NATURAL PROPERTY OF BOTH, SOMETHING PURELY
SOCIAL, NAMELY, THEIR VALUE.
SINCE THE RELATIVE FORM OF VALUE OF A COMMODITY – THE LINEN, FOR EXAMPLE – EXPRESSES THE VALUE OF
THAT COMMODITY, AS BEING SOMETHING WHOLLY DIFFERENT FROM ITS SUBSTANCE AND PROPERTIES, AS BEING,
FOR INSTANCE, COAT-LIKE, WE SEE THAT THIS EXPRESSION ITSELF INDICATES THAT SOME SOCIAL RELATION LIES AT
THE BOTTOM OF IT. WITH THE EQUIVALENT FORM IT IS JUST THE CONTRARY. THE VERY ESSENCE OF THIS FORM IS
THAT THE MATERIAL COMMODITY ITSELF – THE COAT – JUST AS IT IS, EXPRESSES VALUE, AND IS ENDOWED WITH
THE FORM OF VALUE BY NATURE ITSELF. OF COURSE THIS HOLDS GOOD ONLY SO LONG AS THE VALUE RELATION
EXISTS, IN WHICH THE COAT STANDS IN THE POSITION OF EQUIVALENT TO THE LINEN.22 SINCE, HOWEVER, THE
PROPERTIES OF A THING ARE NOT THE RESULT OF ITS RELATIONS TO OTHER THINGS, BUT ONLY MANIFEST THEMSELVES
IN SUCH RELATIONS, THE COAT SEEMS TO BE ENDOWED WITH ITS EQUIVALENT FORM, ITS PROPERTY OF BEING
DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE, JUST AS MUCH BY NATURE AS IT IS ENDOWED WITH THE PROPERTY OF BEING HEAVY,
OR THE CAPACITY TO KEEP US WARM. HENCE THE ENIGMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM WHICH
ESCAPES THE NOTICE OF THE BOURGEOIS POLITICAL ECONOMIST, UNTIL THIS FORM, COMPLETELY DEVELOPED,
CONFRONTS HIM IN THE SHAPE OF MONEY. HE THEN SEEKS TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE MYSTICAL CHARACTER OF
GOLD AND SILVER, BY SUBSTITUTING FOR THEM LESS DAZZLING COMMODITIES, AND BY RECITING, WITH EVER
RENEWED SATISFACTION, THE CATALOGUE OF ALL POSSIBLE COMMODITIES WHICH AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER HAVE
PLAYED THE PART OF EQUIVALENT. HE HAS NOT THE LEAST SUSPICION THAT THE MOST SIMPLE EXPRESSION OF
VALUE, SUCH AS 20 YDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, ALREADY PROPOUNDS THE RIDDLE OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM FOR
OUR SOLUTION.
THE BODY OF THE COMMODITY THAT SERVES AS THE EQUIVALENT, FIGURES AS THE MATERIALISATION OF HUMAN
LABOUR IN THE ABSTRACT, AND IS AT THE SAME TIME THE PRODUCT OF SOME SPECIFICALLY USEFUL CONCRETE
LABOUR. THIS CONCRETE LABOUR BECOMES, THEREFORE, THE MEDIUM FOR EXPRESSING ABSTRACT HUMAN
LABOUR. IF ON THE ONE HAND THE COAT RANKS AS NOTHING BUT THE EMBODIMENT OF ABSTRACT HUMAN LABOUR,
SO, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TAILORING WHICH IS ACTUALLY EMBODIED IN IT, COUNTS AS NOTHING BUT THE
FORM UNDER WHICH THAT ABSTRACT LABOUR IS REALISED. IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE OF THE LINEN, THE
UTILITY OF THE TAILORING CONSISTS, NOT IN MAKING CLOTHES, BUT IN MAKING AN OBJECT, WHICH WE AT ONCE
RECOGNISE TO BE VALUE, AND THEREFORE TO BE A CONGELATION OF LABOUR, BUT OF LABOUR INDISTINGUISHABLE
FROM THAT REALISED IN THE VALUE OF THE LINEN. IN ORDER TO ACT AS SUCH A MIRROR OF VALUE, THE LABOUR OF
TAILORING MUST REFLECT NOTHING BESIDES ITS OWN ABSTRACT QUALITY OF BEING HUMAN LABOUR GENERALLY.
IN TAILORING, AS WELL AS IN WEAVING, HUMAN LABOUR POWER IS EXPENDED. BOTH, THEREFORE, POSSESS THE
GENERAL PROPERTY OF BEING HUMAN LABOUR, AND MAY, THEREFORE, IN CERTAIN CASES, SUCH AS IN THE
PRODUCTION OF VALUE, HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THIS ASPECT ALONE. THERE IS NOTHING MYSTERIOUS IN
THIS. BUT IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE THERE IS A COMPLETE TURN OF THE TABLES. FOR INSTANCE, HOW IS THE
FACT TO BE EXPRESSED THAT WEAVING CREATES THE VALUE OF THE LINEN, NOT BY VIRTUE OF BEING WEAVING, AS
SUCH, BUT BY REASON OF ITS GENERAL PROPERTY OF BEING HUMAN LABOUR? SIMPLY BY OPPOSING TO
WEAVING THAT OTHER PARTICULAR FORM OF CONCRETE LABOUR (IN THIS INSTANCE TAILORING), WHICH PRODUCES
THE EQUIVALENT OF THE PRODUCT OF WEAVING. JUST AS THE COAT IN ITS BODILY FORM BECAME A DIRECT
40 CHAPTER 1
EXPRESSION OF VALUE, SO NOW DOES TAILORING, A CONCRETE FORM OF LABOUR, APPEAR AS THE DIRECT AND
PALPABLE EMBODIMENT OF HUMAN LABOUR GENERALLY.
HENCE, THE SECOND PECULIARITY OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM IS, THAT CONCRETE LABOUR BECOMES THE FORM
UNDER WHICH ITS OPPOSITE, ABSTRACT HUMAN LABOUR, MANIFESTS ITSELF.
BUT BECAUSE THIS CONCRETE LABOUR, TAILORING IN OUR CASE, RANKS AS, AND IS DIRECTLY IDENTIFIED WITH,
UNDIFFERENTIATED HUMAN LABOUR, IT ALSO RANKS AS IDENTICAL WITH ANY OTHER SORT OF LABOUR, AND
THEREFORE WITH THAT EMBODIED IN THE LINEN. CONSEQUENTLY, ALTHOUGH, LIKE ALL OTHER COMMODITYPRODUCING LABOUR, IT IS THE LABOUR OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, YET, AT THE SAME TIME, IT RANKS AS LABOUR
DIRECTLY SOCIAL IN ITS CHARACTER. THIS IS THE REASON WHY IT RESULTS IN A PRODUCT DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE
WITH OTHER COMMODITIES. WE HAVE THEN A THIRD PECULIARITY OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM, NAMELY, THAT THE
LABOUR OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TAKES THE FORM OF ITS OPPOSITE, LABOUR DIRECTLY SOCIAL IN ITS FORM.
THE TWO LATTER PECULIARITIES OF THE EQUIVALENT FORM WILL BECOME MORE INTELLIGIBLE IF WE GO BACK TO
THE GREAT THINKER WHO WAS THE FIRST TO ANALYSE SO MANY FORMS, WHETHER OF THOUGHT, SOCIETY, OR
NATURE, AND AMONGST THEM ALSO THE FORM OF VALUE. I MEAN ARISTOTLE.
IN THE FIRST PLACE, HE CLEARLY ENUNCIATES THAT THE MONEY FORM OF COMMODITIES IS ONLY THE FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SIMPLE FORM OF VALUE – I.E., OF THE EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF ONE COMMODITY
IN SOME OTHER COMMODITY TAKEN AT RANDOM; FOR HE SAYS:
5 BEDS = 1 HOUSE (ΧΛΙΝΑΙ ΠΕΝΤΕ ΑΝΤΙ ΟΙΧΙΑΣ)
IS NOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM
5 BEDS = SO MUCH MONEY. (ΧΛΙΝΑΙ ΠΕΝΤΕ ΑΝΤΙ ... ΟΣΟΝ ΑΙ ΠΕΝΤΕ ΧΛΙΝΑΙ)
HE FURTHER SEES THAT THE VALUE RELATION WHICH GIVES RISE TO THIS EXPRESSION MAKES IT NECESSARY THAT
THE HOUSE SHOULD QUALITATIVELY BE MADE THE EQUAL OF THE BED, AND THAT, WITHOUT SUCH AN
EQUALISATION, THESE TWO CLEARLY DIFFERENT THINGS COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH EACH OTHER AS
COMMENSURABLE QUANTITIES. “EXCHANGE,” HE SAYS, “CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT EQUALITY, AND
EQUALITY NOT WITHOUT COMMENSURABILITY". (ΟΥΤ ΙΣΟΤΗΣ ΜΗ ΟΥΣΗΣ ΣΝΜΜΕΤΡΙΑΣ). HERE, HOWEVER,
HE COMES TO A STOP, AND GIVES UP THE FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE FORM OF VALUE. “IT IS, HOWEVER, IN
REALITY, IMPOSSIBLE (ΤΗ ΜΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΑΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ), THAT SUCH UNLIKE THINGS CAN BE
COMMENSURABLE” – I.E., QUALITATIVELY EQUAL. SUCH AN EQUALISATION CAN ONLY BE SOMETHING FOREIGN TO
THEIR REAL NATURE, CONSEQUENTLY ONLY “A MAKESHIFT FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES.”
ARISTOTLE THEREFORE, HIMSELF, TELLS US WHAT BARRED THE WAY TO HIS FURTHER ANALYSIS; IT WAS THE ABSENCE
OF ANY CONCEPT OF VALUE. WHAT IS THAT EQUAL SOMETHING, THAT COMMON SUBSTANCE, WHICH ADMITS OF
THE VALUE OF THE BEDS BEING EXPRESSED BY A HOUSE? SUCH A THING, IN TRUTH, CANNOT EXIST, SAYS
ARISTOTLE. AND WHY NOT? COMPARED WITH THE BEDS, THE HOUSE DOES REPRESENT SOMETHING EQUAL TO
THEM, IN SO FAR AS IT REPRESENTS WHAT IS REALLY EQUAL, BOTH IN THE BEDS AND THE HOUSE. AND THAT IS –
HUMAN LABOUR.
THERE WAS, HOWEVER, AN IMPORTANT FACT WHICH PREVENTED ARISTOTLE FROM SEEING THAT, TO ATTRIBUTE
VALUE TO COMMODITIES, IS MERELY A MODE OF EXPRESSING ALL LABOUR AS EQUAL HUMAN LABOUR, AND
CONSEQUENTLY AS LABOUR OF EQUAL QUALITY. GREEK SOCIETY WAS FOUNDED UPON SLAVERY, AND HAD,
THEREFORE, FOR ITS NATURAL BASIS, THE INEQUALITY OF MEN AND OF THEIR LABOUR POWERS. THE SECRET OF THE
EXPRESSION OF VALUE, NAMELY, THAT ALL KINDS OF LABOUR ARE EQUAL AND EQUIVALENT, BECAUSE, AND SO FAR
AS THEY ARE HUMAN LABOUR IN GENERAL, CANNOT BE DECIPHERED, UNTIL THE NOTION OF HUMAN EQUALITY HAS
ALREADY ACQUIRED THE FIXITY OF A POPULAR PREJUDICE. THIS, HOWEVER, IS POSSIBLE ONLY IN A SOCIETY IN
WHICH THE GREAT MASS OF THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR TAKES THE FORM OF COMMODITIES, IN WHICH,
CONSEQUENTLY, THE DOMINANT RELATION BETWEEN MAN AND MAN, IS THAT OF OWNERS OF COMMODITIES. THE
BRILLIANCY OF ARISTOTLE’S GENIUS IS SHOWN BY THIS ALONE, THAT HE DISCOVERED, IN THE EXPRESSION OF THE
41 CHAPTER 1
VALUE OF COMMODITIES, A RELATION OF EQUALITY. THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH HE
LIVED, ALONE PREVENTED HIM FROM DISCOVERING WHAT, “IN TRUTH,” WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EQUALITY.
4. THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE
THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE OF A COMMODITY IS CONTAINED IN THE EQUATION, EXPRESSING ITS VALUE
RELATION TO ANOTHER COMMODITY OF A DIFFERENT KIND, OR IN ITS EXCHANGE RELATION TO THE SAME. THE
VALUE OF COMMODITY A, IS QUALITATIVELY EXPRESSED, BY THE FACT THAT COMMODITY B IS DIRECTLY
EXCHANGEABLE WITH IT. ITS VALUE IS QUANTITATIVELY EXPRESSED BY THE FACT, THAT A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF B
IS EXCHANGEABLE WITH A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF A. IN OTHER WORDS, THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY OBTAINS
INDEPENDENT AND DEFINITE EXPRESSION, BY TAKING THE FORM OF EXCHANGE VALUE. WHEN, AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS CHAPTER, WE SAID, IN COMMON PARLANCE, THAT A COMMODITY IS BOTH A USE VALUE AND
AN EXCHANGE VALUE, WE WERE, ACCURATELY SPEAKING, WRONG. A COMMODITY IS A USE VALUE OR OBJECT OF
UTILITY, AND A VALUE. IT MANIFESTS ITSELF AS THIS TWO-FOLD THING, THAT IT IS, AS SOON AS ITS VALUE ASSUMES
AN INDEPENDENT FORM – VIZ., THE FORM OF EXCHANGE VALUE. IT NEVER ASSUMES THIS FORM WHEN ISOLATED,
BUT ONLY WHEN PLACED IN A VALUE OR EXCHANGE RELATION WITH ANOTHER COMMODITY OF A DIFFERENT KIND.
WHEN ONCE WE KNOW THIS, SUCH A MODE OF EXPRESSION DOES NO HARM; IT SIMPLY SERVES AS AN
ABBREVIATION.
OUR ANALYSIS HAS SHOWN, THAT THE FORM OR EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY ORIGINATES IN THE
NATURE OF VALUE, AND NOT THAT VALUE AND ITS MAGNITUDE ORIGINATE IN THE MODE OF THEIR EXPRESSION AS
EXCHANGE VALUE. THIS, HOWEVER, IS THE DELUSION AS WELL OF THE MERCANTILISTS AND THEIR RECENT
REVIVERS, FERRIER, GANILH,23 AND OTHERS, AS ALSO OF THEIR ANTIPODES, THE MODERN BAGMEN OF FREETRADE, SUCH AS BASTIAT. THE MERCANTILISTS LAY SPECIAL STRESS ON THE QUALITATIVE ASPECT OF THE
EXPRESSION OF VALUE, AND CONSEQUENTLY ON THE EQUIVALENT FORM OF COMMODITIES, WHICH ATTAINS ITS
FULL PERFECTION IN MONEY. THE MODERN HAWKERS OF FREE-TRADE, WHO MUST GET RID OF THEIR ARTICLE AT
ANY PRICE, ON THE OTHER HAND, LAY MOST STRESS ON THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECT OF THE RELATIVE FORM OF
VALUE. FOR THEM THERE CONSEQUENTLY EXISTS NEITHER VALUE, NOR MAGNITUDE OF VALUE, ANYWHERE EXCEPT
IN ITS EXPRESSION BY MEANS OF THE EXCHANGE RELATION OF COMMODITIES, THAT IS, IN THE DAILY LIST OF
PRICES CURRENT. MACLEOD, WHO HAS TAKEN UPON HIMSELF TO DRESS UP THE CONFUSED IDEAS OF LOMBARD
STREET IN THE MOST LEARNED FINERY, IS A SUCCESSFUL CROSS BETWEEN THE SUPERSTITIOUS MERCANTILISTS, AND
THE ENLIGHTENED FREE-TRADE BAGMEN.
A CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF A IN TERMS OF B, CONTAINED IN THE EQUATION
EXPRESSING THE VALUE RELATION OF A TO B, HAS SHOWN US THAT, WITHIN THAT RELATION, THE BODILY FORM OF
A FIGURES ONLY AS A USE VALUE, THE BODILY FORM OF B ONLY AS THE FORM OR ASPECT OF VALUE. THE
OPPOSITION OR CONTRAST EXISTING INTERNALLY IN EACH COMMODITY BETWEEN USE VALUE AND VALUE, IS,
THEREFORE, MADE EVIDENT EXTERNALLY BY TWO COMMODITIES BEING PLACED IN SUCH RELATION TO EACH
OTHER, THAT THE COMMODITY WHOSE VALUE IT IS SOUGHT TO EXPRESS, FIGURES DIRECTLY AS A MERE USE
VALUE, WHILE THE COMMODITY IN WHICH THAT VALUE IS TO BE EXPRESSED, FIGURES DIRECTLY AS MERE
EXCHANGE VALUE. HENCE THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE OF A COMMODITY IS THE ELEMENTARY FORM IN
WHICH THE CONTRAST CONTAINED IN THAT COMMODITY, BETWEEN USE VALUE AND VALUE, BECOMES APPARENT.
EVERY PRODUCT OF LABOUR IS, IN ALL STATES OF SOCIETY, A USE VALUE; BUT IT IS ONLY AT A DEFINITE HISTORICAL
EPOCH IN A SOCIETY’S DEVELOPMENT THAT SUCH A PRODUCT BECOMES A COMMODITY, VIZ., AT THE EPOCH
WHEN THE LABOUR SPENT ON THE PRODUCTION OF A USEFUL ARTICLE BECOMES EXPRESSED AS ONE OF THE
OBJECTIVE QUALITIES OF THAT ARTICLE, I.E., AS ITS VALUE. IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT THE ELEMENTARY VALUE
FORM IS ALSO THE PRIMITIVE FORM UNDER WHICH A PRODUCT OF LABOUR APPEARS HISTORICALLY AS A
COMMODITY, AND THAT THE GRADUAL TRANSFORMATION OF SUCH PRODUCTS INTO COMMODITIES, PROCEEDS PARI
PASSU WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VALUE FORM.
42 CHAPTER 1
WE PERCEIVE, AT FIRST SIGHT, THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE: IT IS A MERE GERM,
WHICH MUST UNDERGO A SERIES OF METAMORPHOSES BEFORE IT CAN RIPEN INTO THE PRICE FORM.
THE EXPRESSION OF THE VALUE OF COMMODITY A IN TERMS OF ANY OTHER COMMODITY B, MERELY
DISTINGUISHES THE VALUE FROM THE USE VALUE OF A, AND THEREFORE PLACES A MERELY IN A RELATION OF
EXCHANGE WITH A SINGLE DIFFERENT COMMODITY, B; BUT IT IS STILL FAR FROM EXPRESSING A’S QUALITATIVE
EQUALITY, AND QUANTITATIVE PROPORTIONALITY, TO ALL COMMODITIES. TO THE ELEMENTARY RELATIVE VALUE
FORM OF A COMMODITY, THERE CORRESPONDS THE SINGLE EQUIVALENT FORM OF ONE OTHER COMMODITY.
THUS, IN THE RELATIVE EXPRESSION OF VALUE OF THE LINEN, THE COAT ASSUMES THE FORM OF EQUIVALENT, OR
OF BEING DIRECTLY EXCHANGEABLE, ONLY IN RELATION TO A SINGLE COMMODITY, THE LINEN.
NEVERTHELESS, THE ELEMENTARY FORM OF VALUE PASSES BY AN EASY TRANSITION INTO A MORE COMPLETE
FORM. IT IS TRUE THAT BY MEANS OF THE ELEMENTARY FORM, THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY A, BECOMES
EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF ONE, AND ONLY ONE, OTHER COMMODITY. BUT THAT ONE MAY BE A COMMODITY OF
ANY KIND, COAT, IRON, CORN, OR ANYTHING ELSE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING AS A IS PLACED IN RELATION WITH
ONE OR THE OTHER, WE GET FOR ONE AND THE SAME COMMODITY, DIFFERENT ELEMENTARY EXPRESSIONS OF
VALUE.24 THE NUMBER OF SUCH POSSIBLE EXPRESSIONS IS LIMITED ONLY BY THE NUMBER OF THE DIFFERENT
KINDS OF COMMODITIES DISTINCT FROM IT. THE ISOLATED EXPRESSION OF A’S VALUE, IS THEREFORE
CONVERTIBLE INTO A SERIES, PROLONGED TO ANY LENGTH, OF THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTARY EXPRESSIONS OF THAT
VALUE.
B. TOTAL OR EXPANDED FORM OF VALUE
Z COM. A = U COM. B OR = V COM. C OR = W COM. D OR = COM. E OR = &C.
(20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT OR = 10 LBS TEA OR = 40 LBS. COFFEE OR
= 1 QUARTER CORN OR = 2 OUNCES GOLD OR = ½ TON IRON OR = &C.)
1. THE EXPANDED RELATIVE FORM OF VALUE
THE VALUE OF A SINGLE COMMODITY, THE LINEN, FOR EXAMPLE, IS NOW EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF NUMBERLESS
OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD OF COMMODITIES. EVERY OTHER COMMODITY NOW BECOMES A MIRROR OF THE
LINEN’S VALUE.25 IT IS THUS, THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, THIS VALUE SHOWS ITSELF IN ITS TRUE LIGHT AS A
CONGELATION OF UNDIFFERENTIATED HUMAN LABOUR. FOR THE LABOUR THAT CREATES IT, NOW STANDS EXPRESSLY
REVEALED, AS LABOUR THAT RANKS EQUALLY WITH EVERY OTHER SORT OF HUMAN LABOUR, NO MATTER WHAT ITS
FORM, WHETHER TAILORING, PLOUGHING, MINING, &C., AND NO MATTER, THEREFORE, WHETHER IT IS REALISED IN
COATS, CORN, IRON, OR GOLD. THE LINEN, BY VIRTUE OF THE FORM OF ITS VALUE, NOW STANDS IN A SOCIAL
RELATION, NO LONGER WITH ONLY ONE OTHER KIND OF COMMODITY, BUT WITH THE WHOLE WORLD OF
COMMODITIES. AS A COMMODITY, IT IS A CITIZEN OF THAT WORLD. AT THE SAME TIME, THE INTERMINABLE
SERIES OF VALUE EQUATIONS IMPLIES, THAT AS REGARDS THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY, IT IS A MATTER OF
INDIFFERENCE UNDER WHAT PARTICULAR FORM, OR KIND, OF USE VALUE IT APPEARS.
IN THE FIRST FORM, 20 YDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT, IT MIGHT, FOR OUGHT THAT OTHERWISE APPEARS, BE PURE
ACCIDENT, THAT THESE TWO COMMODITIES ARE EXCHANGEABLE IN DEFINITE QUANTITIES. IN THE SECOND FORM,
ON THE CONTRARY, WE PERCEIVE AT ONCE THE BACKGROUND THAT DETERMINES, AND IS ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT
FROM, THIS ACCIDENTAL APPEARANCE. THE VALUE OF THE LINEN REMAINS UNALTERED IN MAGNITUDE, WHETHER
EXPRESSED IN COATS, COFFEE, OR IRON, OR IN NUMBERLESS DIFFERENT COMMODITIES, THE PROPERTY OF AS
MANY DIFFERENT OWNERS. THE ACCIDENTAL RELATION BETWEEN TWO INDIVIDUAL COMMODITY-OWNERS
DISAPPEARS. IT BECOMES PLAIN, THAT IT IS NOT THE EXCHANGE OF COMMODITIES WHICH REGULATES THE
MAGNITUDE OF THEIR VALUE; BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT IT IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THEIR VALUE WHICH
CONTROLS THEIR EXCHANGE PROPORTIONS.
43 CHAPTER 1
2. THE PARTICULAR EQUIVALENT FORM
EACH COMMODITY, SUCH AS, COAT, TEA, CORN, IRON, &C., FIGURES IN THE EXPRESSION OF VALUE OF THE LINEN,
AS AN EQUIVALENT, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, AS A THING THAT IS VALUE. THE BODILY FORM OF EACH OF THESE
COMMODITIES FIGURES NOW AS A PARTICULAR EQUIVALENT FORM, ONE OUT OF MANY. IN THE SAME WAY THE
MANIFOLD CONCRETE USEFUL KINDS OF LABOUR, EMBODIED IN THESE DIFFERENT COMMODITIES, RANK NOW AS
SO MANY DIFFERENT FORMS OF THE REALISATION, OR MANIFESTATION, OF UNDIFFERENTIATED HUMAN LABOUR.
3. DEFECTS OF THE TOTAL OR EXPANDED FORM OF VALUE
IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE RELATIVE EXPRESSION OF VALUE IS INCOMPLETE BECAUSE THE SERIES REPRESENTING IT
IS INTERMINABLE. THE CHAIN OF WHICH EACH EQUATION OF VALUE IS A LINK, IS LIABLE AT ANY MOMENT TO BE
LENGTHENED BY EACH NEW KIND OF COMMODITY THAT COMES INTO EXISTENCE AND FURNISHES THE MATERIAL
FOR A FRESH EXPRESSION OF VALUE. IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT IS A MANY-COLOURED MOSAIC OF DISPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT EXPRESSIONS OF VALUE. AND LASTLY, IF, AS MUST BE THE CASE, THE RELATIVE VALUE OF EACH
COMMODITY IN TURN, BECOMES EXPRESSED IN THIS EXPANDED FORM, WE GET FOR EACH OF THEM A RELATIVE
VALUE FORM, DIFFERENT IN EVERY CASE, AND CONSISTING OF AN INTERMINABLE SERIES OF EXPRESSIONS OF
VALUE. THE DEFECTS OF THE EXPANDED RELATIVE VALUE FORM ARE REFLECTED IN THE CORRESPONDING
EQUIVALENT FORM. SINCE THE BODILY FORM OF EACH SINGLE COMMODITY IS ONE PARTICULAR EQUIVALENT
FORM AMONGST NUMBERLESS OTHERS, WE HAVE, ON THE WHOLE, NOTHING BUT FRAGMENTARY EQUIVALENT
FORMS, EACH EXCLUDING THE OTHERS. IN THE SAME WAY, ALSO, THE SPECIAL, CONCRETE, USEFUL KIND OF
LABOUR EMBODIED IN EACH PARTICULAR EQUIVALENT, IS PRESENTED ONLY AS A PARTICULAR KIND OF LABOUR,
AND THEREFORE NOT AS AN EXHAUSTIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF HUMAN LABOUR GENERALLY. THE LATTER, INDEED,
GAINS ADEQUATE MANIFESTATION IN THE TOTALITY OF ITS MANIFOLD, PARTICULAR, CONCRETE FORMS. BUT, IN THAT
CASE, ITS EXPRESSION IN AN INFINITE SERIES IS EVER INCOMPLETE AND DEFICIENT IN UNITY.
THE EXPANDED RELATIVE VALUE FORM IS, HOWEVER, NOTHING BUT THE SUM OF THE ELEMENTARY RELATIVE
EXPRESSIONS OR EQUATIONS OF THE FIRST KIND, SUCH AS:
20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1 COAT
20 YARDS OF LINEN = 10 LBS OF TEA, ETC.
EACH OF THESE IMPLIES THE CORRESPONDING INVERTED EQUATION,
1 COAT = 20 YARDS OF LINEN
10 LBS OF TEA = 20 YARDS OF LINEN, ETC.
IN FACT, WHEN A PERSON EXCHANGES HIS LINEN FOR MANY OTHER COMMODITIES, AND THUS EXPRESSES ITS
VALUE IN A SERIES OF OTHER COMMODITIES, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS, THAT THE VARIOUS OWNERS OF THE LATTER
EXCHANGE THEM FOR THE LINEN, AND CONSEQUENTLY EXPRESS THE VALUE OF THEIR VARIOUS COMMODITIES IN
ONE AND THE SAME THIRD COMMODITY, THE LINEN. IF THEN, WE REVERSE THE SERIES, 20 YARDS OF LINEN = 1
COAT OR = 10 LBS OF TEA, ETC., THAT IS TO SAY, IF WE GIVE EXPRESSION TO THE CONVERSE RELATION ALREADY
IMPLIED IN THE SERIES, WE GET,
C. THE GENERAL FORM OF VALUE
1 COAT
10 LBS OF TEA
40 LBS OF COFFEE
1 QUARTER OF CORN
2 OUNCES OF GOLD
½ A TON OF IRON
X COMMODITY A, ETC.
= 20 YARDS OF LINEN; VOLUME 1 SECTION 3 DAS KAPITAL | image tagged in blank white template | made w/ Imgflip meme maker](http://i.imgflip.com/609i61.jpg)