VALUE: STUDIES BY
KARL MARX
z?
Translated and edited by
Albert Dragstedt
NEW PARK PUBLICATIONS
Published by New Park Publications Ltd.,
21b Old Town, Qapham, London SW4 OJT
Translation and foreword
Copyright © N ew Park Publications Ltd.,
1976
Set up. Printed and Bound
by Trade Union Labour
Distributed in the United States by:
Labor Publications Inc.,
133 West 14 Street, N ew York
N ew York 10011
ISBN 0 902030 82 5
Printed in Great Britain by
Astmoor Litho Ltd. (T .U .)
21-22 Arkwright Road, Astmoor, Runcorn, Cheshire
Contents
Foreword
I The Commodity
II The Form of Value
ni Results of the Immediate Process of
Production
IV Marginal Notes on Wagner
xi
1
47
79
195
Foreword
Of the four independent texts of Marx which are presented here, three
appear for the first time in English. The fourth, ‘Marginal Notes on
Wagner*, is in a new translation. All four are closely related to Volume
I of Das K apital. The first two texts are parts of the first edition as
published, while the longer text is most of what was intended as an
integral chapter but not worked up for publication, for reasons which
are not clear. Such work of research and translation is by no means a
flinching from revolutionary tasks through retreating into historical
spaces. Rather, it proposes that every available resource must be
summoned in confronting the problems of the development of the
revolutionary Marxist movement (represented by the International
Committee of the Fourth International), at the deepest theoretical
level attainable.
The betrayal of Marxism and of the international working class
by Stalinism and by all the revisionists cannot be answered only
through some ‘clarification of programme’ and correct stances on
various political questions (however important). It is fundamentally
necessary to develop, in struggle against the revisionists, Marxist
philosophy, the dialectical method, the theory of value. The
revolutionary workers’ movement cannot muddle through to a dialec­
tical consciousness; a movement without theoretical struggle and
crises is not a revolutionary movement.
For example, the revisionist Mandel based his ‘economic theory of
neo-capitalism’ upon ‘Kondratiev waves’ back in 1964*, a method of
combining any and every empirical change as a ‘factor’ to ‘account* for
* Cited from Die Langen Wellen der Konjunctur, Berlin 1972, p. 257f.
XI
XII
VALUE
the secular movements of capitalist productivity. Sojapan, Italy and
Germany had higher rates of industrial growth than other capitalist
powers after the Second World War .‘It is therefore necessary to direct
one’s attention* . . . to the social political decisions defining their
economic condition? No . . . ‘in the first place to the inequality of
growth of numerous industrial branches, which is one of the main
keys to the comprehension of the contemporary capitalist world (and
the speech of Khrushchev to the CC of the CPSU in December 1963
shows that this is correct not just for capitalist countries).*
Evidently, such irresponsible comparisons and analogies could
only mean chaos and night for revolutionists who orientated them­
selves by these perspectives. But it is absolutely inadequate simply to
note the disastrous politics entailed or even to consider that the
‘economics* here is continuous to bourgeois theories of‘convergence*.
In fact, since Mandel keeps the secret of how many ‘keys’ (main and
subordinate) there are, his analysis cannot even be falsified. ‘Inequali­
ty’ can even be exalted into a ‘contradiction* upon demand. The law of
value is, of course, not in the picture: nothing takes place at the
theoretical level in these lucubrations except a tabulation of whatever
seems to strike the author — since a Kondratiev wave is able to carry
any and all empirical flotsam. Only by standing on the granite founda­
tions of Das Kapital can the movement avoid engulfment by the
torrent of notions voided by a revisionist like Mandel.
Just as central to the discussion of the problems which must be
confronted in the very development of revolutionary opportunities is
the longer text. Although it contains a great diversity of contributions
of an historical and methodological nature, the formulations of the
distinction between unproductive and productive labour have an
especial urgency for revolutionary workers’ parties who must have
policies for the various sectors of unproductive workers who are
thrown into political motion by the destruction of the bases for their
economic security. A firm theoretical comprehension of the ways in
which the disintegration of capitalism revolutionizes what bourgeois
sociology can only throw together into the same classification (‘ter­
tiary’, ‘white collar’) with non-monopoly manufacturers will enable
the working class to form the necessary programmes in order to be in
the position of leading the ‘middle class’, rather than be pitted against
it.
Consider, however, what the revisionist typically proposes. In
Intercontinental Press (October 14, p.1327) for example, the following
FOREWORD
XIII
as the producer of surplus-value, since the boundaries between prorubbish from// Manifesto (an Italian centrist paper) is commended as
a ‘rigorous contribution*:. . . ‘the proletariat can no longer be defined
ductive and non-productive work are less rigid than in the past. From
a sociological point of view, the proletariat in an advanced capitalist
system is not a precisely definable reality.’ Only an assessment of the
very starkest is adequate: II Manifesto’s break with Stalinism was only
with its organisation, not its method, and the Pabloite revisionists
cannot help adapting right down the line. The consequences are grim:
on this basis the movement could not be theoretically armed to contest
the ‘fascistification’ of the Italian middle-class. For Marxists, it is the
process of capitalist economy rather than ‘sociology’ which defines the
proletariat, and they will only become less ‘precisely’ definable as they
seize control of the means of production; nor were the boundaries
between productive and non-productive labour ever ‘rigid’ in Marx:
any particular job might necessitate considerable analysis before one
could decide whether (say) a foreman is directly or indirectly creating
surplus-value.
Trotsky’s words (The Only Road, September 1932) retain their
relevance: ‘Under conditions of the decomposition of capitalism and
an economic situation without an exit, the petty bourgeoisie strives,
seeks to free itself from the irons of its former masters and directors of
society and attempts to do so. It is perfectly capable of tying its fate to
that of the proletariat. There is only one precondition for that: the
petty bourgeoisie must acquire the conviction that the proletariat is
capable of leading society on a new course. The proletariat can only
inspire in it this conviction by its power, by the sureness of its action,
by a skilful offensive against the enemy, by the success of its
revolutionary politics.
‘But woe to the revolutionary party which does not show itself up to
the demands of the situation! The daily struggle of the proletariat
exacerbates the instability of bourgeois society. Strikes and political
troubles sharpen the economic situation of the country. The pet­
ty bourgeoisie could accommodate itself transitionally to increasing
privations, if it arrived by experience at the conviction that the
proletariat is about to lead it onto a new course. But if the revolutio­
nary party, despite a struggle of classes which keeps sharpening, again
and again reveals itself incapable of uniting the working class around
itself, oscillates, wanders, contradicts itself, then the petty
XIV
VALUE
bourgeoisie loses patience and begins to see revolutionary workers as
the sponsors of its own poverty.’
Trotsky is thinking primarily of small proprietors here. In
Weimar Germany, teachers and government workers had so totally
enrolled in the nationalist parties that they could only be written off
tactically, as well as students. These sectors are lumped together
within the sociological category ‘middle-class’, and the changes they
must undergo as the economic crisis deepens become unintelligible to
‘social science’ of a positivistic cast: it is a method which is ‘right’ until
it is wrong. But in contemporary Germany, governmental workers are
being attacked: ‘Bureaucrats are eating up the state', teachers are
under closer state scrutiny than students. The development can be
very different this time round because of the penetration of trade
union organisation into ‘non-productive workers’ in the United
States, for example (AFT, AFSCME), so that the conditions have
developed for Marxist leadership to unite all wage-slaves into one fist
to strike the political blows at capital necessary on the road to workers’
power.
An understanding of the dynamics of class struggle in its effect
upon class-consciousness in die case of diversified work-forces is
impossible without a firm grip on the method of Capital. Of course
one cannot remain with a ‘juridical definition of class’. — ‘To this day,
the Trotskyists doggedly m a in ta in that the USSR is not and cannot be
a class society because there is no private ownership of the means of
production. . . Trotsky was a rather more extreme believer in the
primacy of productive forces than Stalin.’ (Sweezy, Monthly Review,
November 1974, p. 7f). The method of Pabloism (as illustrated
above from the Intercontinental Press') responds to this kind of
theoretical scurrility by . . . liquidating the material bases for class
differentiation. Trotsky was not a believer in anything, but he never
ignored the elementary demands made upon Marxist analysis. For
Sweezy, the introduction of Ford, Chase-Manhattan, Fiat into a
workers’ state cannot be more significant in assessing the ‘develop­
ment’ of Stalinism than any bureaucratic manifestation you choose
(shooting a peculating bureaucrat, for example). At no point does
he propose any other compass for guidance in making a political
assessment of the USSR: when and why did he depart from a position
of unconditional defence? The concept of private ownership must be
grasped dialectically (not empirically by looking in law-books) and its
specificity within a society of wage-labour (for profit as means of
foreword
XV
calculation rather than end) must be articulated. Failure to carry his
organisational break with Stalinism to the point of theoretical break
with his impressionistic ‘sophistication’, leaves Sweezy incapable of
an analysis which can reveal the essential nature of the crisis of
Stalinism as well as of the movement of class forces in bourgeois
democracies.
In fact. Stalinist analyses introduce no differentiation to speak of
within ‘middle layers of salaried employees’ (as the French Com­
munist Party puts it). If all that matters is getting them into some
‘people’s anti-monopoly coalition’, why should one ask what concrete
problems the economic crisis is confronting them with, in order to
elicit a political development? The very existence of a crisis necessitat­
ing the political independence of salaried workers is what must above
all be concealed by Stalinists in this period. That will be increasingly
difficult to do as the degeneration of the fin a n c ia l system causes
explosions throughout the totality of the reproduction of social capi­
tal, but only the party with dialectical materialism at its very centre
will be able to hear what the essential nature of the experience of such
workers really is, in order to turn them confidently to their revolutio­
nary tasks.
I
The Commodity
Chapter One, Volume One
of the first edition of
Capital
I. Introduction
Das Kapital is the central philosophical text of scientific socialism.
That should be a resounding platitude, but appears to have been the
least obvious quality of what is Marx’s life work even to what counts as
the ‘orthodox’ tradition. In 1887, Kautsky called it*‘an essentially
historical work,’ one which is a ‘new historical and economic system’.
This is in a work called (ominously) Marx’s Economic Teachings. Two
years earlier he had greeted the publication of Volume II of Capital
with the patronizing qualification that it would be of more interest to
the capitalists than to the workers. It is not surprising then that one
finds Kautsky twenty years later trying to ‘complete’ these ‘economic
teachings’ with a philosophy — that of* Mach. Such was the
philosophical terrain from which Bernstein’s Neo-Kantianism was
opposed.
In sum, revisionists have never proceeded from an immanent criti­
que of Chapter I, as if they knew that they would only lose their
fingers in any attempt to tinker with this — the dynamo of Marxist
methodology. But any effort to ‘complete’ Marxism (with whatever:
Kant, Mach, Dewey, Set-theory) poses it as something other than and
hence much less than a philosophical method of knowing the truth,
and ineluctably ends up in the empirical embrace of the latest ‘new
world reality’. Never was Lenin’s demand that Marxism be developed
more important than today, but everything depends on making sure
that advances are real, and not merely a flight forwards into the
infinite spaces of academic philosophemes.
This text has not in itself been translated before, although its first
few pages are almost identical to those of the second edition — the one
otherwise available, translated to some extent under Engels’ supervi3
VALUE
4
sion. The first edition has been neglected until recently, perhaps
because Engels’ supervision seems to have accredited the second, and
because Marx wrote in the German ‘Afterword’ to the second edition:
The derivation of value by analysis of the equations in which each
exchange-value is expressed is achieved in a more strictly scientific way;
and the connexion between value-substance and the determination of
value-amount by socially necessary labour-time which was only glanced at
in the first edition is expressly emphasised. Chapter 1.3 (Value-form) is
completely re-worked: a task which was indicated as appropriate by the
double presentation in the first edition.
Marx refers here to his treatment of value in an appendix to the first
edition (suppressed thereafter) which he added because his friend
Kugeimann convinced him that ‘for most readers an additional more
didactic discussion of value-forms was necessary’.
Quite apart from the importance that this text has come to have in
research, a translation which keeps closer to the philosophical muscles
and tendons of the argument will prove useful. To illustrate, we pick
the famous passage on fetishism (which Marx added to the second
edition):
A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing simply because in it the social
character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character
stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the
producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a
social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products
of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become
commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible
and imperceptible by the senses.
Compare a literal translation:
The mysteriousness of the commodity-form simply consists in the fact that
it mirrors the social characteristics of men’s own labour (as social charac­
teristics of the products of labour themselves) back to men as social
natural-properties of these things; and consequently also mirrors the social
relationship of the producers to the labour-totality as a social relationship
of objects, existing outside of the producers.Through this quid pro quoihe
products of labour become commodities — sensually supersensual or
social things.
We make no apology for declining to liquidate the granular, craggy,
dialectical diction of Marx, especially since our translation is only
THE COMMODITY
5
intended to serve a more rigorous understanding of the second edi­
tion, rather than in any sense to replace it. For that reason, we have
omitted a translation of all the footnotes which Marx retains in the
second edition(which contain only illustrative material), and this may
call attention to the remaining notes, which Marx eliminated in order
to remove as many Hegelian stumbling-blocks as possible.
Engels, in an article of 1885 on ‘How not to translate Marx’,
observes that all linguistic resources must be tapped, since Marx’s
newly created German expressions require newly created English
ones. (Compare ‘labour-totality’ in our sample: the validity of this
concept is a very important philosophical question.*) He goes on to
say that a technical term must always be rendered with one and the
same word (e.g., ‘labour-time’).
We have felt justified in using hyphens in a way which may annoy
the reader at first, as may our retention of the extraordinary amount of
emphasis, which Marx reduced for the second edition.
We capitalize ΕςμιναΙεηί in order to emphasize that it is a noun and
technical term (for a commodity that expresses the value of another
commodity), and have generally chosen to err on the side of pedantic
exactitude, especially since the English-speaking world has had such
difficulty in adjusting itself to the fact that the first chapter of Das
Kapital is the most decisive philosophical achievement since Hegel.
This chapter from the first edition is also significant as a contribu­
tion to the dialectical understanding of labour in that it explicitâtes the
crucial difference between concrete and abstract labour as the second
edition does not. ‘From what has been said it follows that a commod­
ity does not possess two different forms of labour but one and the
same labour is defined in different and even opposed ways depend­
ing on whether it is related to the use value of commodities as to its
product,or to commodity value as to its material expression.’ In the
second edition he allows himself to write that ‘all labour is, speaking
physiologically, an expenditure of human labour-power’, a passage
which replaces the earlier, and which does not prevent one from
understanding the relation between labour and value to be a causa/ one
(rather than that value is the fetishistic expressionof the structure of
labour in capitalism). That Marx does not mean that abstract labour is
physiological is evident from his remarks later (p.73): ‘The equaliza* It is a question which is concealed by the unproblematically empirical category
designated by the other translation ‘sum total of their labour’. — A.D.
6
VALUE
tion of the most different kinds of labour can be the result only of an
abstraction from their inequalities, or of reducing them to their
common denominator, viz., expenditure of human labour-power or
human labour in the abstract.’ But it is interesting to note (following I.
Rubin) that in the French translation (1875) Marx adds: ‘and only
exchange brings about this reduction, opposing the products of dif­
ferent forms of labour with each other on the basis of equality.’
The Commodity
The wealth of societies in which a capitalistic mode of production
prevails, appears as a 'gigantic collection of commodities’ and the
singular commodity appears as the elementary form of wealth. Our
investigation begins accordingly with the analysis of the commodity.
The commodity is first an external object, a thing which satisfies
through its qualities human needs of one kind or another. The nature
of these needs is irrelevant, e .g., whether their origin is in the stomach
or in the fancy. We are also not concerned here with the manner in
which the entity satisfies human need; whether in an immediate way
as food — that is, as object of enjoyment — or by a detour as means of
production.
Each useful thing (iron, paper, etc.) is to be considered from a
double point of view, in accordance with quality and quantity. Each
such thing is a totality of many properties and is therefore able to be
useful in different respects. The discovery of these different respects
and hence of the manifold modes of utility of things is an historical act.
Of such a kind is the invention of social measurement for the quantity of
useful things. The diversity of the commodity-measurements arises
partly from the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, and
partly from convention.
It is the utility of a thing for human life that turns it into a use-value.
By way of abbreviation let us term the useful thing itself (or
commodity-body, as iron, wheat, diamond, etc.) use-value, good, arti­
cle. In the consideration of use-values, quantitive determination is
always presupposed (as a dozen watches, yard of linen, ton of iron,
etc.). The use-values of commodities provide the material for a study
of their own, the science of commodities. Use-value realizes itself only in
7
8
VALUE
use or in consumption; use-values form the substantial content of
wealthy whatever its social form may be. In the form of society which
we are going to examine, they form the substantial bearers at the very
same time of exchange-value.
Exchange-value appears first of all as quantitative relationship, the
proportion in which use-values of one kind are exchanged for usevalues of another kind, a relationship which constantly changes in
accordance with time and place. That is the reason why exchangevalue appears to be something accidental and a purely relative thing,
and therefore the reason why the formula of an exchange-value inter­
nal and imminent to the commodity {valeur intnnnque) appears to be a
contradictio in adjecto (contradiction in terms). Let us examine the
matter more closely.
A single commodity (e.g., a quarter of wheat) is exchanged with
other articles in the most varied proportions. Nevertheless its
exchange-value remains unchanged regardless of whether it is expres­
sed in X bootblacking, y soap, z gold, etc. It must therefore be
distinguishable from these, its various manners of expresûon.
Now let us consider two commodities: e.g., wheat and iron. What­
ever their exchange relationship may be, it is always representable in
an equation in which a given quantum of wheat is equated with some
particular quantum of iron; e.g., one quarter of wheat = a cwt of iron.
What does this equation say? ThatfAe same value exists in two differ­
ent things, in one quarter of wheat and likewise in a cwt of iron. Both
are equal, therefore, to a third entity, which in and for itself is neither
the one nor the other. Each of the two, insofar as it is an exchangevalue, must therefore be reducible to this third entity, independent of
the other.
Consider a simple geometrical example. In order to determine and
compare the areas of all rectilinear figures, one reduces them to
triangles. One reduces the triangle itself to an expression which is
entirely different from its visible figure — half the product of its base
by its altitude. Likewise, the exchange-values of commodities can be
reduced to a common-entity, of which they represent a greater or lesser
amount.
The fact that the substance of the exchange-value is something
utterly different from and independent of the physical-sensual exis­
tence of the commodity or its reality as a use-value is revealed
immediately by its exchange relationship. For this is characterized
precisely by the abstraction from the use-value. As far as the
THE COMMODITY
9
exchange-value is concerned, one commodity is, after all, quite as
good as every other, provided it is present in the correct proportion.
Hence, commodities are first of all simply to be considered as
valuesy independent of their exchange-relationship or from the form,
in which they appear is exchange-values.
Commodities as objects of use or goods are corporeally different
things. Their reality as values forms, on the other hand, their unity.
This unity does not arise out of nature but out of society. The common
social substance which merely manifests itself differently in different
use-values, is — labour.
Commodities as values are nothing but crystallized labour. The unit
of measurement of labour itself is the simple average-labour, the
character of which varies admittedly in different lands and cultural
epochs, but is given for a particular society. More complex labour
counts merely as simple labour to an exponent or rather to a multiple, so
that a smaller quantum of complex labour is equal to a larger quantum
of simple labour, for example. Precisely how this reduction is to be
controlled is not relevant here. That this reduction is constantly
occurring is revealed by experience. A commodity may be the product
of the most complex labour. Its value equates it to the product of
simple labour and therefore represents on its own merely a definite
quantum of simple labour.
A use-value or good only has a value because labour is objectified or
materialized in it. But now how are we to measure the quantity of its
value? By the quantum of the ‘value-forming substance’ (i.e., labour)
which is contained in it. The quantity of labour itself is measured by
its temporal duration and the labour-time in turn possesses a measuring
rod for particular segments of time, like hour, day, etc.
It might seem that, if the value of a commodity is determined by the
quantum of labour expended during its production, the more lazy and
incompetent a man the more valuable his commodity is, because he
needs all the more labour-time for its completion. But only the socially
necessary labour-time is labour-time required for the constitution of
some particular use-value, with the available socially-normal condi­
tions of production and the social average-level of competence and
intensity of labour. After the introduction of the steam-driven loom in
England, for example, perhaps half as much labour as before was
sufficient to change a given quantum of yarn into doth. The English
hand-weaver needed in order to accomplish this change the same
labour-time as before, to be sure, but the product of his individual
10
VALUE
labour-hour now represented only one half a social labour-hour, and
sank accordingly to half its earlier value.
So it is only the quantum of socially necessary labour, or that labourtime which is socially necessary for the constitution of a use-value which
determines the quantity of the value. The single commodity counts
here in general as average sample of its own kind. Commodities in
which equally large labour-quanta are contained, or which can be
produced within the same labour-time for that reason have the same
quantity of value. The value of a commodity is related to the value of
every other commodity, as the labour-time necessary for the produc­
tion of the one is related to the labour-time necessary for the produc­
tion of the other. All commodities, as values, are only particular
masses of coagulated labour-time.
The quantity of value of a commodity accordingly would remain
constant if the labour-time required for its production were constant.
The latter, however, changes with each change in the productive power
of labour. The productive power of labour is determined by manifold
conditions, among others by the average grade of competence of the
workers, the level of development of science and its technological
applicability, the social combination of the process of production, the
scope and the efficacy of the means of production, and by natural
relationships. The same quantum of labour manifests itself after prop­
itious weather in 8 bushels of wheat, but after impropitious weather,
in only 4, for example. The very same quantum of labour provides
more metals in richly laden mines than in poor ones, etc. Diamonds
are rare on the surface of the earth, and their discovery therefore costs
on the average much labour-time. Consequently, they represent much
labour in a small volume of space. Jacob doubts that gold has ever paid
its complete value. This holds true even more for diamonds. Accord­
ing to Eschwege, by 1823 the complete yield of the eight-year old
Brazilian diamond-diggings had not yet amounted to the value of the
1Vi year average product of the Brazilian sugar or coffee plantations.
Given more richly laden diggings the same quantum of labour would
be represented by more diamonds and their value would sink. If one
succeeds in converting coal into diamonds with little labour, then the
value of diamonds would sink beneath that of paving stones. In
general: the greater the productive power of labour the smaller is the
amount of labour-time required for the production of an article, and
the smaller the mass of labour crystallized in it, the smaller is its value.
And on the contrary, the smaller the productive power of labour, the
THE COMMODITY
11
greater is the labour-time necessary for the production of an article,
and the greater its value is. The quantity of value of a commodity
varies directly as the quantum, and inversely as the productive power of
the labour embodying itself in the commodity.
Now we know thz substance of value. It is labour. We know its unit
of measurement. It is labour-time. We have yet to analyse its form,
which precisely stamps the value as an exchange-value. Before we do
that we must develop the determinations which have already been
discovered in somewhat greater detail.
A thing can be a use-value without being an exchange-value. This is
the case wherever the human relevance of the thing is not mediated by
labour. So air, virgin land, brush in a wild-state, wood growing in wild
conditions, etc. A thing can be useful and be the product of human
labour without being a commodity. A man who satisfies his own need
through his product creates use-value, to be sure, but not a commodi­
ty. In order to produce a commodity, he must produce not merely
use-value, but use-value for others - social use-value. Finally, no entity
can be a value without being an object of use. If it is useless, then the
labour contained in it is also useless, does not count as labour and,
hence, does not form a value.
Originally, the commodity appeared to us as a two-sided entity,
use-value uni exchange-value. As we consider the matter more closely
it will appear that the labour which is contained in the commodity is
two-sided, also. This aspect, which I am the first to have developed in
a critical way, is the starting point upon which comprehension of
political economy depends.
Let us consider two commodities, a coat and 10 yards of linen,
perhaps. Let the first have twice the value of the second, so that if 10
yards of linen = w, the coat = 2w.
The coat is a use-value which satisfies a particular need. In order to
produce it, a particular kind of purposeful productive activity is
required. This is determined in accordance with purpose, manner of
operation, object, means and result. The labour whose usefulness is
represented in the use-value of its product or in the product in such
wise that its product is a use-value, let such labour here be called for
simplicity’s sake simply useful labour. From this viewpoint it is con­
stantly under consideration with respect to the utility, production of
which is the intent of the labour.
Just as coat and linen are qualitatively different use-values, so the
deployments of labour which mediate their realities are qualitatively
12
VALUE
different - tailoring and weaving. If those things were not qualitatively
different use-values and hence products of qualitatively different
useful deployments of labour, then they would never be able to
confront each other as commodities at all. A coat is not exchanged for
a coat. One use-value is not exchanged for the very same use-value.
In the totality of various use-values or commodity-incarnations,
there appears a totality of varying deployments of useful labour — just
as manifold and differing in genus, species, family, subspecies, varie­
ty: a social division of labour. This is the precondition for the existence
of commodity production, and it is not the case that commodity
production is the precondition for the existence of the social division
of labour. In the community of ancient India, labour is socially
divided without the products becoming commodities. Or a more
immediate example, in every factory labour is systematically divided,
but this division is not thereby mediated by the fact that the workers
exchange their individual products. Only products of those deploy­
ments of private labour which are self-sufficient and independent of
one another confront one another as commodities. So we have observed
the following — that a particular purposefully productive activity or
useful labour lurks in the use-value of every commodity. Use-values
cannot confront one another as commodities unless deployments of
qualitatively different useful labour lurk in them. In a society whose
products generally assume the form of commodity (i.e., in a society of
commodity producers) this qualitative difference in the deployments
of useful labour which are carried on independently of one another as
the private businesses of self-sufficient producers develops into a
multi-faceted system — to a social division of labour.
It is a matter of indifference, in any case, to the coat whether it is
worn by the tailor or one of his customers. In both cases it acts as a
use-value, just as little, is the relationship between the coat and the
labour which produced it changed in and for itself by virtue of the fact
that tailoring is a profession in itself — an independent member of the
social division of labour. Where a need for clothing compelled him,
man plied the activity of tailor for whole millenia before he became a
tailor instead of a man. But the reality of coat, linen, and every
element of material wealth which is not given by nature in all cases had
to be mediated by a special, purposely productive activity which
assimilates particular natural entities to human needs. As the former
of use-values, as useful labour, labour is thereby the precondition of
existence for man — independent of all social forms — and an eternal
THE COMMODITY
13
necessity of nature for the sake of mediating the material interchange
between man and nature (i.e., human life).
The use-values coat, linen, etc. — in brief, the commodity-bodies
— are connections of two elements, natural matter and labour. If one
subtracts the total sum of all different instances of useful labour which
lurk inside the coat, linen, etc., there always remains a material
substrate left over which is present naturally without the interference
of man. Man can only proceed in his producing like nature does
herself; i.e., only change the forms of matenal. And what is more, in
this labour of formation itself he is constantly supported by natural
forces. Labour is not, therefore, the only source of those use-values
which are produced by it — material wealth. Labour is its father, as
William Petty says, and the earth is its mother.
Now let us pass from the consideration of the commodity insofar as
it is a use-object to that of commodity-value (i.e., exchange-value).
According to our assumption the coat has double the value of linen.
This, however, is only a quantitative difference, which is not yet of
immediate interest to us. We recall, therefore, that if the value of a
coat is twice as great as that of 10 yards of linen, then 20 yards of linen
have th esame amount of value as a coat. As values, a coat and linen are
things of equal substance, objective expressions of similar labour. But
tailoring and weaving are qualitatively different kinds of labour. Con­
ditions of society, however, are found, wherein the very same person
alternately tailors and weaves; and both these modes of labouring are
therefore merely modifications of the labour of one and the same indi­
vidual, and are not yet specific definite functions of different indi­
viduals: just as the coat which opr tailor makes today, and the trousers
which he is to make tomorrow only presuppose variations of the same
individual labour. Appearance itself teaches, moreover, that in our
capitalistic society a given portion of human labour is adduced alter­
nately in the form of tailoring or in the form of weaving on each
occasion in accordance with the shifting direction of the demand for
labour. This changing of form which labour endures may occur not
without friction — but it must occur. If one disregards the determinacy of productive activity and therefore disregards the useful charac­
ter of labour, it remains true about it that it is an expenditure of human
labour-power. The labour of a tailor and weaving, although they are
qualitatively different productive activities, are both productive
expenditure of human brain, muscle, nerve, hand, etc., and are both
14
VALUE
in this sense human labour. They are merely two different forms of
expending human labour power.
Admittedly, human labour itself has to be more or less developed in
order to be expended in this or that form. The value of the com­
modities, however, represents human labour in the simplest form, the
expenditure of human labour power in general. Now just as a general
or a banker plays a big role in bourgeois society but the simple human
being, on the other hand, plays a very shabby role, that is the way
things stand here also in the case of human labour. It is the expenditure
of simple labour power, which every normal human being possesses in
his bodily organism, quite apart from any special elaboration.
[Take the labour-power of a farm labourer, for example, for simple
labour-power, and take the expenditure of that labour-power conse­
quently for simple labour or human labour without further adornment;
but take the labour of tailoring, on the other hand, for the expenditure
of more highly-developed labour-power. While the working-day of
the farm labourer is represented consequendy by the value expression
Viw (say), the working-day of the tailor is represented by the value
expression w. This difference, however, is merely quantitative. If the
coat is the product of one working-day of the tailor, it has the same
value as the product of two working-days of the farm labourer. In this
way, however, the tailor’s work counts only on each occasion as
multiplied farm-labourer’s work.]
The various proportions wherein differing species of labour are
reduced to simple labour as their unit of measurement are established
by a social process behind the back of the producers, and appear to
them consequently as given by tradition. For purposes of simplifica­
tion, every species of labour-power counts for us in the following
immediately as simple labour-power, whereby we are only sparing
ourselves the effort involved in the reduction to it.
Therefore, j ust as one is abstracting, in the case of the values of coat
and linen, from the difference between their use-values, just so, in the
case of thclabour which these values represent, is one abstracting from
the difference between the useful forms, wherein labour is on the one
hand tailoring-labour and on the other hand weaving. Just as the
use-values coat and linen are connections of purposeful productive
activities with cloth and yam, whereas the values, coat and linen, on
the other hand, are mere labour-precipitates of a similar species, just
so does also the labour contained in these values count not on account
of its productive relationship to cloth and yarn but only as expenditure
THE COMMODITY
15
of human labour-power. Tailoring and weaving are formative elements
of the use-values coat and linen precisely by virtue of their different
qualities; but they are only the substance of coat -value and linen-value
insofar as there is an abstracting from their specific quality and both
possess the same quality, the quality of human labour. Coat and linen,
however, are not only values in general, but are values of definite
magnitude and in accordance with our assumption the coat is worth
twice as much as 10 yards of linen. What is the origin of this difference
in their magnitudes of value? It is the fact that linen contains only half
as much labour as the coat, so that labour power has to be expended
for a period of twice the time taken for the production of the latter as
for the production of the former.
If, therefore, with respect to the use-value, the labour contained in
the commodity counts only qualitatively, with respect to the mag­
nitude of exchange-value it counts only quantitatively, after being
already reduced to human labour without further quality. In the
former case, what is at issue is the how and what of labour; and in the
latter case, what matters is its how much, its temporal duration. Since
the quantity of exchange-value of a commodity measures only the
quantum of the labour contained in it, hence commodities within a
certain proportion to one another must always be equally large
exchange-values.
If the productive power of (say) all the useful deployments of labour
required for the production of a coat remains unchanged, then the
magnitude of value of the coats rises along with their own quantity. If
one coat represents x days of labour, then two coats represent 2x days
of labour, etc. But now assume that the labour-time necessary for the
production of a coat rises to twice as much, or falls to half as much. In
the first instance, a coat has as much value as two coats had previously ;
and in the latter case, two coats have only just so much value as
previously one had, although in both cases a coat performs the same
tasks as before and the useful labour contained in it remains of the
same beneficence as before. But the labour -quantum expended in its
production has changed.
A larger quantum of use-value in and for itself forms larger material
wealth, two coats being more than one. With two coats two human
beings can be clad, and with one coat only one human being,
etc. Nevertheless, a fall in the magnitude of value of material wealth
may correspond contemporaneously to a rise in its mass. This con­
trary motion is produced by the two-nded specification of labour.
16
VALUE
Productive power is naturally always productive power of useful,
concrete labour. Actually, it only expresses the level of efficacy of
purposeful activity in a given extension of time. Useful labour
becomes, therefore, a richer or poorer source of products in direct
relationship to the rising or falling of its productive power. A change in
the productive power, on the other hand, has in and for itself no effect
whatsoever upon the labour represented in the value. Since the pro­
ductive power belongs to the concrete, useful form of labour, it can
naturally no longer influence labour, as soon as there is an abstracting
from its concrete useful form. The very same labour, therefore, when
it is represented in the same extensions of time, is also on all occasions
represented in the same magnitude of value - however much the
productive power may change. But it yields differing quanta of use
values, within the same extension of time: more whenever the produc­
tive power rises; less, whenever it sinks. In the first case, it can happen
that two coats contain less labour than one did previously. The very
same change in productive power, which increases the fruitfulness
of labour and hence the mass of use-values yielded by it, can therefore
diminish the magnitude of value even of the increased total mass —
namely whenever it shortens the labour-time necessary for its produc­
tion. And vice versa.
It follows from the preceding not that there are two differing kinds
of labour lurking in the commodity, but rather that the same labour is
specified in differing and even contradictory manner — in accordance
with whether it is related to tht use-value of the commodity as labour’s
product or related to the commodity-value as its merely objective expres­
sion. Just as the commodity must be above all else an object of use in
order to be a value, just so does labour have to be before all else useful
labour — purposeful, productive activity — in order to count as
expenditure of human labour-power and hence as simple human labour.
Since up to now it has only been the substance of value and the
magnitude of value which have been specified, let us now direct
our attention to the analysis of the form of value.
First let us turn back to the first form of appearance of the value of
the commodity.
We take two quanta of commodities which cost the same amount of
labour-time for their production (and hence are equal magnitudes of
value), and we have: 40 yards of linen are worth two coats. We observe
that the value of the linen is expressed in a specific quantum of coats.
THE COMMODITY
17
The value of a commodity is called its relative value, if it is represented
in the use-value of another commodity in this fashion.
The relative value of a commodity can change, although its value
remains constant. And, going the other way, its relative value can
remain constant, although its value changes. The equation: 40yards of
linen = 2 coats presupposes after all that both commodities cost
equally much labour. With every change in the productive power of
the deployments of labour which produce them there is a change in
the labour-time necessary for their production. Let us consider the
influence of such changes upon relative value.
I. Let the value of the linen change, while the coat -value remains
constant. If the labour-time expended in the production of linen
doubles (perhaps as a consequence of increasing sterility of the soil
employed in growing flax), then its value doubles. In place of: 40
yards of linen - 2 coats, we would have: 40 yards of linen = 4 coats,
since 2 coats now contain only half as much labour-time as 40 yards of
linen. If the labour-time necessary for the production of linen
decreases by half, on the other hand (perhaps as a consequence of
improved looms), in that case the linen -value sinks by half. In consid­
eration of this we now have: 40 yards of linen = I coat. The relative
value of commodity A (i.e. its value expressed in commodity B) rises
and falls in direct ratio to the value of commodity A, while the value of
commodity B remains equal.
II. Let the value of linen remain constant, while the coat-value
changes. If the labour-time necessary for the production of the coat
doubles under these conditions (perhaps as a consequence of a disap­
pointing shearing of sheep), then we have instead of: 40 yards of linen
= 2 coats, now: 40yards of linen =1 coar.Ifthe value of the coat falls by
half, on the other hand, then: 40 yards of linen = 4 coats. Given a
constant value for commodity A, its relative value (expressed in
commodity B) falls or rises in inverse ratio to the change in value of B.
If one compares the different cases sub I and II, what emerges is
that one and the same change of relative value can be initiated from
completely opponte causes. The equation: 40 yards of linen = 2 coats
becomes 1) the equation: 40 yards of linen = 4 coats, either because
the value of linen doubles or the value of the coat falls by half, and 2)
the equation: 40 yards of linen = 1 coat, either because the value of
linen sinks by half or the value of the coat rises to twice as much.
III. Let the labour-quanta necessary for the production of linen
and coat vary contemporaneously, in the same direction and same
18
VALUE
proportion. In this case, 40 yards of linen = 2 coats, the same as
before, however their values may have changed. Their change of value
becomes apparent as soon as one compares them with a third commodity, whose value remains constant. If the values of all com­
modities rose or fell contemporaneously and in the same proportion,
then their relative values would remain unchanged. One would only
detect their real change of value in the fact that in the same labour­
time it would hold universally that a greater or smaller quantum of
commodities was yielded than before.
IV.
Let labour-times necessary for the production of linen and
coat, respectively (and consequently their values) be assumed to
change contemporaneously in the same direction, but to an unequal
degree, or in opposite directions, etc. The influence of all such
possible combinations upon the relative value of a commodity may be
deduced simply by application of the cases I, II and III.
What we have investigated is how far change in the relative mag­
nitude of value op a commodity (linen) reflects a change in its own
magnitude of value and we have in general investigated relative value
only in accordance with its quantitative side. We now turn to its form.
If relative value is the form wherein value manifests itself, then the
expression for the equivalence of two commodities (e.g., x of com­
modity A = y of commodity B, or 20 yards of linen = one coat) is the
dmple form o f relative value.
I.
First or simpleform of relative value: 20 yards of linen = 1 coat (x of
commodity A = y of commodity B). This form is rather difficult to
analyse, because it is simple. The different specifications which are
contained in it are veiled, undeveloped, abstract, and consequently
only able to be distinguished and focused upon through the rather
intense application of our power of abstraction. But at least this much
becomes clear at a glance, that the form remains the same, whether 20
yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen = x coats.
Linen makes its earthly appearance in the shape of a use-value or
useful thing. Its stiff-as-linen corporeality or natural form is conse­
quently not its form of value, but its direct opposite. It reveals its own
reality as value immediately by relating itself to another commodity (the
coat) as equal to itself'. If it were not itself value, then it could not relate
itself to coat (as value) as its own sort of thing. It posits itself as
qualitatively equal to the coat, by relating itself to it as objectification of
human labour of the same species, i.e., of its own value-substance; and it
posits itself as equal to only one coat instead of x coats, because it is not
THE COMMODITY
19
just value in general, but value of a specific magnitude — and a coat,
however, contains preciselyjust so much labour as 20 yards of linen. By
this relationship to the coat, linen swats different flies with one stroke.
By equating the other commodity to itself as value, it relates itself to itself
as value. By relating itself to itself as value, it distinguishes itselffrom
itself as use-value, at the same time. By expresting its magnitude of value
in the coat (and magnitude of value is both things: value in general, and
quantitatively measured value), it endows its reality as value with a
form of value which differs from its immediate existence. By revealing
itself in this manner as a thing which is differentiated within itself, it
reveals itself for the first time really as a commodity - a useful thing
which is at the same time value. Insofar as linen is use-value, it is an
independent thing. Its value appears, on the other hand only in relation­
ship to another commodity (e.g., the coat), which a coat is, is qualita­
tively equated to it (the linen), and consequently in some specific
quantity counts as equivalent to it, replaces it and is exchangeable for
it. Hence, value only acquires an individual form which is different
from use-value only through its manifestation as exchange-value.
The expression of the value of linen in the coat impresses a new
form upon the coat itself. After all, what is the meaning of the
value-form of linen? Evidently that the coat is exchangeable for it.
Whatever else may happen to it, in its mundane reality it possesses in
its natural form (coat) now the form of immediate exchangeability with
another commodity, the form of an exchangeable use-value, ox Equival­
ent. The specification of the Equivalent contains not only the fact that
a commodity is value at all, but the fact that it in its corporeal shape (its
use-value) counts as value for another commodity and consequently is
immediately at hand as exchange-value for the other commodity.
As value, linen is composed exclusively of labour, and forms a
transparently crystallized precipitate of labour. In reality this crystal
is very murky, however. In so far as labour is detectable in it (and not
every embodiment of commodity reveals the trace of labour), it is not
some undifferentiated human labour, but rather: weaving, spinning,
etc. — which, in addition, are by no means the only components of its
substance but of course are leavened with matter derived from nature.
In order to retain linen as a merely corporeal expression of human
labour one has to abstract from all that which makes it to be really a
thing. Any objectivity of human labour which is itself abstract (i.e.,
without any additional quality and content) is necessarily an abstract
objectivity — a thing of thought. In that fashion, a web of flax turns into
20
VALUE
a chimera. But commodities are objects. They have to be what they are
in an object-like way or else reveal it in their own object-like relation­
ships. In the production of linen, a particular quantum of human
labour exists in having been expended. The linen’s value is the merely
objective reflection of the labour so expended, but it is not reflected
in the body of the linen. It reveals itself (i.e., acquires a sensual
expression) by its value-relationship to the coat. By the linen’s equating
the coat to itself as value — while at the same time distinguishing itself
from the coat as object of use — what happens is that the coat becomes
the form of appearance of linen-value as opposed to linen-body: its
value-form as distinguished from its natural form.
In the expression of relative value: 20 yards of linen = 1 coat (or, x
linen is worth y of coat), one must admit that the coat counts only as
value or coagulation of labour, but it is precisely through that fact that
the coagulation of labour counts as coat, and coat as the form into
which human labour flows in order to congeal. The use-value coat
only becomes the form of appearance of linen-value because linen
relates itself to the material of the coat as to an immediate materialization
of abstract human labour, and thus to labour which is of the same kind
as that which is objectified within the linen itself. The object, coat,
counts for it as a sensually palpable objectification of human labour of
the same kind, and consequently as value in natural form. Since it is,
as value, of the same essence as the coat, the natural form coat thereby
becomes the form of appearance of its own value. But the labour
represented in theuse-value, coat, is not simply human labour, but is
rather a particular useful labour: tailoring. Simple human labour
(expenditure of human labour-power) is capable of receiving each and
every determination, it is true, but is undetermined just in and for
itself. It can only realize and objectify itself as soon as human labourpower is expended in a determined form, as determined and specified
labour; because it is only determined and specified labour which can be
confronted by some natural entity — an external material in which
labour objectifies itself. It is only the econcept’ in Hegel’s sense that
manages to objectify itself without external material.1
Time cannot be related to the coat as value or incarnated human
labour, without being related to tailoring-labour as the immediate
manifestation-form ofhuman labour. The aspect of the use value, coat,
1 ‘The concept, which is only subjective at first, marches ahead in accordance with its
own proper activity to objectify itself, without needing any external material or stuff for
the purpose.’HegeljLogi'A, p. 367, Encyclopaedia I.
THE COMMODITY
21
however, which is of interest to the linen is neither its woollen
comfort, nor its buttoned-up essence nor any other useful quality
which marks it out as a use-value. The coat is of service to the linen
only in order to represent the linen’s value-objectivity as disting­
uished from its starchy use-objectivity. It could have attained the
same purpose if it had expressed its value 'massa foetida or cosmetics,
or shoe polish. The tailoring labour, too, has value for the linen,
consequendy, not insofar as it is purposeful productive labour, but
only insofar as it exists as determinate labour, form of realizationy
manner of objectification of human labour in general. If linen expressed
its value in shoe polish rather than in the coat, then polish-making
would count for it as the immediate form of realization of abstract
human labour imstead of tailoring. So a use-value or commodity-body
only bécomes a form of appearance of value or an Equivalent by
another commodity’s relating itself to the concrete, useful species of
labour contained in it, as the immediate form of realization of abstract
human labour.
We stand here at the jumping-off point of all difficulties which
hinder the understanding of value-form. It is relatively easy to distin­
guish the value of the commodity from its use-value, or the labour
which forms the use-value from that same labour insofar as it is merely
reckoned as the expenditure of human labour power in the
commodity-value. If one considers commodity or labour in the one
form, then one fails to consider it in the other, and vice versa. These
abstract opposites fall apart on their own, and hence are easy to keep
separate. It is different with the value-form which exists only in the
relationship of commodity to commodity. The use-value or
commodity-body is here playing a new role. It is turning into the form
of appearance of the commodity-ϋα/κ*, thus of its own opposite.
Similarly, the conaete, useful labour contained in the use-value turns
into its own opposite, to the mere form of realization ofabstract human
labour. Instead of falling apart, the opposing determinations of the
commodity are reflected against one another. However incomprehen­
sible this seems at first sight, it reveals itself upon further considera­
tion to be necessary. The commodity is right from the start a dual
thing, use-value and value, product of useful labour and abstract
coagulate of labour. In order to manifest itself as what it is, it must
therefore double its form. It possesses right from nature the form of a
use-value. That is its natural form. It only earns a value form for itself
for the first time in circulation with other commodities. But its
22
VALUE
value-form has then to be itself an objective form. The only objective
forms of commodities are their use forms, their natural forms.
Now since the natural form of a commodity (e.g., linen) is the exact
opposite of its value-form, it has to turn another natural form — the
natural form of another commodity - into its commodity form. A thing
that it cannot do immediately for itself it can do immediately for
another commodity, and therefore by a detour for itself. It cannot
express its value in its own body or in its own use-value, but it can
relate itself to another use-value or commodity-body as an
immediately existent value. It can relate itself not to the concrete
labour contained in itself, but doubtless to that contained in another
species of commodity as a mere form of realization of abstract human
labour. For that, it only needs to equate the other commodity to itself
as an Equivalent. The use-value of a commodity only exists at all for
another commodity insofar as it serves in this fashion for the form of
appearance of its value. If one considers only the quantitative relation­
ship in the simple, relative value-expression: x commodity A = y
commodity B, then one finds also only the laws developed above
concerning the motion of relative value, which all rest upon the fact
that the amount of value of commodities is determined by the labourtime required for their production. But if one considers the value
relation of both commodities in their qualitative aspect, then one
discovers in that simple expression of value the mystery of value form,
and hence, in nuce* of money.2
Our analysis has revealed that the relative value-expression of a
commodity includes two different value forms. The linen expresses its
value and its determinate amount of value in the coat. It manifests its
value in the value-relation to another commodity, and hence as
exchange-value. On the other hand, the other commodity, the coat in
which it expresses its value in a relative way, obtains precisely in that
way the form of a use-value as an equivalent which is immediately
exchangeable with it. Both forms, the relative value-form of the one
commodity, equivalent form of the other, are forms ofexchange-value.
Both are actually only vectors — determinations conditioned reciproc*
7 n a n u t s h e l l t h a t is potentially. - A.D.
2 It is scarcely surprising that economists have overlooked the form-content of the
relative value-expression (subjected as they are to the influence of material interests), if
professional logicians before Hegel even overlooked the content of form in the
paradigms of judgments and conclusions.
THE COMMODITY
23
ally by each other — of the same relative value-expression, but divided
like poles between the two commodity-extremes which have been set
equal.
Quantitative determinacy is not included in Khz equivalent-form of a
commodity. The determinate relationship (e.g., in which coat is the
equivalent of linen) does not flow from its equivalent-form, the
form of its immediate exchangeability with linen, but from the determi­
nation of the amount of value by labour-time. The linen is only able to
represent its own value in coats, by relating itself to a determinate
coat-quantum as a given quantum of crystallized human labour. If the
coat-value changes, then this relationship also changes. But in order
that relative value of linen may change, it has to be present, and it can
only be formed upon given coat-value. Now, whether the linen repres­
ents its own value in 1, 2 or x coats depends (under this presupposi­
tion) completely upon the amount of value of a yard of linen and the
number of yards whose value is supposed to be manifested in the form
of coats. The amount of value of a commodity can only express it in the
use-value of another commodity as relative value. A commodity only
obtains the form of an immediately exchangeable use-value (which is
what is meant by ‘equivalent’) on the other hand, only as the material
in which the value of another commodity is expressed.
This distinction is obscured by a characteristic peculiarity of the
relative value-expression in its simple or first form. The equation: 20
yards of linen = 1coat (or 20 yards of linen are worth a coat) includes,
after all, precisely the identical equation: 1 coat = 20 yards of linen (or
one coat is worth 20 yards of linen). The relative value-expression of
the linen, in which the coat figures as Equivalent, thus contains from
the reverse the relative value-expression of the coat, in which the linen
figures as Equivalent.
Although both determinations of the value-form or both modes of
manifestation of the commodity-aa/w* as exchange-value are only rela­
tive, they do not both appear relative to the same degree. In thcrelative
value of the linen (20 yards of linen = 1 coat), the exchange-value of
linen is expressly manifested asm relationship to another commodity. As
far as the coat is concerned, it is admittedly an Equivalent insofar as
linen is related to the coat as form of appearance of its own value, and
hence as something immediately exchangeable with itself (the linen).
Only within this relationship is the coat an Equivalent. But it con­
ducts itself passively. It seizes no kind of initiative. It finds itself in
relationship because things relate themselves to it. The character
24
VALUE
which is constituted for it out of its relationship with the linen thus
does not appear as the result of its own relating, but as present without
any additional activity of its own. In addition, the specific mode and
manner in which the linen relates to the coat is exactly appropriate to
the end of doing it to the coat, however modest it be and however far
from being the product of a ‘tailor run mad with pride5. The linen,
after all, relates itself to the coat as the sensually existing materializa­
tion of human labour in abstracto and hence as present value-body. It is
this only because and insofar as the linen relates itself to the coat in this
specific manner. Its status as an Equivalent is (so to speak) only a
reflection-determination* of linen. But the situation seems just the
reverse. On the one hand, the coat does not take the trouble to relate
itself to anything. On the other hand, the linen relates itself to the
coat, not in order to make it into something, but because it is some­
thing quite apart from anything the linen might do. The resultant
product of the linen’s relating to the coat (its Equivalent-form, its
determinacy as an immediately exchangeable use-value) appears to
belong to the coat in a corporeal way even outside the relating to the
linen, in just the same way as its property of being able to keep people
warm (for example). In the first or simple form of relative value (20
yards of linen = one coat), this false seeming is not yet established,
because this form expresses in an immediate way also the opposite,
that the coat is an Equivalent of the linen, and that each of the two
commodities only possesses this determination because and insofar as
the other makes it into its own relative value-expression.*3
In the simple form of relative value or the expression of the equival­
ence of two commodities, the development of the form of value is
conespondent for both commodities, although in each case in the
opposite direction. The relative value-expression is in addition identical
with reference to each of both commodities, for the linen manifests its
value in only one commodity (the coat) and vice versa, but this value
expression is double for both commodities, different for each of the
same. Finally, each of both commodities is only an Equivalent for the
single other species of commodity, and thus only a single Equivalent.
Such an equation as ‘20 yards of linen = 1 coat* (or twenty yards of
linen are worth one coat) evidently expresses the value of the commod* Hegelian term, including Identity, Difference, Contradiction. — A.D.
3 There is something special about such reflection-determinations. This man here is
(e.g.) only King, because other men behave towards him like subjects. They believe,
however, that they are subjects because he is King.
THE COMMODITY
25
ity in only a very limited and one-sided way. If I compare the linen, for
example, with other commodities instead of coats, then I also obtain
other relative value-expressions, other equations (like 20 yards of linen =
u coffee; 20 yards of linen = v tea, etc.). The linen has just as many
different relative value-expressions as there exist commodities different
from it, and the number of its relative value-expressions constandy
increases with the number of kinds of commodities which newly enter
into existence.
The first form (20 yards of linen = 1 coat) yielded two relative
expressions for the value of too commodities. This second form yields
the most variegated mosaic of relative expressions for the value of the
same commodity. In addition, there seems to be nothing gained either
for the expression of the amount of value (for the amount of value of
linen — which obviously remains the same in every expression — is
just as exhaustively expressed in ‘20 yards of linen = 1 coat* as in ‘20
yards of linen = u coffee, etc.’)} the coffee and the etcetera are only
single Equivalents, just as the coat was.
Nevertheless, this second form contains within itself an essential
development of form. For latent in it is, after all, not only the fact that
linen happens to express its value at one time in coats, and at another
in coffee, e tc., but the fact that it expresses its value as much in coats as
in coffee, etc.: either in this commodity or that or the third, etc. The
continuing determination is revealed as soon as this second or
developed form of the relative value-expression is manifested in its con­
nection. We obtain then:
II.
Second or developedform of relative value: 20 yards of linen = one
coat or = u coffee or = v tea or = x iron or — y wheat or etc., etc. z
commodity A = u commodity B or —v commodity C or = w commodcommodity D = x commodity E or = y commodity F or = etc.
The first thing is obviously that the first form constitutes the basic
element of the second, for the latter consists of many simple relative
value-expressions, as ‘20 yards of linen = one coat’, ‘20 yards of linen
= u coffee’, etc.
In the first form (20 yards of linen = 1 coat) it may appear like an
accidental fact that these two commodities are exchangeable in this
specific quantitative relationship. In the second form, however, a back­
ground which is essentially different from and determinant of the
accidental appearance immediately shines through. The value of the
linen remains equally large, whether expressed in coat, or coffee, or
iron, etc., in innumerably different commodities belonging to the
most different possessors. The accidental relationship of two indi-
VALUE
26
victual possessors of commodities falls away. It becomes clear that it is
not the exchange which regulates the amount of value of the commod­
ity, but in the opposite way the amount of value of the commodity
which regulates its relationships of exchange.
In the expression ‘20 yards of linen = 1 coat’, the coat counted as
the form of appearance of the work obj ectifled in the linen. In that way
the labour contained in the linen was equated to the labour contained
in the coat, and was thereby determined as comparable human labour.
This determination did not, however, reveal itself expressly. At the
level of immediacy, the first form equates the labour contained in the
linen only to the labour of tailoring. Otherwise with the second form.
In the indefinite, constantly extendable series of its relative valueexpressions, the linen relates itself to all possible commodity-bodies as
mere form of appearance of the labour which is contained in itself.
Consequently it is at this point that the linen-value is for the first time
really manifested as value, i.e., or crystal of human labour in general.
The second form consists of a sum of the familiar equations of the first
form. Each of these equations (like ‘20 yards of linen = 1 coat5,)
contains also the reciprocal ‘1 coat = 20 yards of linen’, in which case
the coat manifests its value in the linen and precisely thereby man­
ifests the linen as an Equivalent. Now, since this holds of each of the
innumerable relative value-expressions of linen, we obtain:
III. Third9 reversed or reciprocal second form of relative value:
1 coat
u coffee
v tea
X iron
y wheat
etc.
=
=
=
=
=
=
20 yards of linen
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
”
The relative value-expression returns at this point to its original
form: 1 coat = 20 yards of linen. Now, however, this simple equation
is further developed. Originally it only contained the fact that the
value of the coat obtains through its expression in another commodity
a form which is differentfrom and independent of the exchange-value coat
or even the body of the coat. N ow the very same form manifests the coat
with respect to all other commodities whatsoever as value. Not only the
coat, but also coffee, iron, wheat, in a word, all other commodities
express their value in the material, linen. In this way, all manifest
themselves to one another as the same materialization of human labour.
THE COMMODITY
27
They are henceforward only quantitatively different, which is the
reason why one coat, u coffee, x iron, etc. — i.e., different quanta of
these different things — equal 20 yards of linen (equal to the same
quantum of objectified human labour). It is through their common
value-expression in the material, linen, therefore, that all com­
modities differ as exchange-values from their own use-values and relate
at the same time to one another as amounts of value, equate themselves
qualitatively to one another, and compare themselves quantitatively.
Only in this unified relative value-expression do they all appear for the
first time as values for one another, and their value consequently
obtains for the first time its corresponding form of appearance as
exchange-value. As opposed to the developed form of relative value
(form II) which manifests the value of a commodity in the environ­
ment of all other commodities, we call this unified value-expression the
universal relative form of value.
Inform I I (20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = u coffee, or v tea or x iron,
etc.), the form in which the linen develops its relative value-expression,
it relates itself to each individual commodity (coat, coffee, etc.) as a
specific Equivalent, and to all of them together as to the environment of
its specific forms of the Equivalent. No individual species of commodity
counts any longer with respect to the linen as simple Equivalent, as in
the particular Equivalent, but only asspecific Equivalent whereby the
one Equivalent excludes the other. In form III (which is the reciprocal
second form, and is therefore contained in it), the linen appears on the
other hand as the general form of the Equivalent for all other com­
modities. It is as if alongside and external to lions, tigers, rabbits, and
all other actual animals, which form when grouped together the
various kinds, species, subspecies, families etc. of the animal king­
dom, there existed also in addition the animal, the individual incarna­
tion of the entire animal kingdom. Such a particular which contains
within itself all really present species of the same entity is a universal
(like animal, god, etc.). Just as linen consequently became an indi­
vidual Equivalent by the fact that one other commodity related itself to
it as form of appearance of value, that is the way linen becomes — as
the form of appearance of value common to all commodities — the
universal Equivalent universal value-body, universal materialization of
abstract human labour. The specific labour materialized in it now
thereby counts as universal form of realization of human labour, as
universal labour.
During the process in which the value of commodity A is displayed
28
VALUE
in commodity B (whereby commodity B becomes a single Equival­
ent), it was indifferent of what specific type commodity B happened to
be. The corporeality of commodity B only had to be of a different
species than that of commodity A, and therefore had also to be a
product of other useful labour. By the coat’s displaying its value in
linen, it related itself to linen as the realized human labour, and pre­
cisely thereby related itself to linen-weaving as the realization-form of
human labour, but the specific determinacy which distinguishes linen­
weaving from other kinds of labour was completely indifferent. It
only had to be of another kind than tailoring and in any case had to be a
specific kind of labour. It is otherwise as soon as linen becomes a
universal Equivalent. This use-value — in its special determinacy
through which it is linen as opposed to all other kinds of commodities
(coffee, iron, etc.) — now becomes the universal form of value of all
other commodities and hence a universal Equivalent. The particular
useful kind of labour manifested in it therefore now counts as universal
form o f realization o f human labour, as universal labour precisely insofar
as it is labour ofparticular determinacy: linen weaving as opposed, not
only to tailoring, but to coffee growing, mining, and all other kinds of
labour. On the other hand, all other kinds of labour count (in the
relative value-expression of linen— die universal Equivalent: form II),
henceforth only as particular forms o f realization of human labour.
As values the commodities are expressions of the same unity, of
abstract human labour. In the form of exchange value they appear to
one another us values and relate themselves to one another as values.
They thereby relate themselves at the same time to abstract human
labour as their common social substance. Their social relationship
consists exclusively in counting with respect to one another as expres­
sions of this social substance of theirs which differs only quantitative­
ly, but which is qualitatively equal and hence replaceable and inter­
changeable with one another. As a useful thing, a commodity posses­
ses social determinacy insofar as it is use-value for people other than
its possessor, and hence satisfies social needs. But it is indifferent just
whose needs the commodity’s useful properties relate it to. The
commodity nevertheless can only become through these properties in
all cases only an object related to human needs, but not a commodity
for other commodities. It is only the kind of thing that can turn mere
objects of use into commodities and hence set into social rapport. But
this is just what value is. The form in which the commodities count to
one another as values — as coagulations of human labour — is
THE COMMODITY
29
consequently their social form. Social form of the commodity and
value-form or form of exchangeability are thus one and the same thing.
If the natural form of a commodity is at the same time its value-form,
then the commodity possesses the form of immediate exchangeability
with other commodities and consequently an immediately socialform.
The simple relative value-form (form I) O ne coat = 20 yards of
linen’, differs from the universal relative value-form, O ne coat = 20
yards linen’ only by the fact that this equation now forms a member in
the series:
1 coat
= 20 yards of linen
u coffee = ”
V tea
= ”
”
”
etc
In actuality, it differs thus only in the fact that the linen has
continued its development from a singular to a universal Equivalent.
Thus if in the simple relative expression of value it is not that com­
modity which expresses its amount of value, but rather that commod­
ity in which the amount of value is expressed which is the one that
obtains theform of immediate exchangeability ( equivalent form: hence,
immediately social form), the same thing holds true for the universal
relative value expression. But in the simple relative form of value this
distinction is merely formal and evanescent. If the coat expresses its
value in a relative way (that is, in linen) in the equation O ne coat = 20
yards of linen5, and the linen acquires thereby the form of Equivalent,
then the very same equation includes immediately the reciprocity ‘20
yards of linen = one coat’, in which it is the coat that acquires the form
of Equivalent and the value of the linen is expressed in a relative way.
This constant and correlative development of the value-form of both
commodities as relative value and as Equivalent no longer takes place.
If the universal relative value-form, O ne coat = 20 yards of linen5,
(where the linen is universal Equivalent) is turned around into ‘20
yards of linen = one coat5, the coat does not thereby become universal
Equivalent for all other commodities, but only a particular Equivalent
of the linen. The relative value-form of the coat is only universal
because it is the relative value-form of all other commodities at the
same time. What holds true of the coat, holds true of coffee, etc. It
follows, therefore, that the universal relative value-form of com­
modities excludes these very commodities from the universal form of
Equivalent. On the other hand, a commodity like linen is excluded
from the universal relative value-form as soon as it possesses the
30
VALUE
universal form of Equivalent. The universal relative value form of
linen, unified with the other commodities, would be ‘20 yards of linen
= 20 yards of linen’. But this is a tautology which does not express the
amount of value of this commodity, which is situated in a universal
form of Equivalent— and thereby in perpetually exchangeable form.
Rather, it is the developed relative value-form (20 yards of linen = one
coat or u coffee or = v tea or = etc.) that now becomes the specific
relative value-expression of the universal Equivalent.
Every commodity (coat, coffee, tea, etc.) possesses in the univer­
sal relative value-expression of commodities a value-form which is
different from its natural form — namely, the form: linen. And it is
precisely in this form that they relate themselves to one another as
exchangeables and exchangeables in relationships which are quantita­
tively determined, since, if one coat = 20 yards of linen, u coffee = 20
yards of linen, etc., then it is also true that one coat = u coffee, etc. All
commodities by mirroring themselves in one and the same commodity
as quantities of value, reflect themselves reciprocally as quantities of
value. But the natural forms which they possess as objects of use count
for them reciprocally as forms of appearance of value only over this
detour, and consequently not in an immediate way. They are not for
that reason immediately exchangeable just because of the way they
immediately are. Thus they do not possess the form of immediate
exchangeability for one another; i.e., their socially valid form is a
mediated one. It is the other way around. It is through the fact that all
other commodities relate themselves to linen as form of appearance of
value, that the natural form of linen becomes the form of its immediate
exchangeability with all commodities — and consequently its universal
social form in an immediate way.
A commodity only acquires the universal Equivalent-form because
and insofar as it serves all other commodities in the manifesting of
their universal relative (and hence not immediate) value-form. Com­
modities, however, have to endow themselves with relative valueform in general, because their natural-forms are only their forms of
use-value, and they have to endow themselves with unified (and hence
universal) relative value-forms in order for all of them to relate to one
another as values, as homogeneous coagulations of human labour. A
single commodity, therefore, only finds itself in the form of immediate
exchangeability with all other commodities, and therefore in
immediately social form, because and insofar as all other commodities
do not find themselves therein, or because the commodity by its very
THE COMMODITY
31
nature does not in general find itself in an immediately exchangeable or
social form, by virtue of the fact that its immediate form is the form of
its use-value, not of its value.
One does_not by any means actually detect in the form of universal
immediate exchangeability that it is a contradictory form of commodity:
just as inseparable from the form of not immediate exchangeability as
the positivity of one pole of a magnet is from the negativity of the
other. Consequently, one can imagine that one could impress the
mark of immediate exchangeability on all commodities at the same
time, just as one can also imagine that one could make all workers into
capitalists. Actually, however, universal relative value-form and univer­
sal Equivalent-form are the contradictory, reciprocally-presupposing
and reciprocally repelling poles of the very same social form of com­
modities.
Ksimmediate social materialization of labour, linen is (as the univer­
sal Equivalent) materialization of immediately social labour, while other
bodies of commodities, which represent their value in linen, are
materializations of novimmediately social labours.
Actually, all use-values are only commodities because they are
products of private labours which are independent of one another- private
labours which, however, depend materially upon one another as
particular members (even though rendered self-sufficient) of the
primordial system of divition of labour. In this fashion, they hang
together socially precisely through their differentiation >their particular
usefulness. That is exactly the reason why they produce qualitatively
differing use-values.
If they did not, then these use-values would not become com­
modities for one another. On the other hand, this differing useful
quality does not yet make products into commodities. If a peasant
family produces coat, linen and wheat for its own consumption, then
these things confront the family as differing products of their family
labour, but do not confront one another reciprocally as commodities.
If the commodity were immediately social (i.e., common) labour, then
the products would acquire the immediately social character of a
common product for its producers, but not the character of com­
modities for one another. Nevertheless, we do not have far to seek, in
this case, for that in which the social form of the private labours
consists, which are contained in the commodities and are independent
of one another. It already yielded itself out of the analysis of the
commodity. The commodities’ social form is their relationship to one
32
VALUE
another us equal labour; hence — since the equality oitoto coelo [utterly]
different labours can only consist in an abstraction from their inequality
— their relationship to one another as human labour in general:
expenditures of human labour-povier, which is what all human labours
— whatever their content and their mode of operation — actually are.
In each social form of labour, the labours of different individuals are
related to one another as human labours too, but in this case this
relating itself counts as the specifically social form of the labours. Now
none of these private labours in its natural form possesses this specifi­
cally social form of abstract human labour, just as little as the com­
modity in its natural form possesses the social form of mere coagula­
tion of labour, or value. However, through the fact that the natural
form of a commodity (linen, in this case) becomes a universal
Equivalent-form because all other commodities relate themselves to
this natural form as the appearance-form of their own value, hence
linen-weaving also turns into a universal form of realization of abstract
human labour or into labour of immediately social form. The standard
of ‘socialness’ must be borrowed from the nature of those relation­
ships which are proper to each mode of production, and not from
conceptions which are foreign to it. Just as we demonstrated earlier
that the commodity naturally excludes the immediate form of univer­
sal exchange-ability and that the universal Equivalent-form conse­
quently can only develop in a contradictory way, so the same thing
holds for the private labours lurking in the commodities. Since they
ar* not-immediately social labour, in the first place the social form is a
form which differs from the natural forms of the real, useful labours
and is foreign to them and abstract; and in the second place, all kinds
of private labour obtain their social character only in a contradictory
way, by all being equated to one exclusive kind of private labour
(linen-weaving, in this case). This latter thereby becomes the
immediate and universal form of appearance of abstract human labour
and thereby labour in immediately social form. It manifests itself
consequently also in a product which is socially valid and universally
exchangeable.
The illusion as if the equivalent-form of a commodity resulted from
its own corporeal nature instead of being a mere reflex of the relation­
ships of other commodities: this illusion strengthens itself with the
continuing development of the singular Equivalent to the universal,
because the contradictory vectors of the value-form no longer develop
equally for the commodities which are related to one another, because
THE COMMODITY
33
the universal Equivalent-form separates a commodity off as some­
thing totally secluded from all other commodities, and finally because
this (the commodity’s form) is actually no longer the product of the
relationship of any singular commodity.
From our present standpoint the universal Equivalent has not yet
by any means ossified, however. What was the way in which linen was
metamorphosed into the universal Equivalent, actually? By the fact
that it displayed its value, first in one single commodity (form I), then
in all other commodities in order in a relative way (form II), and
thereby all other commodities reflexively displayed their values in it in
a relative way (form III). The simple relative value-expression was the
seed out of which the universal Equivalent-form of linen developed. It
changes its role within this development. It begins by displaying its
amount of value in one other commodity and ends by serving as
material for the value-expression of all other commodities. What
holds for linen holds for every commodity. In its developed relative
value-expression (form II) — which only consists of its many, simple
value-expressions — the linen does not yet figure as universal Equi­
valent. Rather, every other commodity-body forms in this case linen's
Equivalent, is thereby immediately exchangeable with it and is there­
fore able to change places with it.
So we obtain finally:
Form IV: 20 yards of linen = one coat or = u coffee or = v tea or = x
iron or = y wheat or = etc.
One coat = 20 yards of linen or = u coffee or = v tea or = x iron or =
y wheat or = etc.
u coffee = 20 yards of linen or = one coat or v tea or x iron or y wheat
or v tea or = etc.
v tea =etc.
But each of these equations reflexively yields coat, coffee, tea, etc. as
universal Equivalent and consequently yields value-expression in
coat, coffee, tea, etc. as universal relative value-form of all other
commodities. It is only in its opposition to other commodities that a
commodity turns into the universal Equivalent-form; but every com­
modity turns into the universal Equivalent-form in its opposition to
all other commodities. If every commodity confronts all other com­
modities with its own natural form as universal Equivalent-form, the
result is that all commodities exclude themselves from the socially
valid displaying of their amounts of value.
Obviously, the analysis of the commodity yields all essential deter-
34
VALUE
ruinations of the value-form and the value-form itself in its contradic­
tory vectors, yields the universal relative value-form, the universal
Equivalent-form, and finally the never-ending sequence of simple rela­
tive value-expressions — which sequence forms at first a transitional
phase in the development of the value-form, in order finally to sud­
denly shift into the specifically relative value-form of the universal
Equivalent. But the analysis of the commodity yielded these forms as
commodity-forms in general (which thus also apply to each and every
commodity) in a contradictory manner, so that if commodity A finds
itself to be in one of the contradictory form-determinations, then
commodities B, C, etc. adopt the other in opposition to it. What was
decisively important, however, was to discover the inner, necessary
connection between value-form, value-substance, and value-amount;
i.e., expressed conceptually, to prove that the valueform arises out of
the value-concept.
A commodity seems at first glance to be a self-evident, trivial thing.
The analysis of it yields the insight that it is a very vexatious thing, full
of metaphysical subtlety and theological perversities. As mere usevalue, it is a sensual thing in which there is nothing portentous,
whether I happen to consider it from the viewpoint that its attributes
satisfy human needs or that it obtains these attributes only as product
of human labour. There is absolutely nothing of a riddle in the fact
that man changes by his activity the forms of natural matter in a way
which is useful to him. The form of wood, for example, is changed if
one makes a table out of it. Nevertheless, the table remains wood, an
ordinary, sensual thing. But as soon as it steps out as commodity, it
metamorphoses itself into a sensually supersensual thing. It does not
only stand with its feet on the ground, but it confronts all other
commodities on its head, and develops out of its wooden head caprices
which are much more wondrous than if it all of a sudden began to
dance.
The mystical character of the commodity thus does not arise in its
use-value. It arises just as little out of the να/wf-determinations, consi­
dered in themselves. For in the first place, however different the
useful labours or productive activities may be, it is a physiological
truth that they are functions of a specifically human organism as
distinguished from other organisms, and that every such function,
whatever its content and its form, is essentially expenditure of human
brain, nerve, muscle, organ of perception, etc. In the second place, if
we consider that which lies at the basis of the determination of the
THE COMMODITY
35
amount of value (the duration of time of that expenditure, or the
quantity of labour), it is clear that the quantity is distinguishable from
the quality of labour in a way which is even perceptible with the naked
eye. In all conditions, it was the rim* of labour which the production of
necessities costs that had to be of concern to man, although not to the
same degree at different levels of development. Finally, as soon as
men work for one another in any manner, their labour acquires in
addition a social form.
Let us take Robinson Crusoe on his island. Modest as he naturally
is, nevertheless he has various needs to satisfy and must therefore
perform useful labours of various sorts, make tools, build furniture,
tame llamas, fish, hunt etc. We do not refer at this time to praying and
other such activities, since our Robinson derives enjoyment from
them and regards such activity as recreation. Despite the variety of his
productive functions, he knows that they are only various forms of
activity of one and the same Robinson, and thus are only different
modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to divide his time
exactly between his various functions. Whether the one takes more
space and the other takes less in the totality of his activity depends
upon the greater or lesser difficulty which must be overcome for the
attainment of the intended useful effect. Experience teaches him that
much, and our Robinson who saved watch, diary, ink and pen from
the shipwreck begins to keep a set of books about himself like a good
Englishman. His inventory contains a list of the objects of use which
he possesses, of the various operations which are required for their
production, and finally of the labour-time which particular quanta of
these various products cost him on the average. All relationships
between Robinson and the things which form his self-made wealth are
here so simple and transparent that even Mr. Wirth* can understand
them without particular mental exertion. And nevertheless all essen­
tial determinations of value are contained therein.
If we now put an organization of free men in Robinson’s place, who
work with common means of production and expend their many
individual labour-powers consciously as one social labour-power, all
the determinations of Robinson’s labour are repeated: but in a social
rather than an individual way. Nevertheless, an essential difference
emerges. All Robinson’s products were his exclusively personal pro­
duct, and were thereby immediately objects of use for him. The total
product of the organization is a social product. One part of this
* Hack economist of Marx's day.
36
VALUE
product serves again as means of production. It remains social. But
another part is used up by the members of the organization as neces­
sities. This part must be divided up among them. The manner of this
division will change with the particular manner of the social
production-organism itself and the comparable historical level of
development of the producers. Only for the sake of the parallel with
commodity-production do we presuppose that each producer’s share
of necessities of life is determined by his labour-time. In such a case,
the labour-time would play a dual role. Its socially planned distribu­
tion controls the correct proportion of the various labour-functions to
the various needs. On the other hand, the labour-time serves at the
same time as the measure of the individual share of the producer in the
common labour, and thereby also in the part of the common product
which can be used up by individuals. The social relationships of men
to their labour and their products of labour remained transparently
simple in this case, in production as well as in distribution.
Whence comes the puzzling character of the labour-product as soon
as it assumes the form o f commodity?
If men relate their products to one another as values insofar as these
objects count as merely objectified husks of homogeneous human
labour, there lies at the same time in that relationship the reverse, that
their various labours only count as homogeneous human labour when
under objectified husk. They relate their various labours to one another
as human labour by relating their products to one another as values. The
personal relationship is concealed by the objectified form. So just what
a value is does not stand written on its forehead. In order to relate their
products to one another as commodities, men are compelled to equate
their various labours to abstract human labour. They do not know it,
but they do it, by reducing the material thing to the abstraction, value.
This is a primordial and hence unconsciously instinctive operation of
their brain, which necessarily grows out of the particular manner of
their material production and the relationships into which this pro­
duction sets them. First their relationship exists in a practical mode.
Second, however, their relationship exists as relationship for them. The
way in which it exists for them or is reflected in their brain arises from
the very nature of the relationship. Later, they attempt to get behind
the mystery of their own social product by the aid of science, for the
determination of a thing as value is their product, just as much as
speech. Now as far as concerns the amount of value, we note that the
private labours which are plied independently of one another (but
THE COMMODITY
37
because they are members of the primordial division o f labour are
dependent upon one another) on all sides are constantly reduced to
their socially proportional measure by the fact that in the accidental
and perpetually shifting exchange relationships of their products the
labour-time which is socially necessary for their production forcibly
obtrudes itself as a regulating natural-law, just as the law of gravity
does, for example, when the house falls down on one’s head. The
determination of the amount of value by the labour-time is conse­
quently the mystery lurking under the apparent motions of the rela­
tive commodity-values. The producers’ own social movement posses­
ses for them the form of a motion of objects under the control of which
the producers lie instead of controlling the motion. As far as concerns
the value-form finally, we note that it is just exactly this form which
objectively veils the social reladonships of private workers and consequendy the social determinations of private labours, instead of laying
them bare. If I say that coat, boots, etc. relate themselves to linen as
universal materialization of abstract human labour, the insanity in
such a way of putting things leaps into view. But if the producers of
coat, boots, etc. relate these commodities to linen as universal Equival­
ent then the social relatedness of their private labours appears to them
in exactly this insane form.
Such forms as these constitute precisely the categories of bourgeois
economy. They are the socially valid — thus objective — forms of
thought, for relationships of production of this particular historically
determined social mode of production.
The private producers only enter into social contact for the first
time through their private products: objects. Thesocial relationships of
their labours are and appear consequently not as immediately social
relationships of persons in their labours, but as objectified relationships
of persons, or social relationships of objects. The first and most univer­
sal manifestation of the object as a social thing, however, is the
metamorphosis of the product of labour into a commodity. The mysti­
cism of the commodity arises, therefore, from the fact that the social
determinations of the private labours of the private producers appear
to them as social natural determinations of products of labour; from the
fact, that is, that the social relationships of production of persons appear
as social relationships o f objects to one another and to the persons
involved. The relationships of the private workers to the totality of
social labour objectify themselves over against them and exist, consequendy, for them in the forms of objects. To a society of commodity
38
VALUE
producers whose universally social relationship of production consists
in their behaving toward their products as commodities (hence as
values) and their relating their private labours to one another in this
objective form as equal human labour, it is Christianity that is the most
appropriate form of religion, with its cult of the abstract man —
especially in its bourgeois development, Protestantism, Deism, etc.
In the ancient Asian, antique, etc. modes of production, the
metamorphosis of the product into a commodity and accordingly the
existence of man as commodity-producer plays a subordinate role,
which, however, becomes greater the more the communities enter
upon the stage of their decline. Genuine commercial people only exist
in the interstices of the ancient world, like the gods of Epicurus or like
the Jews in the pores of Polish society. Those ancient social organisms
of production are extraordinarily much more simple and transparent
than the bourgeois organism, but they are based either on the
immaturity of the individual man who has not yet torn himself free of
the umbilicus of the natural species-connection with other men or are
based upon immediate master and slave relationships. They are con­
ditioned by a low level of development of the productive powers of
labour by correspondingly restricted relationships of men within their
material process of the constitution of life, and consequently to one
another and to nature. This actual restrictedness reflects itself in an
idealist mode in the ancient natural and popular religions. The religi­
ous reflection of the real world can only disappear as soon as the
relationships of practical work-a-day life represent for men daily
transparently reasonable relationships to one another and to nature.
But relationships can only represent themselves as what they are. The
form of the social process of life (i.e., of the material process of
production) will only cast off its mystic veil of fog once it stands as a
product of freely socialized men under their conscious, planned con­
trol. For that to happen, however, a material basis of society is
demanded or a row of material conditions of existence which are
themselves again the primordial product of a long and painful history
of development.
Political economy has by now, to be sure, analysed value and
amount of value, even if incompletely. It has never even so much as
posed the question: Why does labour manifest itself in value and the
measure of labour by its temporal duration manifest itself in amount
of value} Forms upon whose foreheads it is written that they belong
to a social formation wherein the process of production masters men
THE COMMODITY
39
bat not yet does man master the process of production — such forms
count for their bourgeois consciousness as just such a self-evident
natural necessity as productive labour itself. Pre-bourgeois forms of
the social productive organism are accordingly treated by Political
Economy roughly like pre-Christian religions are treated by the
Fathers of the Church.
Just how drastically a section of the economists is deceived by the
fetishism which sticks to the world of commodities (or by the objective
illusion of the social determinations of labour) is proved among other
things by the tediously pointless contention about the role of nature in
the formation of exchange-value. Since exchange-value is a determi­
nate social style of expressing the labour which has been applied to a
thing, it can no more contain natural matter than the rate of exchange,
for example.
The commodity-form was still relatively easy to see through as the
most universal and most undeveloped form of bourgeois production,
which for that reason appears even in earlier periods of production,
although not in the same prevailing (and hence characteristic) way.
But as for more concrete forms like Capital, for example? The
fetishism of classical economics here becomes palpable.
In order not to anticipate, however, let another example concerning
the commodity-form itself suffice. It has been observed that in the
relationship of commodity to commodity (e.g., of shoe to shoe-shine
boy) the use-value of the shoe-shine boy (i.e., the utility of his real,
material properties) is completely irrelevant to the shoe. The shoeshine boy is of interest to the commodity, shoe, only as form of
appearance of its own value. So if commodities could speak, they
would say: O u r use-value may be of interest to a man. But it does not
inhere in us insofar as we are things. It is our exchange-value that
inheres in us as things. Our own circulation as commodity-things
proves that. It is only as exchange-values that we relate ourselves to
one another.* Now just listen to how the economists speak forth from
the very soul of the commodity: Value (exchange-value)is a property
of things, riches (use-value) of man. Value, in this sense, necessarily
implies exchanges, riches do not.* (Anonymous, 1821) ‘Riches (usevalue) are the attribute of man; value is the attribute of commodities. A
man or a community is rich; a pearl or a diamond is valuable. . . A
pearl or a diamond is valuable as a pearl or d iam ond(S. Bailey) Up to
now, no chemist has discovered exchange-value in pearl or diamond.
Our authors, who lay claim to special critical depth find, nevertheless,
that use-value inheres in objects independently of their material prop­
erties, but their exchange-value on the other hand inheres in them as
40
VALUE
objects. The remarkable circumstance that the use-value of things
realizes itself for men without exchange (thus, in the immediate rela­
tionship between thing and man), but their value on the other hand
realizes itself only in exchange (that is, in a social process) is what
strengthens them in their belief. Who is not reminded here of that
excellent Dogberry who teaches the night-watchman Seacoal/Tobea
well-favoured man is the gift of Fortune, but to write and read comes
by Nature.’ (Much Ado About Nothing, Act III, Scene 3.)
The commodity is immediate unity o f use-value and exchange-value,
thus of two opposed entities. Thus it is an immediate contradiction.
This contradiction must enter upon a development just as soon as it is
no longer considered as hitherto in an analytic manner (at one time
from the viewpoint of use-value and at another from the viewpoint of
exchange-value) but is really related to other commodities as a totali­
ty. The real relating of commodities to one another, however, is their
process of exchange.
II
The Form of Value
Appendix to Volume One,
first edition of
Capital
41
IL Introduction
This hitherto untranslated text appeared in the First Edition of
Capital as an appendix and was dropped from succeeding editions.
Marx refers to it in a letter to Engels dated June 22,1867: ‘As far as the
development of the value-form is concerned, I have followed and not
followed your advice — if I may deport myself dialectically in this
respect, too. That means, I have: 1) written an appendix in which I
present the very same thing as simply as possible and as school-masterly
as possible, and, 2) have given each new division of the text its own
title, in accordance with your advice.’ In the Second (and definitive)
Edition this appendix was incorporated into a totally reworked Chap­
ter One.
The present translation is intended to be no more than a tool for
getting closer to Capital itself. We do not guarantee the reader a
translation which removes all obstacles, but rather one whose diffi­
culty of comprehension is hopefully no greater but also no less than
the difficulty of Marx’s own discourse.
The need for such translation is evinced by the remarks of the
revisionist George Novack, which would hav t Capital begin ‘with an
empirical statement of fact about the capitalist system as it
immediately presents itself to an acute observer. “The wealth of
societies in which the capitalistic mode of production prevails takes
the form of ‘an immense accumulation of commodities’ where indi­
vidual commodities are the elementary units.” ’ (Novack, in Inter­
continental Press, 1972 p.1022). The last two words translate Marx’s
neologism Elementarform. Marx begins not with an immediate empir­
ical fact but with ‘the most simple, ordinary, mass, immediate
“Being” : the single commodity (Sein in political economy). The
43
44
VALUE
analysis of it as a social relation.’ So Lenin says in Volume 38 of his
Collected Works (page 320). Marx himself was equally explicit: ‘What I
proceed from is the simplest social form in which the product of
labour in contemporary society manifests itself, and this is as “com­
modity” . That is what I analyse, and first of all to be sure in theform in
which it appears. Now I find at this point that it is, on the one hand, in
the natural form a thing of use-value, alias use-value, and on the other
hand that it is bearer of exchange-value, and is itself an exchange-value
from this point of view . . .’ (see below, p. ).
The great difficulty in actually meaning anything by the terms used
in ordinary bourgeois political economy (‘economics’) might give rise
to the illusion that it is a realm of fathomless profundity. In reality, a
realm of buzzing confusion. Bourgeois economists cannot say what
they mean by ‘capital’, for example. Since their empirical method is
unable to articulate the realm of‘social-natural relationships’ (as Marx
termed it), they prove to be totally incoherent about whether capital is
a thing (a factory), an act (of exchange), or a hypothetical act of
exchange (an investment portfolio). Now even they are beginning to
be terrified by the awesome 'Capital Gap’ which yawns as the chaos
before them. That is their acknowledgement of the fact that real
investment is declining as it ought not, as business productivity
recommences. They can understand it pragmatically by pointing to
increased interest rates engendered with inflation, but they have no
scientific grasp of any necessary causal connections involved in the
historical conjuncture: they only know by experience to lash out at the
working class now and until such time as profitability may mysteri­
ously restore itself. That the human race perish in the meantime
cannot be taken into account. It is an ‘externality’.
In this way is manifested the irreconcilable conflict between the
productive forces and the social relations of capitalist production. The
recognition of this historical necessity is the only basis for the practice
of revolutionary Marxists in the struggle to bring the working class to
the overthrow of capitalist state power. ‘Without revolutionary
theory, no revolutionary movement.’ (Lenin). The revolutionary par­
ties of the International Committee of the Fourth International, pro­
ceeding from the struggle to establish the objective nature of the laws
of capitalism, come into conflict with all reformists, Stalinists and
revisionists. These forces attack dialectical materialism and Marx’s
political economy in order to strengthen the illusion in the working
class that some compromise solution is still historically possible, that
THE FORM OF VALUE
45
it is not necessary to go all the way, through to the conquest of state
power.
In order to break with the conception that whatever is apparently a
precondition for production (land, capital, work) has the nature of a
‘factor’ to be ‘harmonised’ with other factors (which leads to the
trade-union bureaucrat philosophy of‘We’re all in this together’), this
spurious empiricism must be destroyed as a method as it spews forth
meaningless abstractions which purport to be labels — but are labels of
nothing at all (‘capital’ or ‘money1as the Economists use the words).
An abstraction is a weapon, as Trotsky said. But these are the abstrac­
tions to which one is supposed to rise up from the spuriously (ahistorically, vulgar-materialistically) concrete (such as ‘land’, ‘work’). But
there are also the abstractions of Marx’s laboratory, which he strug­
gled for on the basis of the method of Hegel’s Logic, from which one
rises in dialectical unity and conflict to the genuinely (dialectically,
historically) concrete. This enabled Marx to say for the first time what
he meant and what one has to mean by ‘money’, ‘labour’, ‘capital’,
‘land’ and all the other terms which present the working of the law of
motion of modem society.
Just as the simple form of value, the individual act of exchange of one given
commodity for another, already includes in an undeveloped form all the
main contradictions of capitalism — so the simplestgeneralization, the first
and simplest formation of notions (judgments, syllogisms, etc.) already
denotes man’s ever deeper cognition of the objective connection of the
world. Here is where one should look for the true meaning, significance
and role of Hegel's Logic. This NB. Marx applied Hegel’s dialectics in its
rational form to political economy. (Lenin, Volume 38, p. 178 ff.)
For Novack, Marx differs only in a quantitative way from a ‘vulgar
empiricist,’ being ‘more scientific’ and ‘equipped with the superior
dialectical method. In the course of his work he moves from the
phenomenal forms to the essential connections and inner laws of the
mode of production under examination.’ Marx, however, did not
discover the essence which underlies the appearance of capitalist
society through a ‘more scientific’ empirical study of appearance, of
phenomena. How anyone could detect in an object, as such, whether
it is a unit of wealth in a mode of production based on the production
of exchange-values or whether it has been produced for a potlatch is a
mystery. Marx begins as a dialectician — not as the possessor of a
subjective talent for ‘acute observation’ but as the negator of Political
46
VALUE
Economy, which speaks of the wealth of nations rather than the
wealth of societies.
eIn the form of society which we are to examine, the (use-values)
constitute at the same time the material conveyors oiexchange-value.
Use-objects consequently only appear as commodities insofar as they
possess double-form, natural-form and value-form. The valueobjectivity of commodities differs 4rom Dame Quickly in that one
does not know where it is to be had.* The investigation of the totalities
of production and circulation and of the laws they obey under
capitalism proceeds not as a mere ‘uncovering’ of essence through the
‘scientific* observation of phenomena, but rather in accordance with
the contradictory development of the forms of value. For all his
disdain of ‘vulgar empiricism’, Novack remains completely hostile to
Marx’s dialectical method, methodologically bound instead to the
world of the liberated Dame Quickly.
This text is part of the theoretical arsenal with which Marx provides
us above all for the task of learning to speak coherently about money,
even to say what it is. Economists have never been able to do more
than tabulate different functions of money as they turn up empirically
in history. Marx’s apparently abstruse development of distinctions
which are far from immediate experience is the only method which
has yet succeeded in locating money within the realm of ‘socialnatural relationships’, and thereby in revealing the nature of its
necessity (penetrating the ‘veil of money’). The capitalists are learning
on their own flesh that it is not an accidental ‘means of exchange’
which can be replaced by some other tool as need demands. Rather,
the entire history of post-World War II capitalism has been that of a
deflection of class antagonism into the monetary sphere, and the
particular social-natural relationship which prevails there is now
uncoiling at a rate which simply defines the scope of manoeuvre
available to the capitalists and hence the objective social reality that
mankind faces in this present period. Although this text does not
actually arrive at the category of money, the preconditions for its
analysis are explicated here.
To flinch from the theoretical tasks posed by the new appearanceforms of value entails a fudging on all the hard questions characteristic
of the Stalinists and the revisionists who cover for them. For example,
Gus Hall, National Secretary of the CPUSA entitles his ‘Report to the
21st Convention of the CPUSA’: ‘The Crisis of Capitalism and the
Fight-Back*. He says, ‘Now corporate propagandists want the people
THE FORM OF VALUE
47
to get involved in the game of “ is the crisis bottoming out?” We are
not going to get into the charades of whether it is bottoming out or not.
Such demagogy is for the purpose of directing the attention of the
people away from the real problems and away from the struggle.’
Does Hall then have no position on the nature of the crisis? By no
means. He goes on to say that ‘the cardinal question for us is not when
(!) the crisis will bottom out* (p. 15). ‘When it abates it is going to leave
behind it serious economic problems, including a higher level of
unemployment.’ (p.38) The most important consideration is that his
organisation can now grow larger, but the crisis has no deeper import,
since ‘the struggle for detente at this moment of time is the centre
piece in the struggle against world imperialism, for world peace and
social progress.’ Changes in the ‘balance of world forces’ are what is
decisive: ‘not to fight for reforms because of the danger that it creates
illusions leads to phrase-mongering. In a sense it is political idiocy. It
is Trotskyism.’ (p.35). As always, for Stalinism the decisive historical
task is to be accomplished in the Soviet Union, and all other struggles
must be subordinated to it. In reality, this petty-bourgeois utopia of
‘socialism in one country’ is a defence of the privileged bureaucracy in
the USSR. In order for the conflict of classes to be smoothly replaced
by the competition between nations, in the Stalinist conception, it is
necessary that capitalism be no longer contradictory at the most
fundamental level. This means that the crisis cannot be allowed to
seem to be caused by capital, but by something ‘reformable’, the
monopolies. What is to blame for the ‘longer-range forecast of a
deterioration of US capitalism’? It is mandatory that the answer be in
terms of evil or folly, lest the mode of production itself be accused,
and reformism be revealed as idle utopia. So: ‘of course the main
aggravating factors are the policies of monopoly capital’ (p.39), and
inflation is a mere ‘rip-off (p.40). What Stalinism cannot permit to be
grasped is the objective nature of the laws of capitalism. Of course the
capitalists will seek to take advantage of inflation as well as of every­
thing else. But it is absurd and highly dangerous to propose that it
remains under control and influenceable by ‘policies’ of fiscal and
monetary manipulation as it was even five years ago. The Stalinists are
counter-revolutionary because they proceed from the interests of the
Soviet bureaucracy. For this purpose, Stalinism long ago ‘corroded’
the theoretical basis of the Bolshevik Party as the necessary precondi­
tion for the physical liquidation of the 1930s. In the struggle against
Stalinism, Marxism in the International Committee of the Fourth
48
VALUE
International has had to fight its way through, in theory and practice,
today, to the objective needs of the working class as defined by the
objective disintegration of the economy manifested in the monetary
realm. Revisionism, rejecting this struggle for Marxist theory at the
most fundamental level, soon finds itself capitulating to Stalinism.
Thus the Organisation Communiste Internationaliste (OCI), once a
Trotskyist organisation, comes to agree with the Communist Party of
Italy in supporting the Portuguese Socialist Party in its defence of
bourgeois order in the name of ‘democracy*. The OCI experience
shows that no amount of mere exorcisms by incantation can prevent
the revising of Marxism within a party as long as there is no struggle
for the deepening of theory at the centre of the party: the most rigid
‘Programme* will prove brittle as conditions change. The struggle
against Stalinism is not a compilation of dossiers on their betrayals
alone, as if they really had a subtle and profound understanding of
Marxism which they were treacherously concealing; nor are they dealt
with theoretically until the antagonistic and contradictory nature of
capitalism is revealed by the display of the objective law of value in its
workings — beyond the manipulations of ‘state-monopoly’
capitalists.
Only the International Committee of the Fourth International has
continuously armed the revolutionary party by the necessary insis­
tence upon fundamentals. So it is not a question of ‘stressing’ money
like the money cranks, but of locating its status within the basic
dynamics of the mode of production itself: it proves to be as decisive as
Marx said. The systems of circulation and production form a unity in
conflict. When Hall and the revisionists speak of the present conjunc­
ture as a ‘cyclical downturn’, they are proposing an analysis of the
economy as one which has within itself the means of reconstituting
this unity which has been vanishing over an entire historical period of
the monetary sphere and the realm of production. They complacently
project their analogies from the past into the future. But the truth is
concrete. The method of analogy and mechanical comparison cannot
follow the law of value through new and unparalleled forms of
appearance: inflation plus unemployment. To lose control of the
Form of Value means that a party can no longer see what is necessary,
as the bourgeoisie gropes pragmatically for some weapon with which
to preserve itself. Such a party would fail in its most difficult task and,
indeed, its only reason for existence: to detect and seize the revolutio­
nary opportunity.
The Form of Value
The analysis of the commodity has shown that it is a doublet:
use-value and value. So in order for a thing to possess commodity-form,
it must possess doublet-form, the form of a use-value and the form of
value. The form of the use-value is the form of the commodity -body
itself — iron, linen, etc: its palpable, sensible form of existence. What
this is is the natural-form of the commodity. The value-form of the
commodity, on the other hand, is its social-form.
How is the value of a commodity expressed? That is, how does it
attain appearance-form of its own? By the relationship of different com­
modities. In order to analyse the form contained in such relationship
correctly, we must take its simplest, most undeveloped shape as our
point of departure. The simplest relationship of a commodity is obvi­
ously its relationship to one other single commodity, regardless to which.
The relationship of two commodities, therefore, provides the simplest
value-expression for a commodity.
I. Simple value-form
20 yards of linen = 1 coat
or
20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat
Sec. 1. The two poles of the value-expression: relative value-form and
equivalent-form.
In the simple value-expression the two commodity-types linen and
coat obviously play two different roles. Linen is the commodity which
expresses its value in a commodity-body different from its own: the coat.
On the other hand, the commodity-type coat serves as the material in
which value is expressed. One of the commodities plays an active role
49
50
VALUE
and the other, a passive. Now, of the commodity which expresses its
value in another commodity we say: its value is manifested as relative
value; or it is situated in relative value-form. Of the other commodity,
however, (the coat in this case) which serves as material for the valueexpresnon, we say: it functions as equivalent of the first commodity; or
it is situated in equivalent-form.
Without analysing any more deeply at this point, the following
points are as such perfectly clear:
a) The inseparability of both forms.
Relative value-form and equivalent-form are inseparable moments
of the same value-expression: moments which belong to one another,
and determine each other reciprocally.
b) The polarity of both forms.
On the other hand, both these forms are mutually excluding or
opposed extremes (that is, poles) of the same value-expression. They
apportion themselves in each case among the different commodities,
which the value-expression relates to one another. For example, I
cannot express the value of linen in linen. 20 yards of linen = 20 yards
of linen is no sort of value-expression, but expresses at most a definite
quantum of the use-object, linen. The value of linen thus can only be
expressed in another commodity; that is, only relatively. The relative
value-form of linen thus presupposes that some other commodity is
situated in the equivalent-form as it confronts linen. On the other
hand, this other commodity (the coat, in this case) which figures as
equivalent of linen— and thus is situated in equivalent-form - cannot be
situated at the very same time in relative value-form. It is not that the
commodity expresses its own value. It only provides the material for the
value-expresnon of another commodity.
Consider the expression: 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or 20 yards of
linen are worth 1 coat. We grant that it includes also the converse
relationship, 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, or 1 coat is worth 20 yards of
linen. But in this case, I must reverse the equation in order to express
the value of the coat in a relative way9 and as soon as I do that, the linen
becomes the equivalent instead of the coat. Hence, the same commod­
ity cannot appear in the same value-exprestion at the same time in both
forms. Rather, these latter exclude each other in the manner ofpoles.
Let us consider transactions of exchange between linen-producer A
and coat-producer B. Before they unite in their transaction, A says: 20
yards of linen are worth 2 coats (20 yards of linen = 2 coats), but B
THE FORM OF VALUE
51
says: 1 coat is worth 22 yards of linen (1 coat = 22 yards of linen).
Finally, after they have haggled for a long time, they come to agree­
ment. A says: 20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat, and B says: 1 coat is
worth 20 yards of linen. In this case, both linen and coat are situated at
the same time in relative value-form and in equivalent-form. But, (note
carefully !) the circumstance obtainsfor two different persons and in two
different value-expresnons, which entered only at the same time into
existence. As far as A is concerned, his linen (we speak this way
because the initiative has its origin in his commodity, for him) is
situated in relative value-form, and it is the commodity of the other
person (the coat) on the other hand which is situated in equivalentform. It is the other way around from the standpoint of B. The same
commodity thus never — not even in this case — possesses both forms
at the same time in the same value-expression.
Relative value and equivalent are both only forms of commodity
value. Whether now a commodity is situated in the one form or in the
other in polar opposition depends exclusively upon its place in the
value-expression. This appears strikingly in the simple value-form being
presently considered by us. As far as content is concerned, both expres­
sions:
1. 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or 20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat
2. One coat = 20 yards of linen or 1 coat is worth 20 yards of linen
are by no means different. As far as form is concerned, they are not only
different but opposed. In expression number 1, the value of linen is
expressed relatively. Thus it is situated in the relative value-form, while
at the same time the value of the coat is expressed as equivalent. It thus
is situated in the equivalent-form. If I turn expression 1 around, I
obtain expression 2. The commodities change places, and straightaway
the coat is situated in relative value-form; and the linen, on the pther
hand, in equivalent-form. Because they have changed respective places
in the same value-expression, they have exchanged their value-form.
Sec. 2 The relative value-form.
a) Relationship o f equality.
Since it is the linen which is to express its value, the initiative has its
point of departure in it. It enters into a relationship with the coat; that is,
to some other commodity of a different type than itself. This relationship
is relationship of equalizing. The basis of the expression 20 yards of linen
= 1 coat is (in reality): linen = coat; a circumstance which put into
52
VALUE
words means only: The commodity-type coat is of the same nature,
substance as the linen, a commodity-type which differsfrom it. One for the
most part overlooks that, because one’s attention is absorbed by the
quantitative relationship; that is, by the determinate proportion in which
the one type of commodity is equated to the other. One forgets that
magnitudes of different things are only quantitatively comparable after
their reduction to the same unit. Only as expressions of the same unit do
they have the same denominator, and are hence commensurable quan­
tities, In the above expression, the linen relates itself thus to the coat as
to something like itself, or the coat is related to the linen as a thing of the
same substance, having a like essence. It is set qualitatively equal to the
linen.
b) Relationship of value.
The coat is only the same as the linen insofar as both are values. The
fact that the linen relates itself to the coat as to something equal to itself or
that it is as a thing of the same substance that the coat is equated to the
linen expresses that the coat counts in this relationship as a value. It is
equated to the linen insofar as it is value just as much as the linen is.
The relationship of equality is thus relationship of value, but the valuerelationship is above all expression of the value or the value-being of the
commodity, which expresses its value. As use-value or commodity-body
the linen is distinct from the coat. Its value-being, however, becomes
visible, expresses itself in a relationship in which another commoditytype, the coat, is set equal to it or counts as being of equal essence to it.
c)
Qualitative content of the relative value-form contained in the
value-relationship.
A coat is only value insofar as it is a reified expression of the human
labour-power expended in its production, and is thus a coagulation of
abstract human labour - abstract labour, because abstraction is made
from the determinate, useful, concrete character of the labour con­
tained in i t — human labour, because in this case labour counts only as
expenditure of labour-power in general. Linen thus cannot relate itself to
the coat as to a value-thing or cannot be related to the coat as value
without being related to it as to a body whose only matter consists in
human labour. Butas value the linen is coagulation of the same human
labour. Within this relationship, the body, coat, thus represents the
value-substance which is common to it and the linen; that is, human
labour. Within this relationship the coat thus counts only asform of value
and therefore also as value-form of the linen, as sensible appearance-
THE FORM OF VALUE
53
form of the linen-value. In this way through mediation of the valuerelationship, the value of a commodity is expressed in the use-value of
another commodity; that is, in another commodity-body different from
itself.
d)
Quantitative determinacy of the relative value-form contained in the
value-form.
The 20 yards of linen, however, are not only value in general (that is,
coagulation of human labour), but are value of determined magnitude;
that is, adetermined quantum of human labour is objectified in them. In
the value-relationship of the linen to the coat, the commodity-type,
coat, is not qualitatively equated to the linen merely as value-body in
general (i.e., as incarnation of human labour), but [as] a determinate
quantumofthis value-body: 1coat, not I dozen, etc., insofar as precisely
as much value-substance or human labour resides in 1 coat as in 20
yards of linen.
e) The totality of the relative value-form.
Through the relative value-expression the value of the commodity
thus obtains in the first place a form which differsfrom its own use-value.
The use-value of this commodity is (e.g.) linen. It possesses its valueform, however, in its relationship of equality to the coat. Through this
relationship of equality, another commodity-body differing from it in
a sensibly perceptible way becomes the mirror of its own value-being,
its own value-structure. In this way it achieves a value-form indepen­
dent, autonomous, and differingfrom its naturalform. But in the second
place, as value of determined magnitude, as determined valuemagnitude, it is measured quantitatively by the quantitatively deter­
mined relationship or the proportion in which the other commoditybody is equated to it.
Sec. 3. The equivalent-form.
a) The form of immediate exchangeability.
As values, all commodities are equivalent expressions of the same
unity, which are replaceable or interchangeable by one another, this unity
being that of human labour. A commodity is therefore exchangeable
with another commodity in general, insofar as it possesses a form in
which it appears as value. A commodity-body is immediately exchange­
able with another commodity insofar as its immediateform (i.e. its own
body- or natural-form) presents value or counts as value-structure with
respect to another commodity. The coat possesses this property in the
54
VALUE
value-relationship of the linen to it. The value of the linen would not
otherwise be expressible in the thing, coat. The fact that a commodity
thus has equivalent-form in general means only: by virtue of its place in
the value-expression, its own natural-form counts as value-formfor some
other commodity or it possesses the form of immediate exchangeability
with some other commodity. There is thus no necessity of its first
assuming a form differing from its immediate natural-form, in order to
appear as a value, to count as value for some other commodity, and to
have the effect upon the other commodity that a value has.
b) Quantitative determinacy is not contained in the equivalent-form.
As to the fact that a thing, which has the form, coat, is immediately
exchangeable with linen, or a thing which has the form, gold, is
immediately exchangeable with all other commodities— this equivalentform of a thing contains no quantitative determinacy whatsoever. The
opposite erroneous view arises from the following causes:
First, the commodity coat, for example, which serves as material for
the value-expression of linen is alsoa/zuqys quantitatively determined, as
1 coat, not 12 coats, etc. But why? Because the 20 yards of linen in their
relative value-expression are not only expressed as value in general but
are measured at the same time as adetermined value-quantum. The fact,
however, that 1 coat (not 12 coats) contains as much labour as 20 yards
of linen and is therefore equated to the 20 yards of linen has nothing
whatsoever to do with the characteristic property of the commoditytype coat of being immediately exchangeable with the commodity-type,
linen.
Second, if 20 yards of linen are expressed as value of determined
magnitude in 1 coat, the value-magnitude of 1 coat is reciprocally
expressed in 20 yards of linen, and is thus measured in a similarly
quantitative way, but only indirectly (by reversal of the expression), not
to the extent that the coat plays the role of the equivalent but rather to
the extent that it manifests its own value in arelative way in the linen.
Third, we can express the formula 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or 20
yards of linen are worth 1 coat also as follows: 20 yards of linen and 1
coat are equivalents, or both are equally large values. In this case we are
not expressing the value of any one of the two commodities in the
use-value of the other. Neither of the two commodities is therefore
posed in equivalent-form. Equivalent means in this case only something
equal in magnitude, after both things have previously been implicitly
reduced to the abstraction value, in our head.
THE FORM OF VALUE
55
c) The peculiarities of the equivalent-form.
1. First peculiarity of the equivalent-form: use-value becomes the
appearance-form of its opposite, value.
The natural-form of the commodity becomes the value-form. But
(note well!) this quid pro quo takes place for a commodity B (coat or
wheat or Iron, etc.) only within the value-relationship, in which any
other commodity A you choose (linen, etc.) confronts it only within this
relationship. In itself, considered in isolation, the coat (e.g.) is only a
useful thing, use-value just like the linen, and its coat-form is there­
fore only a form of use-value or natural-form of a particular
commodity-type. But since no commodity can relate itself to itself as
equivalent and thus can also not make its own natural skin into the
expression of its own value, therefore it must relate itself to another
commodity as equivalent or make the natural skin of another
commodity-body into its own value-form.
To clarify this matter let us take the example of a measure which
applies to the commodity-bodies as commodity-bodies, that is, as
use-values. A sugar-cube, because it is a body, is heavy and therefore
has weight, but one cannot see or feel a sugar-cube’s heaviness. We
now take various pieces of iron whose weight has been previously
determined. The commodity-form of iron, considered in itself is just as
litde an appearance-form of heaviness as is that of the sugar-cube.
Nevertheless, in order to express the sugar-cube as heaviness or weight
we put it into 2iweight-relationship to iron. In this relationship the iron
counts as a body which expresses nothing except heaviness or weight.
Iron-quanta serve therefore for a weight-measure of sugar and repres­
ent over against the sugar-cube mere heaviness-structure, appearanceform of heaviness. This role is played by iron only within the relation­
ship in which the sugar (or some other body whose weight is to be
found) confronts it. If both things were not heavy, then they could not
enter into this relationship and the ones consequently could not serve for
the expression of the heaviness of the other. If we place both into a
balance, then we really see that they are as heaviness the same and
therefore are in determined proportion also of the same weight. Just as
in this case the iron-body represents only heaviness to the sugar, so in
our value-expression the coat-body represents only value to the linen.
2. Second peculiarity of the equivalent-form: concrete labour becomes the
appearance-form of its opposite, abstractly human labour.
The coat counts as value-body in the linen’s value-expression, and
56
VALUE
the coat’s body- or natural-form therefore counts as value-form; that is,
thus, as embodiment of homogeneous human labour, of human labour as
such. The labour, however, by which the useful thing, coat, is made
and obtains its particular form is not abstractly human labour, human
labour as such, but aparticular, useful concrete type of labour -tailoring.
The simple relative value-form demands that the value of a commod­
ity (e.g., linen) be only expressed in one Hngle other commodity-type.
Just which the other commodity-type is, is utterly indifferent for the
simple value-form. The linen -value could have been expressed in the
commodity-type, wheat, instead of in the commodity-type, coat; or
instead of in the commodity-type, wheat, in the commodity-type,
iron, etc. But regardless of whether it were coat, wheat, or iron, the
equivalent of linen would always count as value-body to the linen, and
therefore as embodiment of human labour as such. And the particular
body-form of the equivalent — whether coat, wheat or iron — would
always remain not an embodiment of abstractly human labour but of a
particular, concrete, useful type of labour, whether that of tailor, farmer,
or mine-worker. T h t particular, concrete, useful labour which produces
the commodity-body of the equivalent must therefore always count
necessarily in the value-expresnon as particular realization-form or
appearance-form of human labour as such (that is, of abstractly human
labour). The coat, for example, can only count as value-body, and
therefore as embodiment of human labour as such insofar as tailoring
counts as determinateform in which human labour power is expended or
in which abstractly human labour realizes itself.
Within the value-relationship and the value-expression included
therein the abstractly universal does not count as property of what is
concrete, and sensibly-real, but the opposite holds: what is sensibly concrete counts as mere appearance-form or determinate realizationform of the abstractly-universal. It is not that tailoring-labour, which
resides for example in the equivalent coat, possesses within the
value-expression of linen the universal property of also being human
labour. The opposite holds: Being human labour counts only as
appearance-form or determinate realization-form of this essence (of
human labour). This quid pro quo is unavoidable because the labour
manifested in the labour-product is only value-constructing insofar as it
homogeneous human labour, with the result that labour objectified in
the value of a product is in no way distinguished from the labour
objectified in the value of a different kind of product.
This invertion whereby the sensibly-concrete counts only as
THE FORM OF VALUE
57
appearance-form of the abstractly-universai, and it is not to the con­
trary that the abstractly-universal counts as property of the concrete
— this inversion characterizes the value-expression. At the same time
it renders difficult its comprehension. If I say: Roman Law and
German Law are both law, that is obvious. But if I say, on the other
hand, the Law, (this abstract entity) realizes itself in Roman Law and
German Law, (these concrete laws), then the connection becomes
mystical.
3.
Third peculiarity of the equivalent-form: private-labour becomes the
form of its opposite, becomes labour in an immediately social form.
Labour-products would not become commodities if they weren’t pro­
ducts ofprivate-labours which are plied independently of one another
and stand on their own. The societal connection of these privatelabours exists materially, insofar as they are members of an indigenous
social division of labour and therefore by their products satisfy those
different kinds of needs out of the totality of which the similarly
indigenous system of social needs consists. This material social connec­
tion ofprivate-labours plied independently of one another is, however,
only mediated, and therefore only realizes itself by the exchange of the
products of those private-labours. The product of private-labour
therefore has social form only insofar as it has value-form and therefore
has the form of exchangeability with other labour-products. It has
immediately socialform insofar as its own corporeal- or natural-form is
at the same time the form of its exchangeability with another commodi­
ty, or counts for another commodity as its value-form. This, however, as
we have seen, only takes place for a commodity if it is situated —
thanks to another commodity*s value-relationship to it - in equivalent-form
or plays the role of the equivalent with regard to another commodity.
The two peculiarities of the equivalent-form, of which we have just
given the development, will become even more comprehensible if we
go back to that great investigator who was the first to analyse the
value-form (as he was the first for so many forms of thought, of society,
of nature) and did so for the most part more felicitously than his
modern followers. We mean Aristotle.
In the first place it is Aristotle who clearly enunciates that the
money-form of the commodity is only the more developed structure of the
simple value-form: i.e., of the expression of the value of a commodity in
some other random commodity, since he says,
58
VALUE
5 beds = 1 house
‘does not differ’ from
5 beds “ so and so much money *
Further, he detects that the value-relationships in which xhis valueexpression lurks, provides on its side the precondition for the house’s
being qualitatively made equal to the bed and that these sensibly
differing xhingswithout such equality of essence would not be relatable to
one another as commensurable magnitudes. ‘The exchange,’ he says,
‘cannot be without equality, but equality cannot be without commensurability.’
At this point he balks, and abandons the further analysis of the
value-form. ‘It is, however, in truth impossible that such differing
kinds of things be commensurable,’ i.e., qualitatively equal. This
equalizing can only be somethign foreign to the true nature of things,
and thus only an ‘assistance for practical need.’
Thus, Aristotle himself tells us why his further analysis fails;
namely, it fails for lack of the value-concept. What is the equal thing
(i.e., the communal substance) that the house presents for the bed in
the value-expression of the bed? Such a thing 'is in truth imposable to
exists says Aristotle. Why? The house presents that which is really
equal in both the bed and house. And what that is — is human labour.
Aristotle could not, however, read off the top of the value-form of
commodities the fact that in the form of commodity^a/uir all labours
are expressed as equal human labour and consequently as counting as
equal, because Greek society was based upon slave-labour, and conse­
quently had as its natural basis the inequality of men and their labours.
The mystery of the value-expression — the equality and equal validity
of all labours because and insofar as they are human labour in general can only be deciphered once the concept of human equality comes to
possess the stability of a popular prejudice. That is, however, only
first possible in a society in which the commodity-form is the universal
form of the labour product, and therefore in which the relationship of
human beings to one another as commodity-owners is the predominat­
ing social relationship. The genius of Aristotle shines forth precisely
in the fact that he discovers an identity-relationship in the commodityexpression of commodities. Only the historical limit of the society in
which he lived prevented him from uncovering just in what this
identity-relationship consists ‘in truth’.
* Ethica Mikom. 1133b25
THE FORM OF VALUE
59
4.
Fourth peculiarity of the equivalent-form: the fetishism of the
commodity-form is more striking in the equivalent-form than in the relative
value-form.
Through the fact that labour-products (such useful things as coat,
linen, wheat, iron, etc.) aie values, determined value-magnitudes and (in
a word), commodities, for that reason properties which inhere in them
naturally only in our traffic with one another are not derived from nature
as is the property of being heavy or being retentive of heat or being
nourishing. But within our traffic these things behave to one another as
commodities. They are values; they are measurable as value-magnitudes
and their common value-property places them into a value-relationship
to one another. The fact, now, that (e.g.) 20yards oflinen=l coat, or
20 yards of linen are worth one coat, this fact only expresses that 1) the
labours of different type which are necessary for the production of these
things count equally as human labour; 2) that the quantum of labour
expended in their production is measured in accordance with deter­
mined social laws; and 3) that tailors and weavers enter into a deter­
mined social production-relationship. It is a determined social relating of
the producers, in which they set their different useful labour-types
equal, as human labour. It is not to a lesser extent a determined social
relating of the producers, in which they measure the magnitude of their
labours by the duration of time of the expenditure of human labour-power.
But zrithin our traffic, these social characters of their own labours appear
to the producers os social natural-properties, as objective determinations
of the labour-products themselves; the equality of the human labours
appears as the value-property of the labour-products; the measure of the
labour by the socially necessary labour-time appears as valuemagnitude of the labour products; and finally, the social relating of the
producers through their labours appears as value-relationship or
social-relationship of these things, the labour products. Just for this do
the labour-products appear to them as commodities, sensibly supersen­
sible or social things. For example, the light-impression of a thing
upon the optic nerve does not manifest itself as subjective excitation of
the optic nerve itself, but as objectiveform of a thing outside of the eye.
But in the act of seeing, what happens in reality is that light is thrown
from a thing (the external object) onto another thing (the eye). It is a
physical relationship between physical things. In distinction from
this, the commodity-form and the value-relationship of the labourproducts have absolutely nothing to do with their physical nature and
60
VALUE
the material relationship which are derived from it. It is only the
determined social relationship of men itself which in this case assumes
for them the phantasmagoric form of a relationship of things. Thus in
order to find an analogy, we must flee into the nebulous region of the
religious world. Here it is that the products o f the human head appear like
independent structures endowed with their own life and standing in
relationship to one another and to men. That is the way it is in the
commodity-world with the products of the human hand. This is what I
call the/emAirwi which clings to labour-products as soon as they are
produced as commodities, and which is thus inseparable from
commodity-production.
This fetish-character to be sure reveals itself much more strikingly
in the equivalent-form than in the relative value-form. The relative
value-form of a commodity is mediated; namely, through its reladonship
to another commodity. Through this value-form, the value of the
commodity is expressed as something completely different from its own
sensible existence. There is at the same time the aspect that the value
being can only be relating which is foreign to the thing itself, and its
value relationship to another thing can only, therefore, be the
appearance-form oi λ social relationship concealed behind. It is the other
way around with the equivalent-form. It consists precisely in the fact
that the corporeal- or natural-form of a commodity counts immediately as
social form, as value-form for another commodity. Within our traffic
with one another it thus appears is social natural property of a thing, as
a property inhering in it from nature, the property of possessing
equivalent-form, consequently of being - just as it exists in sensible
manner — immediately exchangeable with other things. Because, how­
ever, within the value-expression of commodity the equivalent-form
inheres in Commodity B from nature, it appears to belong to the latter
from nature, even outside this reladonship. Hence, for example, the
riddling character of gold, which appears to possess along with its
other nature-properties (its colour, its specific gravity, its nonoxydizability-in-air, etc.) also the equivalent-form from nature; that
is, the social quality of being immediately exchangeable with all other
commodities.
Sec. 4. As soon as value appears independently, it has the form of
exchange-value.
The value-expression has two poles: relative value-form and
equivalent-form. To consider first what holds for the commodity which
THE FORM OF VALUE
61
functions as equivalent, it counts for another commodity as valuestructure, body in immediately exchangeable form — exchange-value.
The commodity, however, whose value is expressed relatively, posses­
ses the form of exchange-value, while 1) its value-being is revealed by
the exchangeability of another commodity-body with it; 2) its valuemagnitude is expressed by Xheproportion in which the other commodity
is exchangeable with it. The exchange-value is thus in a word the
independent form of appearance of the commodity-value.
Sec. 5. The Hmple value-form of the commodity is the Hmple appearanceform of the oppositions of use-value and exchange-value contained in it.
In the value-relationship of the linen to the coat the natural-form of
linen counts only as value-form or structure of exchange-value. The
inner opposition contained in the commodity of use-value and value is
thnsmanifested by an external opposition; that is, the relationship of two
commodities of which the one counts immediately only as use-value,
the other immediately only as exchange-value, or in which both of the
opposite determinations of use-value and exchange-value are appor­
tioned among the commodities in a polar manner. If I say :As commod­
ity the linen is use-valuennd exchange-value, then this is the judgment
concerning the nature of the commodity which I have won through
analysis. On the other hand, in the expression 20yards of linen = 1 coat
or 20 yards of linen is worth 1 coat the linen itself says that it is 1)
use-value (linen), 2) exchange-value differing from that use-value (a
thing equal to a coat) and 3) unity of both these differences, and thus is a
commodity.
Sec. 6. The Hmple value-form of the commodity is the simple commodityform of the labour-product.
The labour-product in its natural-form brings the form of a use-value
along with itself into the world. Thus there is only a need for the
value-form in addition in order that it possess the commodity-form; i.e.,
in order that it appear as unity of the opposites use-value and exchangevalue. The development of the value-form is consequendy identical to
the development of the commodity-form.
Sec. 7. Relationship of commodity-form and money-form.
If one puts, in place of 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or 20 yards of linen are
worth 1coati the form 10yards of linen = 2 pounds Sterling or 20yards of
62
VALUE
linen are worth 2 pounds Sterling, then the first glance shows that the
money-form is absolutely nothing other than thefurther-developed struc­
ture of the simple value-form of the commodity, thus of the simple
commodity-form of the labour-product. Since the money-form is only the
developed commodity-form, hence it obviously originates in simple
commodity-form. Consequently, as soon as the latter is comprehended,
the only thing left to consider is the sequence of metamorphoses which
the simple commodity-form 20 yards of linen = I coat must pass
through in order to assume the structure 20 yards of linen = 2 pounds
Sterling.
Sec. 8. Simple relative value-form and tingle equivalent-form.
The value-expression in the coat gives the linen a value-form through
which it is distinguished only as value from itself as use-value. This
form places it, in addition, only into relationship to the coat; i.e., to
some other single commodity-type distinct from itself. But as commod­
ity it is the same as all other commodities. Its value-form must conse­
quently also be a form which places it into a relationship of qualitative
equality and quantitative proportionality to all other commodities. The
single equivalent-form of one commodity corresponds to the simple rela­
tive value-form of another commodity. Or the commodity in which
value is expressed only functions in this case as tingle equivalent. Thus
the coat possesses, in the relative value-expression of the linen, only
equivalent-form or form of immediate exchangeability with reference to
this single commodity-type, linen.
Sec. 9. Transitions from the simple value-form into the expanded valueform.
The simple value-form preconditions the fact that the value of a
commodity be expressed in only one (but it is irrelevant which) com­
modity of another type. It is thus just as much a simple relative
value-expression of the linen, if its value is expressed in iron or in
wheat, etc., as if it is expressed in the commodity-type, coat. In
accordance, thus, with whether it enters into a value-expression with
this or that other commodity-type, there arise different, simple, relative
value-exprestions of the linen. lnpostibility, it hasjust as many different,
simple, value-expressions as there exist commodities of a type differing
from it. Actually, its complete relative value-expression does not consist
in a solitary simple relative value-expression, but in the sum of its
simple relative value-expressions. Thus we obtain:
THE FORM OF VALUE
63
II. Total or expanded value-form
20yards of linen = I coat or = 10 pounds of tea or =40 pounds of coffee or
= 8 bushels of wheat or = 2 ounces of gold or = one-half ton of steel or =
etc.
Sec. 1. Endlessness of the sequence.
This sequence of relative value-expressions is, as far as its nature is
concerned, constantly extendible, or never ends. For new
commodity-types constantly appear, and each new commodity-type
forms the material of a new value-expression.
Sec. 2. The expanded relative value-form.
The value of a commodity (linen, e.g.) is now manifested in all other
elements of the commodity-world. Each other commodity-body
becomes a mirror of linenoj/ne. In this way this value itself appears
for the first time genuinely as coagulation of distinctionless human
labour. For the labour which forms the linen-value is now manifested
expressly as labour to which every other human labour (whatever
natural-form it possesses and regardless of whether it objectifies itself
in coat or wheat or iron or gold, etc.) counts as equal. Through its
value-formy the linen in consequence now also stands in social relation­
ship no longer to only one single other commodity-type, but to the
commodity-world. It is as commodity that it is citizen of this world. At
the same time it lies in the endless sequence of its expressions that the
commodity-value is indifferent towards each particular form of usevalue in which it appears.
Sec. 3. The particular equivalent-form.
Each commodity (coat, tea, wheat, iron, etc.) counts in the valueexpression as equivalent to the linen and consequently as value-body.
The determined natural-form alongside of many others. Similarly,
the manifold determined concrete useful labour-types contained in the
various commodity-bodies now count as just so many particular
realization-forms or appearance-forms of human labour as such.
Sec. 4. Defects in the expanded or total value-form.
First, the relative value-expression of linen is unfinished, since its
sequence of manifestation never ends. Secondly, it consists of a
variegated mosaic of value-expressions which fall asunder and are of
differing types. Finally, if (as must happen) the relative value of each
commodity is expressed in this expanded form, then the relative valueform of each commodity is an endless sequence of value-expressions
64
VALUE
differing from the relative value-form of each other commodity. The
defects of the expanded relative value-form are reflected in the
equivalent-form corresponding to it. Since the natural-form of each
single commodity-type is at this point a particular equivalent form
alongside of countless other particular equivalent-forms, there exist
(in a word) only limited equivalent-forms each of which excludes any
other. In precisely the same way, the determined concrete useful labourtype contained in each particular commodity-equivalent is only a
particular and thus not an exhaustive appearance-form of human labour.
The latter possesses its complete or total appearance-form, to be sure,
in the total-environment of those former particular appearance-forms.
But it does not in this way possess any unified appearance-form.
Sec. 5. Transition from the total value-form to the universal value-form.
The total or expanded relative value-form, however, only consists in a
sum of simple relative value-expressions or equations of the first form,
like
20 yards of linen — 1 coat
20 yards of linen = 10 pounds of tea, etc.
Each of these equations, however, contains conversely also the
identical equation.
I coat = 20 yards of linen
10 pounds of tea = 20 yards of linen, etc.
And in fact: if the possessor of the linen exchanges his commodity
with many other commodities and thereby expresses the value of his
commodity in a sequence of other commodities, then the many other
possessors of commodities must necessarily also exchange their com­
modities with linen, and thereby express the values of their various
commodities in the same third commodity, linen. Thus if we reverse the
sequence 20yards of linen = / coat or = 10 pounds of tea or = etc. — that
is, if we express the converse relationship which is in itself implicitly
contained already in the sequence — then we obtain:
III. Universal value-form.
1 coat
10 pounds of tea
40 pounds of coffee
20 yards of linen
8 bushels of wheat
2 ounces of gold
1/2 ton of iron
X of commodities A
etc. of commodities
THE FORM OF VALUE
65
Sec. 1. Altered structure of the relative value-form.
The relative value-form now possesses an entirely altered structure.
All commodities express their value 1) simply, namely in one ringle
other commodity-bodyy 2) in a unified manner, that is, in the other
commodity-body. Linen now counts to all various types of
commodity-bodies as their communal and universal value-structure.
The value-form of a commodity (i.e., the expression of its value in
linen) now not only distinguishes it as value from its own existence as
use-object (i.e.,/rom its own natural-form), but relates it at the same
time as value to all other commodities and that means to all commodities
as like itself. It possesses in this value-form, consequently, universally
social form.
It is only first through its universal character that the value-form
corresponds to the value-concept. The value-form had to be a form in
which the commodities appear for one another as mere coagulations of
dismotionless, homogeneous human labour (i.e., as thing-like expressions
of the same labour-substance.) This it now achieves. For they are all
expressed as materialization of the same labour (the labour contained in
the linen), or as the same materialization of labour (namely,as linen). In
this way, they are set qualitatively equal.
At the same time, they are quantitatively compared or manifested for
one another as determined value-magnitudes. For example, 10 pounds of
tea = 20 yards of linen and 40 pounds of coffee = 20 yards of linen. Thus
10 pounds of tea = 40 pounds of coffee. Or in 1 pound of coffee there
lurks only l/4 as much value-substance (labour) as in 1 pound of tea.
Sec. 2. Altered structure of the equivalent-form.
The particular equivalent-form has now continued its development into
the universal equivalent-form. Or, the commodity situated in
equivalent-form is now— universal equivalent. Th t natural-form of the
commodity-body linen, by counting as value-structure of all other
commodities, is the form of its indifference or immediate exchangeability
with all elements of the commodity-world. Its natural-form is thus at the
same time its universal social form.
For all other commodities, although they are the products of
labours of the most differing type, linen counts as appearance-form of
the labours contained in themselves, consequendy as embodiment of
homogeneous, distinctionless human labour. Weaving (this particular,
concrete labour-type) counts, thus, now (because of the valuerelationship of the commodity-world to linen) as universal and
66
VALUE
immediately exhaustive realization-form of abstractly human labour, i.e.,
of the expenditure of human labour-power as such.
The private-labour contained in the linen also counts precisely for
the same reason as labour, which is immediately situated in universally
social form or in the form of equality with all other labours.
If a commodity thus possesses the universal equivalent-form or func­
tions or universal equivalentyits natural-form or body-form counts as the
virible incarnation, the universal, social, larval-stage of all human labour.
Sec. 3. Uniform relationship of development of relative value-form and
equivalent-form.
The degree of development of the equivalent-form corresponds to the
degree of development of the relative value-form. But (and this is to be
carefully noted) the development of the equivalent-form is only an expres­
sion and result of the development of the relative value-form. The
initiative starts with the latter.
The Hmple relative value-form expresses the value of a commodity
only in one single other commodity-type, precisely in which being an
indifferent matter. In this way the commodity obtains only value-form
indistinction toits own use-value form or natural-form. It is also only the
tingle equivalent-form which obtains its equivalent. The developed
relative value-form expresses the value of a commodity in all other
commodities. These latter obtain in consequence the form of many
particular equivalents, or particular equivalent-form. Finally, the
commodity-world gives itself a unified, universal, relative value-form by
shutting out from itself one single commodity-type, in which all other
commodities express their value communally. The commodity which
has been shut out thereby becomes the universal equivalent-form.
Sec. 4. Development of the polarity of relative value-form and equivalentform.
The polar opposition or the inseparable correlation and similarly
unchanging (mutual) excluding of relative value-form and
equivalent-form, so that 1) a commodity cannotbe situated in the one
form without some other commodity’s being situated in the opposing
form, and 2) that, as soon as a commodity is situated in the one form, it
cannot be situated at the same time within the same value-expression
in the other form — this polar opposition of both moments of the
value-expression develops and hardens to the very same extent to which
the value-form as such develops or is unfolded.
In Form I , both forms already exclude each other, but onlyformally.
THE FORM OF VALUE
67
In accordance with whether the same equation is read forwards or
backwards, each of the two commodity-extremes (like linen and coat)
is situated uniformly now in the relative value-form, now in the
equivalent-form. It still requires an effort at this point to retain the
polar opposition firmly in mind.
In Form II, it is in each case always only one commodity-type which is
able to develop its relative value totally, or it possesses on its own only
developed relative value-form, because and insofar as all other com­
modities are situated against it in the equivalent-form.
In Form III, it is Anally the commodity-world which only possesses
universally social relative value-form, because and insofar as all the
commodities which belong to it are excluded from the equivalent-form
or from the form of immediate exchangeability. On the other hand, the
commodity which is situated in the universal equivalent-form or figures
as universal equivalent is excluded from the unified (and consequently
universal relative value-form of the commodity-world). If linen (i.e.,
some one commodity situated in universal equivalent-form) were also
to participate at the same time in the universal relative value-form, then
it would have to be related to itself as equivalent. Then we obtain: 20
yards of linen - 20 yards of lineny a tautology in which neither value
nor value-magnitude is expressed. In order ίο express the relative value
of the universal equivalent we must reverse Form III. It does not
possess any relative value-form held communally with the other com­
modities, but ra therm value expresses itself in a relative manner in the
endless sequence of all other commodity-bodies. So now the expanded
relative value-form or Form II appears as the specific relative value-form
of the commodity which plays the role of the universal equivalent.
Sec. 5. Transition from the universal value-form to the money-form.
The universal equivalent-form is a form of value as such. It can thus
inhere in each commodity, but constantly only in the exclusion of all
other commodities.
Meanwhile the mere difference of form between Form II and Form
III already reveals something peculiar, which does not make a differ­
ence between Forms I and II. Namely, in the expanded value-form
(Form II) a commodity excludes all others in order to express its own
value in them. This shutting-out can be a purely subjective process; for
example, a process of the linen-possessor who estimates the value of
his own commodity in many other commodities. On the other hand, a
commodity is situated in universal equivalent-form (Form III) only
68
VALUE
because and insofar as it is itself excluded as equivalent by all other
commodities. The excluding is in this case an objective process, indepen­
dent of the excluded commodity. In the historical development of the
commodity-form, the universal equivalent-form may inhere in turn
now in this commodity, now in that. But a commodity never really
functions as universal equivalent except insofar as its excluding (and
hence its equivalent-form) is the result of an objective social process.
The universal value-form is the developed value-form and conse­
quently the developed commodity-form. The labour-products, which
are materially wholly different, cannot possess ready-made
commodity-form and consequently cannot also function in the process
of exchange as commodity, without being manifested as thing-like
expressions of the very same equal human labour. That means that in
order to obtain ready-made commodity-form they must obtain unified
universal relative value-form. But they are only able to win this unified
relative value-form by excluding a determined commodity-type from
their ranks as universal equivalent. And only from the instant where
this excluding is finally limited to a specific commodity-type, has the
unified relative value-form won objective steadfastness and universally
social validity.
Now the specific commodity-type with whose natural-form the
equivalent-form is becoming socially intertwined becomes the moneycommodity or functions as money. To play the role of universal equival­
ent within the commodity-world becomes its specifically social function,
and hence its social monopoly. The determined commodity which has
historically conquered this privileged place among the commodities,
which in Form I I figure as particular equivalents of linen and in Form
III express their relative value together in linen, is gold. Consequently,
if we place in Form III the commodity gold in place of the commodity
linen, then we obtain:
IV. Money-form
20 yards of linen
1 coat
10 pounds of tea
40 pounds of coffee
Vi ton of iron
X of commodity A
etc of commodity
=
=
=
=
=
=
2 °^nca ° f sold
THE FORM OF VALUE
69
Sec. 1. Difference in the transition of the universal value-form to the
money-form from the earlier developmental transitions.
Essential changes occur in the transition from Form I to Form II, from
Form II to Form III. On the other hand, Form IV does not differ at all
from Form III except in the fact that now gold possesses the universal
equivalent-form instead of linen. Gold remains in Form IV what linen
was in Form III — universal equivalent. Progress consists only in the
fact that theform of immediate universal exchangeability or the universal
equivalent-form is now intertwined once and for all through social
habituation with the specific natural-form of the commodity-body,
gold.
The only reason why gold confronts the other commodities nr money
is because it already confronted them as commodity. Like all other
commodities it also functioned as equivalent, whether as single equi­
valent in separate acts of exchange or whether as particular equivalent
alongside other commodity-equivalent. Gradually, it came to function
in narrower or broader circles as universal equivalent. As soon as it has
conquered the monopoly of this place in the value-expression of the
cotnmodity-ivorld it becomes money-commodity, and only from the
moment where it has already become a money-commodity is Form IV
distinct from Form III or the universal value-form is changed into the
money-form.
Sec. 2. Change of the universal relative value-form into price-form.
The simple relative value-expression of a commodity (e.g., linen) in the
commodity which already functions as money-commodity (e.g., gold) is
price-form. The price-form of linen, hence:
20 yards of linen = 2 ounces of gold
or, if 2 pounds Sterling is the monetary name of 2 ounces of gold,
20 yards of linen = 2 pounds Sterling.
Sec. 3. The simple commodity-form is the seaet of the money-form.
It is clear that the actual money-form does not in itself provide any
difficulty. Just as soon as the universal-equivalent-form is penetrated it
no longer costs one the least sort of headache to comprehend that this
equivalent-form holds fast to a specific commodity-type like gold; and
all tue less headache in that the universal equivalent-form from its
nature preconditions the social excluding of one determined commoditytype by all other commodities. The only thing at issue left is that this
excluding wins objectively social consistency and universal validity, and
70
VALUE
hence neither happens to different commodities in turn nor possessesa
merely local significance in particular circles of the commodity-world
alone. The difficulty in the concept of the money-form is limited to
the conceiving of the universal equivalent-form, thus of the universal
value-form as such, Form III. Form III, however, is analyzed
reversely into Form II, and the constituent element of Form II is Form
1: 20 yards of linen =- 1 coat or x of commodity A - y of commodity B.
Now if one knows what use-value and exchange-value are, then one
finds that this Form I is the simplest, most undeveloped manner of
manifesting a random labour-product (like linen, e.g.)as commodity,
that is, as unity of the oppodtes use-value and exchange-value. One then
easily finds at the same time the sequence of metamorphoses which the
dmple commodity-form: 20 yards of linen = 1 coat must pass through in
order to attain its finished structure: 20 yards of linen ~ 2 pounds
Sterling, i.e., the money-form.
The E n d .
Ill
Results of the Immediate
Process of Production
71
III. Introduction
The researches undertaken by Marx in the 1860s, leading up to the
publication of Volume I of Capital in 1867, have not been completely
edited and published even yet, although they are for the most part
what exists as Theories of Surplus Value, Capital Volume III, and parts
of Volume Π (in roughly chronological order). Just what plan deter­
mined the contents of Volume I of Capital is uncertain. The first
edition was organized into six chapters, which correspond more or
less to the "parts’ of our (second) edition. One of the various plans
which Marx drew up (end of 1862) lists nine chapters, the sixth of
which deals with primitive accumulation, the last topic treated in our
edition. The list continues: "7. Results of the process of production. 8.
Theories of Surplus Value. 9. Theories concerning productive labour
and unproductive labour.’ Perhaps Marx excluded this text because
he had come by 1867 to feel that his investigations had not yet been
carried through to adequate clarity, or perhaps he feared his book was
too large. The Tsarist censors permitted a translation of it, after all, on
the grounds that such a big book would not be read. At any rate, this
manuscript was not published until 1933.
It has acquired importance in recent discussions of the categories of
productive and unproductive labour, but it contains quite a diversity
of subject matter, though the presentation is unfinished and some­
times unable to be construed. That is an advantage for anyone who
wants to see Marx’s laboratory "of abstraction*, and we have left the
text with as little grammatical smoothening as possible. Some of
Marx" s ‘sentences’ stand at the frontiers of dialectical inquiry and alert
us to just how little the real richness and power of Marx’s method has
been comprehended by the glib denouncers of orthodoxy and sec73
VALUE
74
tarianism Excessive dialectical subtlety is not what the socialist tradi·*
don has suffered from, and this translation aims only to provide a tool
for this struggle.
The current political importance of the text resides in its contribu­
tion to the clarification of the relationship to the point of production of
the different types of work which do not produce surplus-value.
Decisive in orientating unproductive workers towards productive
ones is an understanding of how work which appears to be parasitic is
nevertheless exploited. Whereas in Marx’s day, unproductive workers
at large were not so necessary (since they consisted of police, musi­
cians, prostitutes, etc.) to the functioning of commercial capital,
today workers in marketing and advertising are structurally indis­
pensable in order to render the market predictable and enable the total
process of valorization of industrial capital to take place. Since com­
mercial capital produces no value and hence no surplus-value, its
growth simply reduces the rate of profit as such. But the capitalists
must not only produce. They must realize their products: convert
them into money by finding buyers. From the point of view of this
total process of valorization of capital, commercial workers contribute
to a saving of time, and hence an acceleration of the process of
circulation and a raising of the rate of profit. This method of analysing
the relative necessity (their immediate necessity with respect to a
particular economic conjuncture) of workers can be extended to the
spheres of education and government in order to concretize a socialist
perspective for all working people.
It is impermissible to ignore Marx’s attempts to conceptualize the
distinction; e.g., ‘productive labour exchanges itself directly with
money as capital*, unproductive labour exchanging itself with money
as money (p.78). The discussions of the Pabloites (Critiques de
Γéconomie politique, 10; Salama, P. and Valier, J., Introduction à
Γéconomie politique. Chapter 7) proceed in an empirical way to note
the growth of service sectors as if circulation were independent of
production, and not rather just that structure required by the produc­
tive sector for the realization of all its values. On this basis there
cannot be a perspective of intervening in inevitable struggles in order
to develop socialist consciousness, but only a diplomatic perspective
of alliances relative to immediately perceived ‘injustices’.
The concept of unproductive labour was one of the important
critical weapons of the classical bourgeois economists wielded to hold
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
75
the remnants of feudalism up to scorn. But with the economic
triumph of the bourgeoisie there came a destruction of this category
since the bourgeoisie had now itself to maintain a state with its
apparatus. So a Joan Robinson can find no use for the category; every
activity which has any effect at all must be assessed as of equal value
with any other, since it is not that there is a structure necessary to
material production which is to be scientifically uncovered, but only a
black box with a yield. By this account, it is just as legitimate to count
drug-pushers afactor of production as it is to count auto workers. It is
just that in the former case, social productivity varies inversely with
activity. Such is ‘value-free’ economic science.
This chapter includes most of the theoretical acquisitions of Vol­
ume I of Capital, and permits a certain overview which is otherwise
difficult to obtain. Marx’s first encounter with bourgeois economics
in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts allowed the presupposi­
tions of that economic theory to stand, and the task was to show just
how ‘the worker sinks down to the level of the commodity, and indeed
of the most wretched commodity; that the wretchedness of the worker
is in inverse relationship to the power and magnitude of his produc­
tion; that the necessary result of competition is the accumulation of
capital in just a few hands, hence the terrifying reconstitution of
monopoly; that finally the difference between capitalist and landowner disappears just as does that between farmer and industrial
worker, and the entire society must decompose into the two classes of
possessors and possessionless workers.'" At this point, Marx is only able
to specify the evil of such an evolution, but not yet its contradictory
character. He was impressed with the amount of truth that could be
attained just by Ricardo’s method: enough truth, apparently, to rally
democratic forces against such a terrifying future. But he was not yet
able to demonstrate just how the nature of labour within the relation­
ships of the capitalist mode of production (being productive of
surplus-value) produces the social power of his irreconcilable
antagonist, the capitalist, so that as he works harder and more produc­
tively so does his social power become less: he does not work his way
through any amount of assiduity, dedication and ‘initiative’ out of
bondage in which his class is held by the very structure of the labour
they perform, but rather does he work his way ever more deeply into
it. Above all, the method of the pre-Grundrisse Marx cannot (any more
than bourgeois Political Economy can) demonstrate precisely how
capitalism recreates its own ‘natural-social’ relationships. Workers
76
VALUE
are not simply unleashed upon nature by a primitive accumulation of
capital, to collapse exhausted at the end of their encounter, with a
‘monstrous heap of commodities* around them. Their labour con­
structs a systematic compulsion beyond the will of anyone, as a new
amount of capital is produced which brings the workers back to
nature in order to ‘valorize* that new amount.
Our term ‘valorization* is sometimes translated ‘production oi
surplus-value* or ‘production of value* (cf. Capital I, Chapter 7: ‘The
labour process and the process of producing surplus-value*.) What is
important to grasp is that this is an entire process by which use-value
and exchange-value of the commodity recreate themselves through
the process of production, which is thus a dual system: a process of
labour, as a use-value, and process of self-reproduction of value, as
exchange-value. It is not merely the dual nature of the commodity as
such, as embodiment of use-value and exchange-value, which must be
grasped if the nature of production under capitalist relationships is to
be explicated, but just how this duality pervades the process of produc­
tion as process of labour and process of ‘valorization*. The ‘simple
process of production’ merely produces a value which corresponds to
what would replace the value of the labour which has received its wage
under the stipulations o f‘exchange of equivalents*. This is still simple
commodity production, and only becomes capitalist when it has
equipped itself by the earlier cycle to enter a new cycle by having
produced surplus-value.
Anything which Marx wrote in English is italicized within quota­
tion marks. (I use the same means to indicate the French which
seems to require translation). I have left as many foreign words
standing as possible, in order to suggest the extent to which Marx was
driven to force language itself, as he groped for the terms which might
materialize his theoretical acquisitions.
A.D.
Results of the Immediate
Process of Production
Three things are to be considered in this chapter:
1) Commodities as product of capital (i.e., of capitalist production);
2) Capitalist production is production of surplus value;
3) Ultimately, it is production and reproduction of the entire relation­
ship through which this immediate process of production charac­
terizes itself as specifically capitalist.
Of these three rubrics, number one is to be placed at the end rather
than at the beginning, in the final revision for publication, since it
forms the transition to the second book — the process of circulation of
capital.
1) Capitalist production as production of surplus-value.
In so far as capital from here on only appears in its elementary forms
(as commodity or money), the capitalist appears in the characterforms of commodity-holder or money-holder which we have already
recognized. But as far as that goes the latter are in and for themselves
just as little capitalists, as commodity and money are in and for
themselves capital. Just as these things only metamorphose into capi­
tal under specific preconditions, so the commodity and moneyholders only metamorphose into capitalists under the same precondi­
tions.
Capital originally appeared as money which was to change into
capital (i.e., as something that is only capital any longer potentially —
dynamei).
Just as the economists on one hand made the blunder of identifying
these elementary forms of capital (commodity and money) as such
with capital so on the other hand they made the blunder of taking the
77
78
VALUE
explanation of the mode of existence of capital as use-value (namely,
means of labour) as such, for the explanation of capital itself.
From the time of its first provisional (so to speak) form as money (as
point of origin for the formation of capital) capital exists henceforth
only as money; that is, as sum-ofexehange*values in the independent
form of exchange-value y its money-expresHon. But this money is to valorate itself. To that end the exchange-value is to serve to create more
exchange-value. The value-magnitude is to grow; i.e., the present
value is not just to maintain itself, but posit an inaement, Δ value, a
surplus-value; so that the given value manifests itself as Fluens in so far
as it is the given sum of money and as Fluxion in so far as it is the
increm ent/ We shall return to this independent money-expression of
capital when we consider its process of circulation. At this point when
we are only concerned henceforth with money as the beginning-point of
the immediate process of productionf a single observation will suffice:
Capital exists from this point on only as a given value-sum = M
(money), in which all use-value is extinguished; consequently, in the
form of money. The magnitude of this value-sum is limited by the height
or quantity of the saw of money which is to metamorphose into capital.
The way this value-sum becomes capital is by its magnitude increasingy
by metamorphosing into a changing magnitudey by having been all
along precisely the kind of fluens which is to posit a fluxion. In itself
this sum of money is only capital for the first time (that is, as far as its
determination goes) because it is to be employed, expended in a way
which has its increase as purpose, because it is expended for the purpose
of its increase. If this appears as its determinationy its inner impulse and
tendency with respect to the value-sum or sum of money, thus with
respect to the capitalist (i.e., the holder of the sum of money, in whose
hands it is to undertake this function) it appears as intention, purpose.
In this originally simple value- or money-expression of capital (of the
capital which is to become capital) in which abstraction is made from
all relationship to use-value and it has fallen away, we also find
however that all disturbing intervention and indicative points of the
real process of production (production of commodities, etc.) which are
later confusing fall away, and the characteristic specific nature of the
capitalistic process of production reveals itself in just so abstractly
simple a manner. If the original capital is a value-sum - X, then the
purpose is attained and X turns into capital by being metamorphosed
* Newtonian terminology for differential calculus, whereby the relationship of ‘flow­
ing thing* to ‘amount flowed’ expresses the rate of change of a function. — Trans.
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
79
into X + ΔΧ; that is, into a sum of money or sum of value = to
the original sum of value + an addition to the original
sum of value, into the given money-magnitude + additional
money, into the given-value + surplus-value. The production of
surplus-value (which includes the maintenance of the value originally
projected) thus appears as the determining purpose, the impelling
interest and the ultimate result of the capitalistic process of production,
aTthatby which the original value is metamorphosed into capital. Just
How this is achieved (the real procedure whereby this metamorphosis
of X into X +■ΔΧ is accomplished) has no effect upon the purpose and
result of the process. X can, admittedly, be changed into X + ΔΧ
even without a capitalistic process of production, but not under the
given condition and presupposition that the competing members of
society confront one another as persons who meet one another only as
commodity-holders and enter into contact with one another only as such
holders (this excludes slavery, etc.); and secondly, not under the other
condition that the social product be produced as commodity. (This
excludes all forms in which the chief purpose for the immediate
producers is use-value and it is at most the superfluity of the product,
etc., that is metamorphosed into commodity.)
This purpose of the process that X be metamorphosed into X + ΔΧ
shows in addition which path the investigation has to take. The
expression must be the function of a variable magnitude or must
metamorphose into one during the process. As given sum of money X
is a constant quantity from the very start, whose increment thus = 0.
So it must be metamorphosed into another magnitude which contains
a variable element, in the course of the process. And the point is to
find this constitutive part, and at the same time to show through just
which mediations a variable magnitude comes out of what is originally
a constant magnitude. Since it is the case, as is obvious upon the
further consideration of the real process of production, that a part of X
turns back again into a constant magnitude (namely, into the means of
labour), now since a part of the exchange value of X only in the form of
particular use-values (instead of in the money-form of same — a
change which makes no alteration in the constant nature of the
value-magnitude) affects no change at all in this part in so far as it is
exchange-value, hence X manifests itself in the process as c (constant
magnitude) + v (variable magnitude) = c + v. But the difference
Δ (c+v) = c +· (v+ Δν), and, since the difference of c = 0, hence it =
(v + Δν). That which originally appears as ΔΧ, is thus really Δν. And
80
VALUE
the relationship of this increment of the original magnitude X to the
part of X whose increment it really is, must be ΔΧ/ν = Δν/ν which is
in reality the formula for the rate of surplus-value. (Δν = ΔΧ, sinceAX
= Δν).
Since total capital C = c f v, of which c is constant and v is variable,
therefore C can be regarded as a function of v. If v increases by Δν,
then C becomes C '.
Thus one has:
1 ) C - c+v
2) C = cH-(v+ Δν)
If one subtracts equation ( 1) from equation (2), then one obtains the
difference C'-C, the increment of C = AC.
3) C'-C = c+v-f- Av-c-v = Δν
4) AC = Δν
Thus one has (3) and consequently (4)AC = Δν. But C'-C = to the
magnitude by which C has changed (= AC), = to the increment of C
or AC, thus (4). Or the increment of the total capital - to the
increment of the variable part of capital, so that Ac or the change of the
constant part of capital = 0. The constant capital must thus in this
inquiry concerning AC or Δν be set = 0; i.e., must be ignored.
The proportion in which v has increased = Δν/ν (irate of surplusvalue). The proportion in which C has increased = Δν/C = Δν/cH-v
(rate of profit).
The genuine, specific function of capital as capital is thus the
production of surplus-value, which as is later manifested is nothing but
production of suplus-labour, appropriation of unpaid labour in the real
process of production, which manifests itself objectified as surplusvalue.
A further conclusion is that in order for the metamorphosis of X
into capital (into X + ^X) to take place, it is necessary that the value or
sum of money X metamorphose into the factors of the'real process of
labour. It is possible in certain branches of industry that a part of the
means of production (the object of labour ) has no value, is no commodi­
ty, although it is a use-value. In this case, a part of X metamorphoses
merely into means of production, and is the object of labour, in so far
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
81
as the metamorphosis of X comes into consideration; i.e., the buying
of commodities which enter into the process of labour by X is limited
to the buying of means of production. One factor of the process of
labour, the object of labour, is here = 0, in so far as value comes into
consideration. But we are considering the matter in the complete
form, where the object of labour is still =commodity. For the case
where this does not apply, this factor is to be set = 0, as far as value is
concerned, in order to rectify the calculation.
As the commodity is immediate unity of use-value and exchangevalue, so the process of production, which is the process of production
of commodity, is the immediate unity of process of labour and process
of valorization. Just as commodities (i.e., immediate unities of usevalue and exchange-value) come out of the process as result, as pro­
duct, precisely in that way do they enter into it as constitutive ele­
ments. Never is it possible for something to come out of a process of
production which did not enter into it in the form of preconditions of
production.
The metamorphosis of the projected sum of money (the sum of
money which is to be valorated and metamorphosed into capital) into
the factors of the process of production is an act of the circulation of
commodities, of the process of exchange, and dissolves itself into a
series of sales. Thus this act still falls outside of the immediate process
of production. The act only introduces the process, but is, however,
the necessary presupposition for it, and if we consider the totality and
continuity of capitalist production, instead of the immediate process
of production, then this metamorphosis of money into thefactors of the
process of production (the buying of means of production and faculty of
labour*) itself forms an immanent moment of the entire process.
Now if we consider the shape of capital within the immediate
process of production, then it has the double-shape of use-value and
exchange-value just as the simple commodity does. But in both forms,
additional determinations enter in which are different from those of
the simple commodity considered in independence, and as further
developed determinations.
As far as use-value is concerned, its particular content, its further
determinacy was utterly indifferent to the conceptual determination
of the commodity. The article, which was to be commodity and
consequently bearer of exchange-value, had to satisfy some sort of
social need and therefore possess at least some useful qualities. Voilà
* Term used by Marx in transition from ‘labour’ to ‘labour power’. — Trans.
82
VALUE
tout. It is quite otherwise with thetue-aa/wi? of the commodities which
function in the process of production through the nature of the
process of labour the means of production first of all divide up into
object of labour and means of labour, or (at a further level of determinacy) into raw material on the one side, and instruments and assisting
materials, etc., on the other side. What these are are formdeterminations of use-value, which arise out of the nature of the process
of labour itself; and in this way the use-value becomes further determined with relation to the means of production. Theform-determinacy
of the use-value even becomes essential at this point for the develop­
ment of the economic relationship, the economic category.
Further, however, the use-values which enter into the process of
labour divide in it into two moments and oppositions which are in
concept strictly divided (just as we just said the objective means of
production do)— on the one side the actual means of production, the
objective preconditions of production; on the other side, the function­
ing labour-capacities, the labour-power which expresses itself in a
purposeful way, the subjective precondition for production. This is a
further form-determinacy of capital in so far as it appears under the
aspect of use-value, within the immediate process of production.
Particular, purposive labour (spinning, weaving, etc.) is embodied in,
present in the simple commodity (in the spun and the woven pro­
duct). The purposive form of the product is the only trace which the
purposive labour has left behind and this trace itself can be blotted
out, if the product has the form of a natural product (like cattle,
wheat, etc.). The use-value appears present in the commodity as the
actual entity which in the process of labour only appears as product.
The single commodity is in actuality a complete product which has its
process of creation behind it, in which the process by which particu­
lar, useful labour embodied itself, objectified itself, is actually sublated. The commodity comes into being in the process of production.
It is continually forced out of the process as product, so that the
product itself only appears as a moment of the process. A part of the
use-value in which capital appears within the process of production is
the living labour-faculty itself, but as labour-faculty of particular
specification (which arises out of the particular use-value of the means
of production) and as labour-faculty which activates itself — as
labour-power expressing itself purposefully, which makes the means of
production into objectified moments of its activation, and conseq­
uently metamorphoses them out of their use-value into the new form of
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
83
product. The use-values themselves consequently pass through a real
process of metamorphosis within the labour-processes, whether that real
process is of a mechanical, chemical, or physical nature. While the
use-value is a given thing with particular properties in the commodi­
ty, now it is the metamorphosis of the things which function as raw
material and means of labour: use-values through the agency of the
living labour which activates itself through them and in them, which
is precisely the labour-faculty in actualization, in a use-value of
changed form — the product. Thus the form which capital assumes as
use-value in the labour-process is broken down first, into the concep­
tually separated, reciprocally interrelated means of production; second,
into a conceptual separation springing out of the nature of the labourprocess between the objective preconditions for labour (the means of
production) and the subjective preconditions for labour, the purpose­
fully active labour-faculty (i.e., labour itself). Third, however, consid­
ering the totality of the process, the use-value of capital appears here
as process producing use-value, in which the means of production in
accordance with this specific determinacy function as means of pro­
duction of the purposefully active, specific labour-faculty correspond­
ing to its particular nature. Or the entire labour-process as such, in the
living reciprocal effect of its objective and subjective moments,
appears as the total shape of the use-value, i.e., as the real shape of
capital in the process of production.
The process of production of capital is above all an actual labourprocess, considering its real aspect, or considering it as process which
forms new use-values by useful labour with use-values. As such, its
moments, its conceptually determined constitutive parts, are those of
the labour process at large — of each labour-process on whatever level of
economic development and on the basis of whatever mode of produc­
tion happens to be proceeding. Therefore, since the real shape or the
shape of the objective use-values out of which capital consists, its
material substrate is necessarily the shape of means of production
(means of labour and object of labour) which serve for the production
of new products; since, furthermore, these use-values are already
present (on the market) in the process of circulation, in the form of
commodities (thus, in the possession of the capitalist as the
commodity-holder) before they function in the labour-process in
accordance with their specific purpose — because capital in this way
(in so far as it manifests itself in objective preconditions of labour) in
accordance with its use-value consists of means of production, raw
84
VALUE
materials, assisting materials, and tools, equipment, structures,
machines, etc., the conclusion is drawn from that fact that all means of
production are capital potentially, and in so far as they are functioning
as means of production are capital in actuality; and consequendy cap­
ital is a necessary moment of xhe human process of labour as such, quite
apart from each of its historical forms, and consequently is something
eternal, something determined by the nature of human labour. Simi­
larly, the fact that — because the process of production of capital as
such is labour-process — the labour-process as such3 the labourprocess in all social forms is necessarily labour-process of capital. Thus,
capital is considered as a thing which plays a certain thing-like role— a
role appropriate to it as thing — in the process of production. It is the
same logic which concludes that because money is gold, hence gold in
and for itself is money; that, because wage-labour is labour, hence all
labour is necessarily wage-labour. In this way, xheidentity is proved by
the fact that what is identical in all processes of production is retained
as opposed to their specific differences. The identity is proved by
abstracting from the difference. We shall come to this decisively
important point for more extensive discussion in the course of this
section. At this point we only observe preliminarily:
Firstly : The commodities which the capitalist has bought in order to
consume them in the process of production (or process of labour) as
means ofproduction are his property. They are actually only his money
metamorphosed into commodities, and are the existence of his capital
just as much as money was; indeed, they are so in an even more
intensive fashion in so far as they are present in the form in which they
really function as capital; i.e., as means for the creation of value, for
the valorization of value; i.e., for its increase. These means of produc­
tion are \h\xscapital. On the other hand, the capitalist has bought with
the other part of the advanced sum of money: faculty of labour,
labourers (or living labour, as the manner of manifestation was
developed in Chapter IV). This belongs to him just as much, there­
fore, as the objective preconditions for the process of labour. But the
following specific difference asserts itself here, nevertheless: the real
labour is that which the worker really gives to the capitalist as equival­
ent for the part of capital metamorphosed into wages, for the market
price of labour. It is the expenditure of his vital force, the realization
of his productive capacities, his movement, not that of the capitalist.
Considered as personal function, in its reality, labour is the function
of the worker and not that of the capitalist. From the standpoint of
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
85
exchange, the worker is that which the capitalist obtains from him in
the process of labour, not that entity as which the capitalist confronts
him in the process of labour. This forms, thus, an opposition to the
objective preconditions of labour which confront the subjective pre­
condition of labour (labour itself, or rather the worker who labours)
within the process of labour itself — which objective preconditions do
their confronting as capital, and to that extent as the existence of the
capitalist. Thus it ensues that as well as from the stand­
point of the capitalist as from that of the worker, it is as the
existence of capital, as ‘eminently capitaV that the means of produc­
tion confronts labour (thus, the other element into which the advanced
capital metamorphoses itself) and consequently appears potentially as
specific mode of existence of capital even outside the process of
production. This develops further (as will become clear) partly
because of the general nature of the capitalist process of valorization
(the role, which the means of production play in sucking up living
labour), partly because of the development of the specificallycapitalistic mode of production (in which machinery, etc., turns into
the real master over living labour). Consequendy, there takes place
on the basis of the capitalist process of production this inseparable
fuHon of use-values (in which capital exists in the form of means of
production), and the determination of these means of production,
these things, as capital (which is a particular social relationship of
production) precisely as within this mode of production the product
constricted within it counts in and for itself discommodity. This forms a
basis for the fetishism of the political economists.
Secondly: The means of production enter as particular commodities
(e.g., as wool, coal, spindles, etc.) from the process of circulation into
the process of labour. It is in the shape of the use-value that they had as
long as they still circulated as commodities that they do this entering.
Once they have entered into the process they then function with the
properties which inhere in them as things in a thing-like way, corres­
ponding to their use-value: of wool as wool, etc. The situation is
different with the part of capital which we name variable which,
however, is only really metamorphosed into the variable part of capital
for the first time by its exchange for faculty-of-labour. Considered in
accordance with its real shape, money — that part of capital which the
capitalist expends in the acquisition of faculty of labour — manifests
nothing other than the means of life which are located on the market (or
are thrown onto it ‘in certain conditions’) and which enter into the
86
VALUE
individual consumption of the worker. Money is only the metamor­
phosed form of these means of life, which the worker metamorphoses
back into means of life as soon as he has received it. Both this
metamorphosis and then the consumption of these commodities as
use-values is a process which has nothing immediately to do with the
immediate process of production (more precisely, the process of
labour) but, rather, falls outside of it. The one part of capital and
thereby the total capital is to be sure precisely metamorphosed by
those means into a variable magnitude, so that instead of money being
exchanged, which is a constant value-magnitude, or instead of the
means of life in which it can manifest itself (likewise, constant valuemagnitudes) , what is exchanged on the contrary is an element—living
faculties of labour — which is creative of value and which— as element
creative of value — can be greater or lesser, can manifest itself as
variable magnitude, and in general in all conditions enters into the
process of production as factor, only as a magnitude flowing, becoming
— and therefore contained within ‘different limits’ — instead of as a
become magnitude. But, as it is, the consumption of means of life in
reality by the workers can admittedly be contained by the workers
themselves in the process of labour in this way (be locked in), just as
the consumption of matières instrumentales by machines, for example is
contained in them, so that the worker appears only as an instrument
bought by capital which has need of consumption for its function in
the process of labour of the addition of a certain portion of means of
life as its matières instrumentales. This takes place more or less in
accordance with the extent and brutality of the exploitation of the
worker. Meanwhile it is not conceptually contained in this narrow
way in the capital-relationship (we see the rest in considering the
reproduction of the entire relationship). On the average, the worker
consumes his means of life during the interruption of the immediate
process of labour, while the machine consumes during its functioning
(animal?). Then, however, considering the entire working class a part
of these means of life is consumed by members of the family who do
not yet or no longer work. Actually, in practice the difference between
a worker and a machine can be reduced to that between animal and
machine to the extent we consider matières instrumentales and their
consumption. This is not, however, necessary, and consequently does
not belong in the conceptual determination of capital. In any case, the
part of capital laid out in wages appears formally as a part belonging no
longer to the capitalist but to the worker, as soon as it has assumed its
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
87
real shape, that of the means of life entering into the consumption of
the workers. The shape of use-value which the part thus has as com­
modity before its entrance into the process of production — as means
of life — it thus completely different from the shape which it assumes
within this process, and which is precisely that of the labour-power
expresûng itself aeatively and is consequently that of living labour
itself. This fact thus distinguishes this part of capital specifically from
that which is present in the shape of means of production, and this is
in turn a reason why the means of production in the emphatic sense and
in distinction from and in oppontion to the means of life appear as capital
in and for itself. This appearance dissolves itself simply (apart from
considerations which must be developed later on) by virtue of the fact
that the form of use-value in which capital exists at the end of the
process of production is that of th tproduct, and this product exists just
as much in the form of means of production as of means of life, and thus
both are equally present as capital and consequently are also present in
opposition to the living faculty of labour.
Let us now come to the process of valorization.
With reference to exchange-value here again the difference between
the commodity and the capital comprehended in the process of valori­
zation.
The exchange-value of that capital which enters into the process of
production is smaller than the exchange-value of the capital which has
been thrown onto the market or has been advanced (for it is only the
value of the commodities which enter into the process as means of
production); i.e., the value of the constant part of capital, which enters
into the process of production as value. Instead of the value of the
variable part of capital, we now have the valorization as process, the
labour comprehended in the act of valorizing which constantly
realizes itself as value but also proceeds onwards flowing over the
posited values to a creation of value.
As far as the maintenance of the old value is concerned (of that part
of value of the constant part), this depends immediately upon (1) the
value of the means of production entering into the process not being
greater than necessary (thus the commodities out of which they
consist contain only that labour-time socially necessary for the purpose
of production in objectified form; e.g., the structures, machinery,
etc.), and the point for the capitalist as he shops for these means of
production is to make sure that they have the level of quality as
use-values which corresponds to the ‘average’ in the formation of the
88
VALUE
product (whether it be as raw material, whether it be as machines,
etc.) and thus function with average level of quality and put no
unusual obstacles in the way of labour, the living factor: e.g., level of
quality of raw material, with which it also goes along that the applied
machinery, etc., produces no more than the ‘average waste’ of com­
modities as they are being produced, etc. This is all the affair of the
capitalist. But, (2) the maintenance of the value of the constant capital
depends upon its being consumed in an exclusively productive man­
ner (to the extent possible) and is not wasted, because otherwise a
greater part of objectified labour would be contained in the product
than is socially necessary. To some extent, this depends upon the work­
ers themselves, and here commences the supervision by the capitalist.
(He knows how to get this result by ‘task work’, salary penalties.)
Further, it depends upon the labour being accomplished in an order­
ly, purposeful way, upon the metamorphosis of the means of produc­
tion into the product proceeding in a competent way, upon the
use-value which was intended as the purpose really coming out as
result in successful form. At this point it is again a question of the
supervision 2nd discipline of the capitalist. Finally, it depends upon the
process of production not being disturbed, not interrupted and really
proceeding on to the product within the span of time (space of time)
granted by the nature of the process of labour and its objective
conditions. This depends to some extent upon the continuity of labour
which enters upon the scene with capitalistic production. To some
extent it depends upon external uncontrollable accidents. To that
degree there enters with every process of production a risk for those
values absorbed by it, a risk which they (1) are subjected to even
outside of the process of production, and (2) which is proper to
each process of production, not only that of capital. (Capital protects
itself against that by association. The immediate producer who works
with his own means of production is subjected to the same risk. This is
nothing peculiar to the capitalist process of production. If this risk
falls on the capitalist in capitalist production that is only because he
has usurped proprietorship of the means of production.)
As far, however, as the living factor of the process of valorization is
concerned, (1) the value of variable capital can only be maintained by
being replaced, reproduced; i.e., by the fact that just so great a
quantum of labour is added to the means of production as the value of
the variable capital or wages amounted to; (2) an increment of its value,
surplus-value, can only be created by an excess of labour-quantum
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
89
over that contained in the wages of labour — an additional labourquantum — being objectified in the product.
The difference between the use-value of the capital advanced or of
the commodities in which it exists and the shape of the use-value of
capital in the process of labour corresponds to the difference between
the exchange-value of the capital advanced and the appearance of the
exchange-value of capital in the process of valorization: in the fact that
in theformer the means of production (the constant capital) enters into
the process in the very same use-value-form which the commodities out
of which it consists previously had, while the living factor consisting
of the labour-power valorizing itself in new use-values (real labour)
steps into the place of the finished use-values of which the variable
capital consisted; and in the fact that in the latter, the value of the
means of production (the constant capital) enters as such into the
process of valorization, while the value of the variable capital by no
means enters into the same, but on the contrary is replaced by the
activity creative of value, and enters as activity of the living factor
existing as process of valorization.
In order for the labour-time of the worker to posit value in propor­
tion to its duration it has to be socially necessary labour-time. That is,
the worker must accomplish within a particular time the normally
social quantum of purposeful labour, and the capitalist consequently
compels him to effectuate that his labour possess at least the normally
social average degree of intensity. The capitalist will attempt to
increase the labour as much as possible over this minimum, and
attempt to extract as much labour as possible out of him within a given
lime, for every intensity of labour over the average degree creates
surplus-value for the capitalist. He will in addition attempt to
lengthen the process of labour as much as possible beyond the limits
which determine how long one must work in order to replace the value
of the variable capital, the wages of labour. With a given intensity of
the process of labour he will strive to increase its duration; with a
given duration of same, he will strive to increase its intensity as much
as possible. The capitalist compels the worker to give his labour the
normal degree of intensity (a higher degree, where possible) and he
compels him to lengthen his process of labour as much as possible
beyond the duration of time necessary for the replacement of the
wages of labour.
Through this peculiar character of the capitalist process of valoriza­
tion, the real shape of capital in the process of production (its shape as
90
VALUE
use-value) acquires further modification. First, the means of produc­
tion must be present in a mass which is sufficient not only for the
absorption of the necessary labour, but also for that of the surpluslabour. Second, the intensity and extension of the real process of
labour changes.
The means of production which the worker applies in the actual
process of labour are the property of the capitalist, to be sure, and
confront the worker’s labour (which is his own externalization of life)
precisely as capital, as we developed earlier. But on the other hand, he
is the one who applies them in his labour. In the actual process of
labour he uses up the means of labour as the director of his labour, and
uses up the object of labour as the matter in which his labour manifests
itself. That is precisely the way whereby he metamorphoses the means
of production into the form of product adequate to the purpose. The
matter manifests itself quite differently from the standpoint of the
process of valorization. It is not the worker who applies the means of
production but it is the means of production which apply the worker.
It is not the living labour which realizes itself in the substantial labour
as in its objective organ, but rather it is the substantial labour which
sustains and increases itself by sucking in the living labour and
thereby turns into self-valorizing value, into capital, and functions as
such. From this point on the means of production only appear as
suckers up of a quantum of living labour as great as possible; the living
labour appears from this point on only as the means for the valoriza­
tion of present values and consequently of their capitalization. And,
quite apart from what we developed earlier, it is precisely for this
reason that the means of production appear again eminently in con­
frontation with living labour as existence ofcapital, and now to be sure
as rule of the past, dead labour over the living. Precisely as value­
forming, is the living labour progressively embodied into the process
of valorization of the objectified labour. As exertion, as expenditure of
live power, labour is the personal activity of the worker. But as
forming, as comprehended in the process of its objectification, the labour
of the worker is (as soon as it has entered into the process of produc­
tion) itself a mode of existence of capital-value, is embodied in it. This
power which maintains value and creates new-value is consequently
the power of capital and that process appears as the process of its
self-valorization and rather of the impoverishment of the worker, who
creates the value created by him at the same time as value foreign to
himself.
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
91
On the basis of capitalist production, this ability of objectified
labour to metamorphose into capital (i.e., to metamorphose the means
of production into means of command over and exploitation of living
labour) appears as inhering in the means in and for themselves (as this
ability, granted,is potentially connected with such exploitation on the
basis of capitalism), appears as inseparable from them, and conse­
quently as a property which inheres in them as things, as use-values, as
means of production. These latter, consequently, appear in and for
themselves as capital; and capital, consequently, which expresses a
particular relationship of production, a particular social relationship in
which within production it is as a thing that the possessors of the
preconditions of production approach the living faculties of labour,
altogether as the value appeared as property of a thing and the
economic determination of the thing as commodity, as its thing-like
quality, altogether as the social form, which the labour obtained in
money, manifested itself as properties of a thing. In fact the rule of the
capitalists over the workers is only the rule of the self-sufficient
(self-sufficient with respect to the worker) preconditions of labour (to
which in addition to the objective preconditions of the process of
production — the means of production — there belong also the
objective preconditions for the maintenance and efficacy of the labour
power, that is, th emeans of life) over the worker himself, although this
relationship realizes itself for the first time in the actual process of
production which, as we have seen is essen daily process of production of
surplus-valuey a thing that includes the maintenance of the old value,
and is process of self-valorization of the capital advanced. In circulation,
capitalist and worker confront each other only as commodity-sellers,
but by the specifically polar nature of the types of commodity which
they sell to each other, the worker necessarily enters into the process
of production as constituent part of use-value, of real existence, and of
the value-existence of capital, although this relationship realizes itself
only for the first time within the process of production, and the
capitalist who exists only potentially as buyer of labour first turns into
the actual capitalist, if the worker who has metamorphosed as the case
may be into wage-labourer by the sale of his labour-faculty first enters
into subjection to the command of the capitalist actually in that
process. The functions which the capitalist performs are only the
functions performed with consciousness and will of capital itself — of
the value which valorizes itself by sucking in living labour. The
capitalist only functions as personified capital, capital as person; just as
92
VALUE
the worker only functions as personified labour, which belongs to him
as torment, as exertion, but belongs to the capitalist as substance
which creates and augments wealth, just as labour as such really
appears as element embodied in capital in the process of production,
as its living, variable factor. The rale of the capitalist over it (labour)
is, consequently, the rule of the thing over the human being, of dead
labour over living, of the product over the producer, since the com­
modities which turn into means of rule (merely as means of the
rule of capital itself, however) actually over the workers, after
all, are mere results of the process of production, which are
products of the same. What this is is the same relationship
in material production in the actual social process o f life — for
that is what the process of production is — which manifests itself
on the ideological plane in religion, the inversion of the subject
into the object and vice versa. Considered historically, this inversion
appears as the necessary point of transition in order to force the
creation of wealth as such (i.e., of the uninhibited productive powers
of social labour which are the only ones which can form the material
basis of a free, human society) on to the backs of the majority. The
transition through this contradictory form is necessary, in exactly the
same way as the human being must shape his intellectual powers first
as independent powers against himself in a religious way. It is the
process o f alienation of his own labour. The worker stands here from
the very first on a higher level than the capitalist to the extent that the
latter has his roots in that process of alienation and finds his absolute
self-satisfaction in it, while the worker on the other hand stands from
the very first in a rebellious relationship, as its victim, and perceives it
as a process of enslavement. To the extent that the process of produc­
tion is at the same time actual process of labour and the capitalist as
supervisor and director of same has a function to perform in the actual
production, to that extent his activity in reality acquires a specific,
manifold content. But the process o f labour itself only appears as means
of the process of valorization, altogether as the use-value of the product
appears only as bearer of its exchange-value. The self-valorization of
capital — the creation of surplus-value — is thus the determining,
ruling, and overriding purpose of the capitalist, the absolute drive and
purpose of his action, in actuality only the rationalized drive and
purpose of the hoarder — a completely vacuous and abstract content
which lets the capitalist appear from another perspective justas much
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
93
subject to the enslavement of the capital-relationship as the worker,
although from another side, on the opposite pole.
The original relationship in which the ‘would-be capitalist’ buys
labour (after Chapter IV we can speak in this way, instead of ‘labourfaculty’) from the worker in order to capitalize a money-value, and the
worker sells the disposition over his labour-faculty in order to pass his
life, this relationship is the necessary introduction and precondition
(in-itself contains inside itself), is the relationship developed now in
the actual process of production in which the commodity-possessor
turns into ‘capitalist’, into personified capital, and the worker turns
into the mere personification of labour for capital. Just as that first
relationship in which both confront each other apparently as
commodity-possessors is the presupposition, so is it the result and
product of the capitalist process of production, as we shall see later on.
But in accordance with that, both acts must be held apart from one
another. The first belongs to circulation. The second develops on the
basis of the first only for the first time in the actual process of
production.
The process of production is immediate unity of process of labour
and process of valorization, just as its immediate result (the commodi­
ty) is immediate unity of use-value and exchange-value. But the pro­
cess of labour is only means for the process of valorization and the
process of valorization is as such essentially produc tion of surplus-value;
i.e., process of objectification of unpaid labour. Thereby the total
character of the process of production is specifically determined.
If we consider the process of production under two differing
points-of-view: (1) as process, of labour, (2) as process of valorization,
then there is already implied by this in this way that it is only a single,
indivisible process of labour. One does not do double labour, once in
order to create a purposeful product (a use-value), in order to
metamorphose the means of production into products, and once again
in order to create value and surplus-value, in order to valorize the value.
The labour is only applied in its particular, concrete, specific form,
manner, mode of existence in which it is the purpose-determined
activity which metamorphoses the means of production into a deter­
mined product, spindle, and cotton (e.g. into yarn). It is only the
labour of spinning that is applied and which by its application con­
tinually produces more yam. This real labour is value-positing insofar
as it possesses a normal, determined degree of intensity (or only counts
94
VALUE
insofar as this real labour of given intensity materializes itself in the
product in determined quantities measured by time.) If the process of
labour stopped at the point where the quantum of labour applied in the
form of spinning, etc. = the quantum of labour contained in the wages
of labour, then no surplus-value would be produced. The surplusvalue consequently manifests itself also in a surplus-product, here as
quantum of yarn in excess over the quantum whose value = the value
of the wages of labour. The process of labour consequently appears
precisely as process of valorization by virtue of the fact that the
concrete labour which is brought to bear in it is a quantum of socially
necessary labour which (through its intensity) is posited = to a certain
quantum of social average-labour, and by virtue of the fact that this
quantum displays an additional quantum apart from the one contained
in the wages. This is the quantitative calculation of the particular
concrete labour as necessary, social average-labour, a calculation to
which, however, the real moment of the normal intensity of labour
corresponds, in the first place, (through the fact that it is only the
socially necessary labour-time for the constitution of a particular
quantum of product which is what is applied to it), and this real
moment also corresponds to the lengthening of the process of labour
beyond that duration which is necessary for the replacement of the
value of the variable capital.
It follows from what we have developed earlier that the expression
‘objectified labour* and the opposition of capital as objectified labour to
living labour is susceptible of great misinterpretation.
I have already shown* that the analysis of the commodity in terms
o fflabour* is ambiguous and incomplete in the work of all previous
economists. It is not enough to reduce it to ‘labour’, but rather to
labour in the double form in which it displays itself on the one hand as
concrete labour in the use-value of the commodities, and on the other
hand is reckoned up 2ls socially necessary labour in the exchange-value.
From the first viewpoint everything depends upon its particular
use-value, its specific character which is just what impresses the
specific stamp upon the use-value created by it, and makes it into a
concrete use-value as others, makes it into this particular article.
Complete and total abstraction is made, however, from its particular
utility, its particular nature and kind insofar as it is reckoned as
* W ith o u t this co n fu sio n , the contention ab o u t w h e th er in ad d itio n to lab o u r n atu re
too d o es n o t m ak e a co n trib u tio n to th e p ro d u c t w as u tterly im possible. R eference here
is only to concrete lab o u r.
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
95
value-forming element and the commodity is reckoned as its objectifi­
cation. It is as such undifferentiated, socially necessary,universal
labour, completely and totally indifferent towards each particular
content, for which reason it obtains an expression which is common to
all commodities and one distinguishable only by quantity also in its
independent expression, money, in the commodity: as price. In accor­
dance with the first facet the thing displays itself in the particular
use-value of the commodity, its particular thing-like existence;
in accordance with the second facet it displays itself in money,
whether this exists as money or as mere money of calculation in the
price of the commodity. In accordance with the first facet what is
involved is exclusively the quality ; and in accordance with the second,
merely the quantity of labour. In accordance with the first facet, the
difference from concrete labour displays itself in the divi­
sion of labour, in accordance with the second, in its undifferentiated
monetary expression. Within the process of production, now, this
difference confronts us actively, It is no longer we who make it, but
rather it is made in the process of production itself.
The difference between objectified labour and living displays itself in
the real process of labour. The means of production (e.g., cotton,
spindles, etc.) are products, use-values in which particular useful,
concrete labours, machine construction, cotton plants, etc., are
embodied, while the labour o f spinning appears in the process as a
labour differing from the labours contained in the means of produc­
tion not only specifically, but appears as living labour, actualizing
itself for the first time, and as labour continually extruding its product
from itself as opposed to those labours already objectified in their own
products. From this standpoint too, an opposition between the one
facet as present existence of capital, and the living labour as
immediate expenditure of vitality by the worker. Further, in the
process of labour, the objectified labour steps forth as the objective
moment, element, for the actualization of living labour.
The thing, however, appears in an altogether different light as soon
as the process of valorization, the formation and creation of new-value
is taken into consideration. The labour which is contained here in the
means of production is a particular quantum of universal social labour
and displays itself consequently in a certain value-magnitude or sum of
money, ‘in fact’ in the price of these means of production. The labour
which is applied is a particular additional quantum of universal social
labour, and displays itself as additional value-magnitude and sum of
96
VALUE
money. The labour already contained in the means of production is the
same as that newly added. They only differ in the fact that the one is
objectified in use-values and the other is comprehended in the process
of this objectification; the one is past, the other present, the one dead,
the other living, the one objectified in the perfect tense, the other
objectifying itself in the present tense. In the extent in which past
labour replaces living, it becomes a process itself, valorizes itself>
becomes a ‘Flowing’ that creates a ‘Fluxion’. This sucking in of
additional, living labour is its process of self-valorization, its actual
metamorphosis into capital, into value that valorizes itself, is its
metamorphosis out of a constant value magnitude into a variable and
processing value-magnitude. This additional labour can, admittedly,
be applied only in the shape of concrete labour and consequently can
be applied to the means of production only in their specific shape as
particular use-values; and the value contained in these means of
production, also, is only maintained by their consumption as means of
labour, by concrete labour. This does not, however, exclude the fact
that the present value (the labour objectified in the means of produc­
tion) augments itself not only over its own quantum but also over the
quantum of labour objectified in variable capital in the single and
exclusive manner, and in the degree that it sucks in living labour and
in the degree that the labour objectifies itself as money, as universally
social labour. It is, as a consequence, ‘eminently’ in this sense (which
refers to thz process of valorization, the genuine purpose of capitalist
production) that capital as objectified labour 0accumulated labour,
pre-existent labour and so forth3) confronts living labour (‘immediate
labour9y etc.) and is set into opposition to it by the economists. But
they fall into contradictions and ambiguity at this point (even Ricar­
do) because they have not clearly worked out the analysis of the
commodity into labour in double-form.
Through the original process of exchange between capitalist and
worker (as commodity-possessors) it is only the living factor, the
faculty of labour, that enters into the process of production as a
moment of the real shape of capital. But it is only in the process of
production itself that the objectified labour first metamorphoses into
capital through the sucking in of living labour, and it is as a consequ­
ence that labour metamorphoses into capital.
The capitalist process of production is unity of process of labour
and process of valorization. In order to metamorphose money into
capital, it is metamorphosed into commodities which form factors of
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
97
the process of labour. The first thing to be done with money is to buy
labour-faculties and, secondly, to buy things without which the
labour-faculties cannot be used up; i.e., cannot work. Within the
process of labour these things have no meaning except to serve as means
of life of labour, as use-values for labour — with reference to living
labour, this signifies its very material and means; and with reference
to the product of labour, this signifies its means of production: with
reference to the fact that these means of production are themselves
already products, products as the means of production of a new
product. But these things do not play this role in the process of labour
because the capitalist buys them, because they are the metamor­
phosed form of his money, but it is rather on the contrary that he buys
them because they play this role in the process of labour. It is, for
example, indifferent to the process of spinning as such, that cotton
and spindles represent the money of the capitalist, that is, capital, and
indifferent that the money expended is capital, in accordance with its
specificity. They only become material of labour and means of labour
in the hand of the spinner at work, and they so become it by virtue of
the fact that he spins, not because he spins cotton (which belongs to
another person) with a spindle (which belongs to that same other
person) into yarn for that same other person. It is not by virtue of
commodities being used up in the process of labour or being con­
sumed productively that they become capital, but it is rather that they
become elements of the process of labour in this way. Insofar as these
objective elements of the process of labour are bought by the capitalist
they represent his capital. But this also holds of labour. It also
represents his capital, for the labour belongs to the buyer of the
labour-faculty just as much as the objective preconditions of labour
which he has bought. And not only the single elements of the process
of labour, but the entire process of labour belongs to him. The capital,
which earlier existed in the form of money, now exists in the form of
process of labour. Because capital has seized control of the process of
labour (consequently the worker labours for the capitalist instead of
for himself), that is no reason, however, for the process of labour to
have changed its general nature. Because money at its metamorphosis
into capital metamorphoses into the factors of the process of labour
(thus, necessarily also takes on the shape of material of labour and
means of labour), that is no reason why material of labour and means
of labour become capital by nature, any more than gold and silver
become money by nature because money displays itself in gold and
98
VALUE
silver, among others. The very same modem economists who laugh
over the naivete of the Monetarist system when it gives as answer to
the question, what is money, the statement, ‘gold and silver is money*
— they do not lower their guard by deigning to answer the question,
What is capital? Capital is cotton. They say nothing else when they
explain that material of labour, and means of labour, means of pro­
duction as products which are applied towards new-production— in a
word, that the objective preconditions of labour arecapital by nature, are
capital insofar as and because they serve as use-values in the process of
labour through their thing-iike properties. It is quite appropriate if
others add: capital is meat and bread, for, although the capitalist buys
the faculty of labour with money, this money actually only represents
bread, meat, in a word — the means of life of the worker. A chair with
four feet and a velvet drapery represents, within certain conjunctures,
a throne; but for that reason, this chair (a thing that serves for sitting)
is not through the nature of its use-value, a throne. The most essential
factor in the process of labour is the worker himself, and within the
ancient process of production this worker is a slave. One can just as
little conclude from that, that the worker is a slave by nature (although
that view was not altogether foreign to Aristotle), as one can conclude
that spindle and cotton arc capital by nature, because nowadays it is by
a wzge-labaurer that they are used up in the process of labour. This
insanity, which a particular social relationship of production (which
displays itself in things) takes up as thing-like natural property of
these things themselves, hits us in the face if we pick up the first
Economics textbook that comes along, and read right on the first page
that the elements of the process of production (reduced to their most
univerals form) are earth, capital and labour.* One could say just as
well that they are landed property, knives, shears, spindles cotton,
grain — in a word: material of labour and means of labour, and —wage
labour. On the one side, it is those things which we name elements of
the process of labour once they are enlivened with the specific social
characteri which they possess on a particular historical level of
development; and on the other side, we add an element which inheres
in the process of labour independently of all particular social forms, as
in an eternal process between man and nature as such. (We shall see
further along that this illusion of the economist which mistakes the
appropriation of the process of labour by capital for the process of
labour itself — and consequently metamorphoses the objective ele* Cf. J.S . M ill, Principles o f P olitical Economy, V olum e I, Book 1.
RESULTS o f t h e im m e d ia t e process
99
merits of the process of labour as such into capital, because capital
metamorphoses among other things also into the objective elements of
the process of labour — we shall see how this illusion, which lasts
among the classical economists only as long as they consider the
capitalist process of production exclusively from the viewpoint of the
process of labour, and consequently correct through their further
discussion, is derived from the nature of the capitalist process of
production itself.) What ensues immediately, however, is that this is a
very convenient method of proving the eternity of the capitalist mode
of production, or proving that capital is an imperishable natural-element
of human production. Labour is eternal natural-precondition of
human existence. The process of labour is nothing but labour itself,
considered at the moment of its creative activity. The universal
moments of the process of labour are consequently independent of
each particular social development. Means of labour and material of
labour (a part of which are already products of previous labour) play
their role in each process of labour at all times and under all circums­
tances. If I hang the name capital on them relying on the dictum
'something always sticks’) then I have proved that the existence of
capital is an eternal natural-law of human production and that the
Kirghiz tribesman who cuts reeds with a knife stolen from the Rus­
sians and weaves his skiff out of these reeds is just as much a capitalist
as Baron von Rothschild. I could prove in a similar way that Greeks
and Romans took Communion because they drank wine and ate
bread, and Turks annoint themselves daily with Catholic holy water
because they wash every day. It is just such ‘impertinently’ fatuous
babbling that one finds trotted out with complacent importance not
only by a F . Bastiat, or in the economics treatiselets of the Society for
the Advancement of Useful Knowledge, or in the children’s books of
Mother Martineau, but even by actual professional writers. Instead of
proving the eternal natural-necessity of capital in this way as was
intended, what is rather achieved is the denying on the contrary of the
necessity of capital even for a particular historical level of develop­
ment of the social process of production; for against the claim that
capital is nothing but material of labour and means of labour or that
the objective elements of the process of labour are capital by nature,
the answer is justly opposed that in that case one needs capital, but no
capitalists, or that capital is nothing but a name invented for the
purpose of cheating the masses.
The inability to comprehend the process of labour in independence
lOO
VALUE
and yet at the same time as a side of the capitalist process of production
reveals itself even more strikingly if F . Wayland, for example, tells us
the tale that raw-material is capital and through its processing it
becomes product. Accordingly, leather would be the product of the
tanner and the capital of the shoemaker. Raw-material and product
are both determinations which inhere in a thing with reference to the
process o f labour, and which both have nothing to do, in and for
themselves, with the thing's determination of being capital, although
both of them (raw-material and product) represent capital as soon as
the process of labour is appropriated by the capitalist.* M . Proudhon
has exploited this with his habitual ‘depth’: ‘Through what means
does the concept o fproduct suddenly metamorphose into the concept of
capital? Through the idea o f value. That means, that the product, in
order to become capital, must have passed through an authentic
assessment of value, have been either bought or sold, have had its
price debated and fixed by a kind of legal convention. This pelt as it
comes from the slaughter-house is the product o f the butcher. Is this pelt
bought by the tanner? The latter at once adds it or its value to his
exploitation-fund. Through the labour of the tanner, this capita/ again
becomes product.’
M. Proudhon stands out by his apparatus of false metaphysics,
through which he carries the most obvious of all elementary consider­
ations to his ‘exploitation-fund’ as capital, and then sells them to the
public as grandiose ‘product’. The question of how product metamor­
phoses into capital is nonsense in and for itself, but the answer given is
worthy of the question. Actually, M. Proudhon is only narrating to us
the two rather well-known facts: (1) that products are worked on
among other respects as raw-material and (2) that products are at the
same tinte commodities; i.e., possess a value which must pass the trial
by fire of the debate between buyer and seller prior to its realization.
This same ‘philosopher’ remarks: ‘The difference for society between
capital and product does not exist. This difference is completely
subjective to individuals.’ He calls the abstract social form ‘subjective’
and calls his own subjective abstraction ‘society’.
If the economist, as long as he considers the capitalist process of
production merely from the standpoint of the process o f labour, exp* F . W ayland: T h e m aterial w hich we obtain fo r th e p u rp o se o f com bining it w ith our
ow n (!) in d u stry , a n d fo rm ing it in to a p ro d u c t, is called capital; an d , after the labour
h as been ex erted , a n d th e v alue tre a te d , it is called a product. T h u s th e sam e article m ay
b e a product to o n e , and capital to an o th er. L eather is th e pro d u ct of th e c u rrie r, a n d th e
cap ital o f th e shoem aker.*
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
101
lains capital as a merething, raw matter, instrument, etc., then it again
occurs to him that the process of production is nevertheless also
process of valorization, and that those things only come into consider­
ation with respect to the process of valorization as value. (The very
same capital exists now in the form of a sum of money, now in the form
of a piece of raw matter, an instrument, a complete commodity. These
things are in reality not capital, but capital has its abode in the value
which they have.’ (J. B. Say) Insofar as this value 'maintains itself, no
longer vanishes, multiplies itself, tears itself free of the commodity
which had created it, remains like a metaphysical and insubstantial
quality always in the possession of the same producer (i.e.,
capitalist)’ * to that extent is that which just previously still passed as a
thing, now explained as a 1commercial idea\\
The product of the capitalist process of production is neither a mere
product (use-value), nor mere commodity (i.e., product which has an
exchange-value); but, rather, its specific product is surplus-value. Its
product are commodities which possess more exchange-value (i.e.,
display more labour) than was advanced in the form of money or
commodities for their production. In the capitalist process of produc­
tion the process o f labour appears only as means, the process of valoriza­
tion as the production of surplus-value as purpose. As soon as the
economist reflects upon this fact, the capital is declared to be wealth
which is applied in production in order to make ‘profit* 4
We have seen that the metamorphosis of money into capital is
divided into two processes, self-sufficient, belonging to entirely dif­
ferent spheres existing separate from eath other. The first process
belongs to the sphere of commodity-circulation and consequently pro­
ceeds upon the commodity-market. It is the buying and sale of thefaculty
of labour. The second process is the consumption of thefaculty of labour
which has been bought or of the process of production itself. In the first
process, capitalists and workers confront each other only as possessors
of money and possessors of commodities, and their transaction is an
exchange of equivalents just as is that between all buyers and sellers.
In the second process, the worker appears temporarily as living
constituent of capital itself, and the category of exchange is com­
pletely excluded at this point, since the capitalist has appropriated all
* S ism o n d i,.’Vew Principles, V olum e I, p. 89.
f ‘C apital is a co m m ercial id e a .’
t M althus: ‘C apital. T h a t portion o f the stock o f a c o u n try w hich is kept o r em ployed
w ith a view to p ro fit in th e p ro d u c tio n a n d d istrib u tio n o f w e alth .’
102
VALUE
factors of the process of production, objective as well as personal,
through buying them, before this process begins. Although both
processes exist self-subsistinglv beside each other, they condition
each other reciprocally. The first introduces the second, and the
second carries out the first.
The first process, the buying and selling of the faculty of labour,
shows us capitalist and worker only as buyer and seller of commodity.
It is only the specific nature, the specific use-value of the commodity
sold by the worker that distinguishes him from other sellers of com­
modities. But the particular use-value of the commodities changes
nothing at all in the economic form determinacy of the transaction,
nothing at all in the fact that the buyer represents money and the seller
represents commodity. Thus, in order to prove that the relationship
between capitalist and worker is absolutely nothing other than a
relationship between possessors of commodities who exchange money
and commodity with each other for their reciprocal advantage and
through a free contract, it suffices to isolate the first process and hold
firmly to its formal character. This simple artifice is no witchcraft, but
it forms the entire stock of wisdom of vulgar economics.
We have seen that the capitalist must metamorphose his money not
only into faculties of labour, but into the substantial factors of the
process of labour, the means of production. If we consider, however,
the entire capital on the one side (thus, the entirety of the buyers of
faculties of labour on the one side), and the entirety of the sellers of
faculties of labour (the entirety of workers) on the other side, in this
way the worker is precisely compelled — instead of a commodity— to
sell his own faculty of labour as a commodity, because the collected
means of production, the collected substantial preconditions of labour
as well as the collected means of life, money, means of production,
and means of life confront him as the property of someone else —
thus, because all substantial wealth confronts the worker, as property of
the possessors of commodities. It is hypothesized that he works as
non-possessor and the preconditions of his labour confront him as alien
property. The fact that capitalist number one is a possessor of money
and buys means of production from capitalist number two who pos­
sesses means of production, whereas the worker buys necessities from
capitalist number three with the money obtained from capitalist
number one produces no change in the circumstances that the
capitalists number one, two and three are together the exclusive
possessors of money, means of production and necessities of life. The
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
103
human being can only live insofar as he produces his necessities of life
and he can only produce necessities of life insofar as he is in possession
of means of production, in possession of substantial preconditions of
labour. Thus it is obvious from the very first that the worker, who is
stripped of means of production, is stripped of the necessities of life;
just as, vice versa, a human being who is stripped of necessities of life
can create no means of production. Thus, that which impresses even
in the first process the character of capital upon money or commodity
from the beginning, before they have actually metamorphosed into
capital, is neither their nature as money nor their nature as commodi­
ty, nor the thing-like use-value of these commodities of serving as
means of life and means of production; but rather it is the circums­
tance that this money and this commodity, these means of production
and means of life confront the faculty of labour stripped of all substan­
tial wealth, asself~subsistentpowers, personified in their possessors; the
fact, that is, that the material preconditions necessary for the actuali­
zation of labour are alienated, from the worker himself, and appear
rather fetishes endowed with their own will and their own soul; the
fact that commodities figure as buyers of persons. The buyer of the
faculty of labour is only the personification of objectified labour which
yields a part of itself to the worker in the form of necessities of life in
order to embody the living faculty of labour in its other part and in
order to maintain itself in entirety through this embodiment and
increase beyond its original dimension. It is not the worker who buys
the means of life and means of production, but the means of life buy
the worker in order to embody him in the means of production.
Means of life are a particular material form of existence in which
capital confronts the worker before he appropriates them through the
sale of his faculty of labour. But as soon as the process of production
begins, the faculty of labour is already sold, and the means of life
therefore have passed, at least in legal form, over into the consump­
tion fund of the worker. These means of life form no element of the
process of labour which, besides the active faculty of labour itself,
presupposes nothing except material of labour and means of labour.
The worker must in fact maintain his faculty of labour through means
of life, but this private consumption of his which is at the same time
reproduction of his faculty of labour falls outside of the process of
production of the commodity. It is possible that in capitalist produc­
tion the entire disposable time of the worker is actually absorbed by
capital, that in this way the attrition of the means of life actually
104
VALUE
appears as a mere incident of the process of labour itself, just as the
attrition of coal by the steam-engine, of oil by the wheel or of hay by
the horse, just as the entire private consumption of the working slave
does; and in this sense Ricardo, for example, counts besides raw
material, tools, etc. 'food and clothing’ as the things which give 'effect to
labour’ and serve as 'capital in the process of labour, as a consequence.
But, however that may actually shape itself, the means of life (as soon
as the free worker consumes them) are commodities which he has
bought. As soon as they pass over into his hand (hence all the more, as
soon as they are consumed by him) they have ceased to be capital.
Thus, they form none of the material elements in which capital appears
in the immediate process of production, although they form the material
existence-form of variable capital, which steps forth on the market,
within the sphere of circulation as buyer of faculty of labour.
If a capitalist metamorphoses £400 out of £500 into means of
production and lays out £100 in the purchase of faculty of labour, then
these £100 form his variable capital. With these £100 the workers buy
means of life, whether from the same capitalist or from others. The
£100 are only the money-form of these means of life which thus actually
form the material suppotit of the variable capital. Within th e immediate
process of production variable capital no longer exists: neither in
money-form nor in commodity-form, but rather in the form of living
labour which it has appropriated for itself through the purchase of the
faculty of labour. And only through this metamorphosis of variable
capital into labour is the value-sum, advanced in money or com­
modities, metamorphosed into capital. Thus although the purchase
and sale of the faculty of labour (by which the metamorphosis of a part
of the capital into variable capital is conditioned) is a process separated
from the immediate process of production, both self-sufficient and prior
to it, it forms nevertheless, xhcabsolute basis of the capitalist process of
production and forms di moment of this process of production itself, if
we consider it as a totality and not only at the moment of the immediate
production of commodities. It is only because the worker, in order to
live, sells his faculty of labour, that substantial wealth metamorphoses
into capital. It is only in confrontation with wage-labour that the
objects which are substantial preconditions of labour (the means of
production, that is), and the objects which are substantial preconditions
for the maintenance of the worker himself (the means of life, that is) are
capital. Capital is no thing, as little as money is athing. In capital justas
in money, it is particular social relationships of production ofpersons that
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
105
are displaying themselves as relaüonships of things to persons, or it is
particular social relationships that are appearing as social natural·
properties of things. Without the existence of salaried employees, there
is no production of surplus-value (as soon as individuals confront one
another as free persons); without production of surplus-value, there is
no capitalist production and thus no capital and no capitalist! Capital
and wage-labour (as we name the labour of the worker who sells his
own faculty of labour express only two factors of the same relation­
ship. Money cannot become capital without exchanging itself for a
faculty of labour as commodity sold by the worker himself. On the
other hand, labour can only appear as wage-labour once its own
substantial preconditions confront it as egoistic powers, alien proper­
ty, value being for itself and holding fast in itself — in a word, as
capital. So if capital, in accordance with its material side (or in
accordance with the use-values in which it exists), can only consist in
the substantial preconditions of labour itself, then these substantial
preconditions, in accordance with its form-side, must confront labour
as alien, self-sufficient powers, as value — objectified labour — which
relates itself to living labour as mere means for its own maintenance
and increase. Wage-labour, or salaried employees, is thus a necessary
social form of labour for capitalist production; just as capital (potencied value) is a necessary social form which the substantial precondi­
tions of labour must assume in order for such labour to be wagelabour. Wage-labour is thus necessary precondition for capitalformation and remains the continual necessary presupposition for
capitalist production. Accordingly, although the first process (the
exchange of money for faculty of labour as the purchase of the faculty
of labour) does not as such enter into the immediate process of
production, it does enter into the production of the entire relationship
on the other hand.*
Let us now turn our consideration from the first process (the
purchase and sale of the faculty of labour, which presupposes
* O n e can co n clu d e from this how m uch a F. B astiat u n d e rstan d s o f the essence of
cap italist p ro d u ctio n if he explains th e existence o f salaried em ployees as a form ality
external a n d irrelev an t to capitalist p ro d u c tio n , and discovers ‘th at it is not th e form o f
remuneration w hich c rea te s this dep en d en ce for the worker*. It is a discovery (m ore an
u n c o m p re h en d in g plagiary of genuine econom ists) w orthy o f that declam atory fool who
discovered in th a t same tex t (1851) th a t ‘w hat is m ore decisive and even m ore certain is
th e d isap p earan ce o f g reat in d u stria l crisis in England*. A lthough F. B astiat had
d ecreed aw ay th e great crises in 1851, E ngland enjoyed a great crisis again in 1857, and
escaped an in d u stria l crisis greater th a n any before only because o f th e o u tb rea k o f the
A m erican Civil W ar, as can be read even in the official rep o rts of the English offices of
com m erce.
106
VALUE
the self-sufficiency of means of production and means of life over
against the actual workers, and thus presupposes personified
means of production and means of life, which as buyers
conclude a contract with the workers as sellers), and let us pass
from this process which goes on in the sphere of circulation,
on the market, over to the immediate process of production itself, what
this is immediately is process of labour. In the process of labour, the
worker enters as worker into a normal, active relationship to the
means of production determined by the nature and the purpose of the
labour itself. He appropriates and handles them as mere means and
material of his labour. The independent existence of these means of
production which hold fast in themselves and have their own head
(namely, their separation from labour) is now actually sublated.
The substantial preconditions for labour appear (in their normal
unity with labour) as mere matter and organs of its creative activity.
The worker handles the pelt which he is tanning as mere object of his
productive activity, not as capital. Tanning the skin for the capitalist
is not what he is doing.* Insofar as the process of production is mere
process of labour, to that extent the worker uses the means of produc­
tion up in this processas mere means of life of labour. Insofar, however,
as the process of production is at the same time process of valorization,
the capitalist is using up the faculty of labour of the worker in it, or is
appropriating living labour as life-blood of capital. The raw-material
(the object in general of labour) only serves to suck in alien labour, and
the labour-instrument serves only as conductor, guide for this
sucking-in process. By the fact of the living labour-faculty being
embodied in the substantial constituents of capital, this is turned into
an animated monster, and begins to act ‘as if it had love in its body’.
Since it is only in a particular useful form that labour creates value,
and since each particular useful kind of labour requires material and
means of specific use-value (spindle and cotton, etc., for spinning;
anvil, hammer and iron for the labour of the blacksmith, etc.); there
labour can only be sucked in, insofar as capital takes on the form of
those means of production specifically required for particular proces­
ses of labour, and only in this shape is it able to suck in living labour.
So one sees here why to the capitalist, to the worker, and to the
political economist who is capable of thinking of the process of labour
* F. Engels: ‘W e see, in a d d itio n , from the discussions o f the econom ist h im self how
capital (th e re su lt o f lab o u r in th ^process of production) isa t once m ade in to th e su b stra te,
th e m aterial o f lab o u r; th u s , how the separation o f capital from labour is straightw ay
sublated in the u n itv o f b o th , a g ain .’
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
107
only as process of labour appropriated by capital, the object-like
elements of the process of labour count as capital because of their
object-like properties, and why he is incapable of effectuating a separa­
tion of their object-like existence as mere factors of the process of
labour, from the social property enlivened with those factors — a
property which makes those elements into capital. He is incapable of
that because in actuality the same identical process of labour, which
the means of production serve as mere means of life of labour through
their object-like properties, metamorphoses these same means of
production into mere means of sucking in labour. In the process of
labour considered for itself, the worker applies the means of produc­
tion. In the process of labour, which is at the same time capitalist pro­
cess of production, the means of production apply the worker, so that
labour appears only as means whereby a particular value-magnitude
(that is, a particular mass of objectified labour) sucks in living
labour in order to maintain itself and increase itself. So the process of
labour appears asprocess of self-valorization of the objectified labour by
means of living labour. It is capital which applies the worker, and not
the worker who applies capital, and only objects which apply the worker
(which therefore possess self-ness, their own consciousness and their
own will in the capitalist) are capital.* Insofar as the process of labour
is merely the means and the real form of the process of valorization, to
the extent, that is, that it is a process which consists in objectifying
(apart from the labour which was objectified in the wages) an excess of
unpaid labour, surplus-value in commodities, that is in producing
surplus-value: to that extent, the beginning point of this entire process
is the exchange of objectified labour for living labour, the exchange of a
smaller amount of objectified labour for more living labour. In the
process of exchange itself, a quantum of labour objectified into money
* T h e p articu lar economic ch aracter o f means o f life w hereby they buy w orkers for
them selves, or o f means of production — of leather and last w hereby they apply shoemak­
ing apprentices — th is inversion o f object and p erso n — th at is, the capitalist character —
is so in sep arab ly grown together with the object-like character o f th e elem ents of p ro d u c­
tio n in cap italist p ro d u c tio n and therefore in the fantasy o f the political econom ists that
R icard o , fo r exam p le, w hile he considers it necessary to characterize the object-like
elem ents of capital m o re closely, em ploys as if obvious (w ithout fu rth e r reflection or
fu rth e r rem ark s) th e econom ically correct expressions, such as ' capital, or the means of
employing labour* (th u s, n o t ‘means employed by la b o u r but ' means o f employing labour* ),
* quantity of labour employed by a capital*, ‘the fund which is to employ them9 (the
lab o u rers). So in m o d ern G e rm an , the capitalist — the personification o f objects which
take lab o u r — is called \hc labour-giver, and th e actual w o rk er w ho gives labour is called
th e labour-taker. 4In b o u rgeois society capital is in d ep e n d en t and personal, while the
active individual is d e p e n d e n t and im p erso n al.’ {Communist Manifesto)
108
VALUE
as commodity is exchanged for an equally large quantum of labour
objectified in the living faculty of labour. Equivalents are exchanged
(in accordance with the law of value of commodity-exchange): equal
quanta of objectified labour, although the one quantum is objectified
in an object and the other in a living person. But this exchange only
introduces the process of production, through which in actuality more
labour is exchanged in living form than was expended in objectified
form. Consequently, it is the great achievement of classical economics
to have displayed the entire process of production as such a process
between objectified labour and living labour, and consequently to have
displayed capital, as opposed to living labour, only as objectified
labour; i.e., as value which valorizes itself by means of living labour.
Its defect here consists only in the fact that, first, these economists
were unable to demonstrate how this exchange of more living labour
for less objectified labour corresponds to the law of commodityexchange, the determination of commodity-values by labour-time,
and that, secondly, they as a consequence throw together in an
unmediated way the exchange of a particular quantum of objectified
labour for faculties of labour in the process of circulation, with the
sucking in of living labour by the objectified labour present in the
shape of means of production during the process of production. They
throw the process of exchange between variable capital and faculties of
labour together with the process of sucking in living labour by con­
stant capital. This defect also flows from their ‘capitalist’ limitations,
since the exchange of a small quantum of objectified labour for a large
quantum of living labour appears for the capitalist himself, who only
pays for labour after it has been valorized, to be a single unmediated
process. Thus if the modern economist opposes capital as objectified
labour to living labour, he thereby understands by objectified labour
not the products of labour insofar as they have a use-value and are an
embodiment of particular, useful labours, but insofar as they are
materialization of a particular quantum of universal social labour (that
is value, money) which valorizes itself through the process of approp­
riation of alien, living labour. This appropriation is mediated by the
exchange between variable capital and faculty of labour proceeding as
the commodity-market, but is only completed in the actual process of
production.*
The subordination of the process of labour to capital does not
change anything in the actual mode of production at first, and is
* Im m ed iate lab o u r a n d objectified la b o u r, p re se n t and past lab o u r, living and
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
109
revealed practically only in the following: the worker falls under the
command, guidance and supervision of the capitalist, naturally only
in respect to his labour, which belongs to capital. The capitalist makes
sure that he wastes no time and, for example, yields in each hour the
product of a working-hour, that he take only the averagely necessary
labour-time for the making of a product. Insofar as the capitalrelationship is a relationship which rules over production (and thus
the worker appears constandy as seller and the capitalist constandy as
buyer on the market), the process of labour is itself by and large
continuous and not interrupted, as whenever the worker depends as an
independent commodity-producer upon the sale of his commodities
to single customers, since the minimum of the capital must be large
enough to occupy the worker continuously and to wait out the sale of
the commodities. Finally, the capitalist forces the workers to extend
the duration of the process of labour as far beyond the limits of the
labour-time necessary for the reproduction of the wages of labour as
much as possible, since it is just this excess of labour which yields him
the surplus-value. *
Just as the use-value of the commodity interests the commodityowner only as bearer of its exchange-value, so the process of labour
interests the capitalist only as bearer and means of the process of
valorization. Within the process of production, too — insofar as it is
process of valorization — the means of production continue to be
mere money-value, indifferent to the particular material shape, the
particular use-value in which this exchange-value is displayed; just as
within that process, labour itself does not count as productive activity
sto red 'U p lab o u r are consequently form s in w hich econom ists express th e relationship
betw een capital a n d labour. Jam es M ill: ‘L a b o u r an d capital . . . th e one immediate
la b o u r . . . th e o th er hoarded la b o u r.’ W a k e fie ld :4 . . . Antecedent labour ( c a p ita l) . . .
present labour.* T o rre n s : 1Accumulated labour ( c a p ita l) . . . immediate labour.' R icardo:
1Labour a n d capital, th at is, accu m u lated labours.* M ai th u s: ‘T h e specific advances o f
th e cap italists do n o t co n sist of doth* (use-values in general) ‘b u t o f labour.*
* ‘A n ax io m g enerally a d m itte d b y econom ists is th at all lab o u r m u st leave an excess.
T h is p ro p o sitio n is o f a tru th b o th u niversal an d ab so lu te, as far as I am concerned: it is
th e corollary o f th e law of p ro p o rtio n a lity (i), w hich one can consider to be th e su m m a­
tion o f all econom ic sd e n c e . B u t (I excuse m yself before econom ists), th e p r in d p le th a t
all labour must leave an excess has no m eaning w ith in th e ir theory an d is n o t susceptible
of any d e m o n s tra tio n .’ (P ro u d h o n ). I have show n in P overty o f Philosophy th at M .
P ro u d h o n has no notio n o f w hat this 'excess o f labour* is; nam ely, th e surplus-product in
w hich th e su rp lu s-lab o u r o r u n paid lab o u r o f th e w orker displays itself. Since he
factually fin d s in cap italist p ro d u c tio n th a t each lab o u r leaves such an ‘excess', he seeks
to explain th is fact to h im self o ut o f som e m ysterious n a tu ral-p ro p erty o f lab o u r or
o th e r, and d ro w n o u t his e m b a rrassm en t w ith ‘terms six feet long* like ‘corollary o f the law
of proportionality*.
110
VALUE
of particular useful character, but as substance creative of value, as
social labour as such, which objectifies itself, and in which the only
interesting moment is its quantity. Each particular sphere of produc­
tion, consequently, counts for capital only as a particular sphere in
which money is invested in order to make more money out of it, in
order to maintain present value and increase it, or in order to approp­
riate surplus-value. In each particular sphere of production, the pro­
cess of labour and consequently the factors of the process of labour are
different. No boots can be made with spindle, cotton and spinners.
The investment of capital, however, in this or that sphere of produc­
tion; the masses into which the totality of capital of society in the
different spheres of production divides itself up; finally, the relation­
ship in which it wanders out of one sphere of production into the
others — all this is determined by the shifting relationship in which
society has need of the products of these particular spheres of produc­
tion; i.e., of the use-values of the commodities which they create; for,
although it is only the exchange-value of a commodity that is actually
paid, it is always only the use-value for which it is bought.
Capital, however, is in and for itself indifferent to the particularity of
each sphere of production, and is only determined by the greater or
lesser difficulty involved in the sale of the commodities of this or that
sphere of production by where it is invested, by how it is invested, and
by the extent to which it passes out of one sphere of production or
alters its distribution between the different spheres of production. In
actuality, this fluidity of capital rushes on to frictions which are not to
be discussed at this point. But on the one hand, it provides itself with
means to deal with these frictions, as will be seen later, so far as they
only arise out of the nature of the relationship of production itself; on
the other hand, it dispenses with all legal and extra-economic obsta­
cles to its free movement in the various spheres of production, as the
development of the mode of production peculiar to that relationship
proceeds. Above all, it overthrows all legal or traditional barriers
which keep it from buying this or that kind of faculty of labour just as
it thinks best, or it appropriates this or that kind of labour at will.
Although the faculty of labour further possesses a particular shape in
each particular sphere of production, as faculty for spinning, shoe­
making, blacksmithing, etc., and consequently requires for each
particular sphere of production a faculty of labour which has
developed itself in one aspect, a particularized faculty of labour, thus
that equal fluidity of capital (capital’s indifference towards the par-
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
111
dcular character of the process of labour which it appropriates to
itself) hypothesizes this same fluidity or variability in labour, that is,
in the ability to apply the faculty of labour by the worker. We shall see
that the capitalist mode of production itself creates these economic
obstacles which oppose its own tendency, but it dispenses with all
legal and extra-economic obstacles to this variability.* The particular
material form in which capital appears in the process of labour
(whether as steam-engine, compost heap, or soap) is precisely as
indifferent to capital — as value which valorizes itself — as the
particular content of his labour is to the worker. His labour belongs to
capital; it is only the use-value of the commodity which he has sold,
and he has only sold it in order to appropriate money, and with that
money — means of life. The change in the kind of labour only
interests him because each particular kind of labour demands another
development of the faculty of labour. If his indifference towards the
particular content of labour does not provide him with the ability to
vary his faculty of labour at command, he reveals this indifference in
the fact that he throws his substitutes, the coming generation, from
one branch of labour into another just in accordance with the demand
of the market. The more developed capitalist production is in a
country, the greater is the request for variability addressed to the
faculty of labour, and the more indifferent is the worker towards the
particular content of his labour and the more fluid is the movement of
capital from one sphere of production into the other. Classical
Economics presupposes the variability of the faculty of labour and the
fluidity of capital as axioms: and rightly so, to the extent that this is the
tendency of the capitalist mode of production which asserts itself
heedless of all obstacles, which it to a large extent creates on its own.
In order to display the laws of political economy purely, abstraction is
made from frictions, just as one abstracts in pure mechanics from the
particular frictions which must be mastered in each particular case of
its application.!
Although capitalist and worker confront each other on the market
only as buyers, money, and sellers, commodity, this relationship is
coloured from the beginning in a particular way by the peculiar
* ‘E very m a n , i f n o t re strain ed by law , w ould pass fro m one em p lo y m en t to a n o th e r, as
th e v ario u s tu rn s in tra d e should re q u ire .’ Anon, 1757.
t T h e flu id ity o f c ap ital, the v ariab ility o f lab o u r a n d th e indifference o f the w orker
to w a rd s th e c o n te n t o f his lab o u r now here ap p ears g re ater th an in th e U n ited States of
N o rth A m erica. In E u ro p e, even in E n g la n d , th e capitalist p ro d u c tio n is still c o n tin u ­
ally plagued a n d falsified b y feudal rem iniscences. F o r exam ple, th e fact th a t b aking,
112
VALUE
content of their commerce; the more so, since it is presupposed in the
capitalist mode of production that the appearance of both sides on the
market repeats itself constantly in the very same determination, or is a
constant appearance. If we consider the relationship of commodityowners as such on the market, then the very same commodity-owner
appears alternately as buyer and seller. The fact that two
commodity-owners differ from one another as buyer and seller is only
a constantly disappearing difference, by virtue of the fact that all play
the same roles towards one another alternately in the sphere of circula­
tion . Now the worker becomes buyer, admittedly, after he has sold his
faculty of labour (has metamorphosed it into money), and capitalists
confront him as mere commodity-sellers. But in his hands, money is
only means of circulation. On the genuine commodity-market, the
worker distinguishes himself actually (like every other money-owner)
only as buyer, from the commodity-owner as seller. But on the
labour-market, on the other hand, money confronts him constantly as
the money-form of capital, and the money-owner consequently confronts him as personified capital, capitalist — just as he on his side
confronts the money-owner, as mere personification of the faculty of
labour, hence of labour, as worker. * It is not a mere buyer and a mere
seller who confront each other in the sphere of circulation, on the
market, as buyer and seller. Their relationship as capitalist and labourer
is the presupposition for their relationship as buyer and seller. It is not,
as with other commodity-sellers, a relationship which simply arises
out of the nature of the commodity itself — namely, that no one
produces the products immediately for his vital necessities, but that
everyone produces a particular product as commodity, through whose
sale he appropriates the products of another. It is not this social
sho em ak in g , e tc ., are only now b eg in n in g to be plied in a capitalist m an n e r in E ngland is
to be attrib u te d alto g eth er to th e circum stance th a t E n g lish capital had feudal p re­
judices o f ‘resp ectab ility ’. It was ‘resp ectab le’ to sell N egroes in to slavery, b u t it was n ot
‘resp ectab le’ to m ake sausages, boots o r b read . H ence, it is from th e U n ited States that
all the m achinery com es w hich su b o rd in a te s the E u ro p ea n ‘u n re sp ec tab le ’ b ran ch es o f
business to th e cap italist m ode o f p ro d u ctio n . O n th e oth er h a n d , the p erson is now here
so conscious th at its lab o u r co n stan tly yields the sam e p roduct (m oney) and now here
passes with the sam e nonchalance th ro u g h th e m ost d isp a rate branches o f lab o u r as in
th e U nited States. T h is ‘variability* o f th e faculty of lab o u r consequently appears here
as a co m pletely d istin c t p ro p erty o f th e free w o rk er as opposed to th e w o rk in g slave
w hose faculty o f lab o u r is stable a n d is only to be ap p lied in the way w hich is trad itio n al
to th e locality. ‘Slave lab o ur is em inently defective in p o in t o f v e rs a tility . . . if tobacco
be cu ltiv ated , tobacco becom es th e sole staple, and tobacco is p ro d u ced w hatever b e the
state o f the m ark et, and w hatever be th e co n dition of the soil.’ (C airns)
* F. Engels: ‘T h e relatio n sh ip of th e in d u stria list to the w o rk er is a p u rely econom ic
one. T h e in d u strialist is “ capital” and the lab o u rer is “ lab o u r” .’
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
113
divition of labour and self-sufficiency of the different branches of
labour towards one another, as they make (e.g.) the shoemaker into a
seller of boots and buyer of leather or bread. But rather it is the very
division of those elements of the process of production which belong
together, and their process of becoming self-sufficient which proceeds to
the point of reciprocal personification which is the means through
which money as universal form of objectified labour turns into the buyer
of faculties of labour, of the living source of exchange-value and hence
of wealth. Actual wealth, considered in accordance with exchangevalue (namely, money), and considered in accordance with use-value
(namely, means of life and means of production) as one person confronts
ihcpossibility of wealth (i.e., the faculty of labour) as another person.
Through the fact of surplus-value being the specific product of the
process of production, its product is not only commodity but also
capital. Within the process of production labour metamorphoses into
capital. The activity of the faculty of labour (i.e., labour) objectifies
itself in the process of production, and thereby becomes value; but,
since labour has ceased to belong to the worker himself even before it
begins, what objectifies itself for him is objectification of alien labour
and hence is value which confronts the faculty of labour independent­
ly, capital. The product belongs to the capitalist and it represents (in
confrontation with the worker) capital just as much as the elements of
production do. On the other hand, present value — or money — only
becomes capital in actuality 1) by displaying itself as self-valorizing
value [asprocessing value), and as such it displays itself by virtue of the
fact that the activity of the faculty of labour, labour, acts in the process
of production as energy embodied in it and belonging to it, and 2) by
distinguishing itself as surplus-value from itself as value presupposed
at the origin', a thing which again is the result of the objectification of
surplus-value.
In the process of production, labour becomes objectified labour as
opposed to the living faculty of labour, i.e., capital, and secondly
through this same sucking-in and appropriation of labour in the
process of production, the presupposed value becomes processing
value, and hence a value which creates a surplus-value different from
itself. Now by virtue of the fact that labour metamorphoses itself into
capital during the process of production, the presupposed sum of
value which was only capital in potency actualizes itself as actual
capital . ..*[A page of Marx's manuscript is missing at this point— Ed.]
* S ism ondi: ‘T h e w o rk ers exchange th e ir lab o u r’ (ra th e r, th e ir faculties o f labour) ‘for
114
VALUE
I.e., to get back a higher value out of production than the sum of
values amounted to which the capitalist advances in and for it (the
process of production). The production of commodities itself appears
only as a means to this end, as in general the process of labour only
appears as a means for the process of valorization. ‘Process of valoriza­
tion’ is to be taken here not in the earlier sense of ‘process of the
formation of value’but as ‘process for the formation of surplus-value’.
This result, however, is only put on its way to the extent that the
living labour which the worker is to perform and which objectifies
itself as a consequence in the product of its labour, too, is larger than
the labour contained in the variable capital or expended in wages, or
than the labour required for the reproduction of the faculty of labour
— which amounts to the same thing. Insofar as it is only through the
production of surplus-value that the advanced value becomes capital,
the creation of capital itself, just as the capitalist process of produc­
tion, rests immediately upon two moments:
First, purchase and sale of thefaculty o f labour, an act which falls into
the sphere of circulation, but (considering the totality of the capitalist
process ofproduction) is not only a moment and a presupposition but is
also the continuous result of same. This purchase and sale of the
faculty of labour has as its hypothesis the separation of the objective
preconditions of labour— hence, 0/ the means of life and of the means of
production — from the living faculty of labour itself, so that the latter is
the only property over which the worker disposes, and is the only
commodity which he has for sale. The separation proceeds to the
point that those preconditions for labour confront the worker as
self-sufficient persons, for the capitalist as owner of same is only their
personification as opposed to the worker as mere owner of the faculty
of labour. This separation and process of becoming self-sufficient is
presupposed in order that the purchase and sale of the faculty of
labour proceed, and hence in general in order that living labour be
embodied in dead labour as means of its self-maintenance and self­
augmentation, thus self-valorization. Without the exchange of vari­
able capital for faculties of labour no self-valorization of the totality of
capital would take place and hence no formation of capital or no
metamorphosis of means of production and means of life into capital.
Now the second moment is the actual process of production; i.e., thus
g ram . T h is becom es rev enue for them* (i.e ., goes in to their individual co n sum ption)
‘w hile th e ir labour has becom e capital fo r their m a s te r . . . T h e w orkers w ho give their
lab o u r in exchange metamorphose i t into c a p ita l'
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
115
the actual process of consumption of the faculty of labour shopped for
by the money- or commodity-owner.
In the actual process of production, the objective preconditions of
labour — material and means of labour — serve not only for the
self-objectification of living labour, but for the self-objectifying of
more labour than was contained in the variable capital. Thus they
serve as means of absorption and means of extortion of surplus-value
which displays itself in surplus-value (and ‘surplus-produceIf one
considers both moments: (1) the exchange of the faculty of labour for
variable capital, and (2) the actual process of production (in which
living labour is embodied as effective cause in capital), then the entire
process appears as a process in which (1) less objectified labour is
exchanged for more living labour, insofar as what the capitalist really
obtains for the wages is living labour; and (2) the objective forms in
which capital displays itself immediately in the process of labour, the
means of production (thus, objectified labour again), appear as means
for the extortion and absorption of this living labour — the totality
appearing as a process which proceeds between objectified labour and
living labour, a process which not only metamorphoses living labour
into objectified, but at the same time metamorphoses the objectified
labour into capital and thus also metamorphoses living labour into
capital. It is hence a process in which not only commodity but
surplus-value is produced, and hence capital.
The means of production display themselves here not only as means
for the actualization of labour, but just as much u&means of exploitation
of the labour of others.
The following additional remark is to be made concerning value or
money as objectification of universal social average-labour: e.g., the
labour of spinning in and for itself may stand above or below the level
of social average-labour. That is, a certain quantum of spinninglabour may be equal, greater or less than the same quantum of social
average-labour, e.g., of the labour-time objectified in a certain quan­
tum of gold of equal magnitude (length). If the labour of spinning,
however, is performed at the degree of intensity normal in its sphere
(thus, e.g., the labour applied to the yarn fabricated in one hour = to
the normal-quantum of yarn which an hour of the labour of spinning
yields under the given social conditions on average), then the labour
objectified in the yarn is socially necessary labour. As such, it has a
quantitatively determined relationship to the social average-labour in
general which counts as measure, so that it displays the same, or a
116
VALUE
larger, or a smaller quantum of such average-labour. Thus it expresses
of itself a determined quantum of social average-labour.
Formal subsumption o f labour under capital
The process of labour turns into the means of the process of
valorization, of the process of the self-valorization of capital — of the
fabrication of surplus-value. The process of labour is subsumed under
capital (it is its own process) and the capitalist enters into the process
as conductor, director; it is for him at the same time immediate
process of exploitation of alien labour. This is what I call th t formal
subsumption of labour under capital. It is the universal form of all
capitalist processes of production; it is, however, at the same time a
particular form beside the developed specifically-capitalist mode of
production, because the latter involves the former, but the former by
no means necessarily involves the latter.
The process of production has become the process of capital itself.
It is a process which proceeds with the factors of the process o f labour
into which the money of the capitalist has metamorphosed itself, and
which proceeds under his direction and proceeds for the purpose of
making out of money more money.
If the peasant who earlier produced independently for himself
begins to work for a daily wage for a landlord; if the hierarchical
organization which holds in the mode of production proper to guilds
disappears at the simple opposition of a capitalist who has artisans
work for him as wage-labourers; if the former slave-holder employs
his former slaves as wage-labourers, etc: then what happens is that
processes of production which are socially determined in different
ways are metamorphosed into the process of production of capi­
tal. The changes which we have developed earlier thereupon enter into
effect. The peasant who was earlier independent becomes, as factor of
the process of production, dependent upon the capitalist who guides
that process, and his very employment depends upon a contract which
he has previously concluded as commodity-owner (owner of labourpower) with the capitalist as money-owner. The slave ceases to be an
instrument of production belonging to its applier. The relationship
of master and apprentice disappears. The master stood in relationship
to his apprentice as master of the craft. He stands to him now and
henceforth only as owner of capital, just as the other confronts him
only as seller of labour. Before the process of production they all
confront one another as commodity-owners and have only a money-
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
117
relationship together, within the process of production as personified
functionaries of the factors of this process (the capitalist as ‘capital*,
the immediate producer as ‘labour*) and their relationship is deter­
mined by labour as mere factor of capital which valorizes itself.
Further, the capitalist makes sure that the labour possesses the
normal degree of quality and intensity, and lengthens the process of
labour as much as possible, since the surplus-value produced by the
process thereby increases. The continuity of labour increases if into the
place of producers who have previously been dependent upon single
customers there step the latter kind of workers who have no longer
any particular commodity to sell, but have in the capitalist a perpetual
pay-master.
The mystification which is immanent to the capital-relationship also
makes its appearance. The power of labour to maintain value appears
as the power of self-maintenance of capital, the power of labour to
create value as power of capital to valorize itself, and in sum as far as
the concept is concerned the objectified labour appears as applier of the
living labour.
In spite of all that, an essential change in the real manner and mode
of the process of labour, of the actual process of production has not at
all made its appearance simply with that ‘change’ as such. On the
contrary it lies in the nature of the case, that (since the subsumption of
the process of labour under capital makes its appearance — on the
basis of aprocess of labour which is at handy which obtained prior to this
subsumption under capital, which has shaped itself on the basis of
processes of production which were prior and various and of other
preconditions of production) it is a process of labour which is given and
at hand that capital subsumes to itself; thus, for example, artisanwork: the mode of agriculture which corresponds to the small, selfsufficient peasant-economy. If changes in these traditional processes of
labour which have been brought by capital under its command make
their appearance, then these modifications can only be gradual conse­
quences of that subsumption of given, traditional processes of labour
under capital which has already occurred. The fact that labour
becomes more intensive, or that the duration of the process of labour
is lengthened, or that labour becomes more continuous and more
orderly under the eye of the interested capitalist, etc., none of that in
and for itself changes the character of the real process of labour itself,
of the real manner of labour. Thus, this forms a great contrast to the
specifically capitalist mode of production (labour on a large scale, etc.)
118
VALUE
which develops as we have shown in the* advance of the capitalist
production, a mode of production which revolutionizes the species of
this labour and the real mode of the entire process of labour simul­
taneously with the relationships of the various agents of production. It
is in opposition to the latter that we have considered hitherto (of a
mode of labour, which has developed even before the appearance of
the capital-relationship, under that relationship) under capital: the
formal subsumption of labour under capital. The capital-relationship as
compultion-relaiionship in order to exact surplus-labour through
lengthening of the labour-time — a compulsion-relationship which
rests upon no personal mastery- and dependence-relationships, but
rather simply arises out of different economic functions — such
capital-relationship is common to both modes, but the specifically
capitalist mode of production knows other modes of exacting
surplus-value, too. On the other hand, on the basis of a mode of labour
which is at hand (thus, of agiven development of the productive power
of labour and of a mode of labour corresponding to this productive
power), surplus-value can only be engendered through lengthening of
the labour-time, thus in the mode of absolute surplus-value. It is conse­
quently to this as the only form of the production of surplus-value that
the formal subsumption of labour under capital corresponds.
The universal moments of the process of labour as they were
displayed in Chapter II (thus, for example, the separation of the
objective preconditions of labour in material and means, as opposed
to the living activity of the workers, etc. ) are determinations which are
independent of each historical and specifically social character of the
process of production and which remain equally true for all possible
development-forms of same, and are in fact unalterable natural pre­
conditions of human labour. This reveals itself in an equally striking
fashion in the fact that they hold for the human beings who work
independently, producing not in exchange with society but rather
only in exchange with nature: Robinson, etc. Thus they are in fact
absolute determinations of human labour in general, as soon as it has
worked itself out of the purely animal character.
The respect in which the process of labour which is itself only
formally subsumed under capital distinguishes itself from the very
first and through which it distinguishes itself more and more even on
the basis of the old traditional mode of labour — that respect is the
scale in accordance with which it is performed; thus, on the one side
the extent of the means of production advanced, and on the other side
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
119
the number of workers commanded by the same ‘employer’. That
which, for example on the basis of the mode of production
proper to guilds, appears as maximum (e.g., with respect to the
number of apprentices) can constitute scarcely a minimum for the
capital-relationship. For the latter can only in fact make a purely
nominal appearance where the capitalist does not employ at least
sufficient workers that the surplus-value produced by him is enough
as revenue for his private consumption and for his accumulation fund,
so that he himself is released from immediate labour and works only as
capitalist, as overseer and director of the process, and accomplishes at
the same time the function endowed with will and consciousness of
the capital comprehended in its process of valorization. This enlarge­
ment of the scale then also constitutes the real basis upon which the
specifically capitalist mode of production arises under historical rela­
tionships which are favourable (as, e.g., those of the 16th century),
although they can appear, naturally, in a sporadic way which does not
control society at certain points within earlier forms of society.
The distinguishing character of the formal subsumption of labour
under capital becomes clearest through comparison with conditions
where capital exists already in determined, subordinate functions, but
not yet in its function which controls, which determines the universal
society-form as immediate buyer of labour and as immediate appropriator of the process of production: for example, usury-capital insofar
as it advances raw-material, labour-instrument or both to the
immediate producers in the form of gold, as in India, e.g. The
monstrous interest which it draws, the interest which it extorts from
the immediate producer in general, apart from the magnitude, is only
another name for surplus-value. It actually metamorphoses its money
into capital by extorting unpaid labour (surplus-labour) from the
immediate producers. But it does not mix itself into the process of
production, which proceeds in the traditional way beside it, just as it
did before. It burgeons up partly out of the delapidation of this mode
of production; partly it is a means of delapidating it and making it
continue to vegetate under the most inauspicious conditions. The
formal subsumption of labour under capital does not yet take place
here. Another example is merchant-capital, so far as it gives assign­
ments to a number of immediate producers and then collects their
products and sells them (whereby it may also advance the rawmaterial , etc., or also make advances of money, etc.). This is the form
out of which the modern capital-relationship has partly developed.
120
VALUE
and which even yet constitutes the transition to the genuine capitalrelationship here and there. Here, too, no formal subsumption of
labour under capital yet takes place. The immediate producer remains
still the simultaneous commodity-buyer and the applier of his own
labour. But, the transition is already more present here than in the
relationship of usury-capital. Both forms (to which we shall return
later, upon occasion) reproduce themselves within the capitalist mode
of production as by-forms and transition-forms.
Real subsumption of labour under capital or the specifically capitalist mode
of production
We have elaborated in detail in Chapter 3 how with the production of
relative surplus-value — (instigated, for the single capitalist, so far as
he seizes theinitiative, by the fact that value = to the socially necessary
labour-time which is objectified in the product; thus that surplus-value
is created for him as soon as th eindividual value of his product stands
lower than its social value and can therefore be sold over its individual
value)— the entire real shape of the mode of production changes and a
specifically capitalist mode of production arises (technologically, too),
upon whose basis and with which also those relationships of production
between the different agents of production, and especially between
capitalist and wage-labourer, which correspond to the capitalist pro­
cess of production simultaneously develop.
The social productive powers of labour, or the productive powers of
directly social, socialized (common) labour, through co-operation, the
division of labour within the workshop, the application of machinery
and the metamorphosis in general of the process of production into
conscious application of natural science, mechanics, chemistry, etc.,
for determined purposes, technology, etc., and likewise labouring on a
large scale — a thing which corresponds to all this — etc. (it is only
this socialized labour which is capable of applying the universal pro­
ducts of human development like mathematics, etc., to the immediate
process of production, just as on the other hand the development of
these sciences presupposes a determined height of the material pro­
cess of production), this development of the productive power of
socialized labour as opposed to the more or less isolated labour of
individuals, etc., and with such development the application of science,
of this universal product of social development to the immediate process
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
121
ofproduction, this all displays itself asproductive power of capital, not as
productive power of labour, or only as productive power of labour
insofar as it is identical with capital, and in any case not as productive
power either of the single worker or of the workers combined in the
process of production. The mystification, which lies in the capitalrelationship in general, is now developed much further than was and
could be the case with the subsumption of labour under capital of a
merely formal character. On the other hand it is at this point that the
historic significance of capitalist production first makes its appear­
ance in a striking (specific) way, precisely through the transformation
of the immediate process of production itself and the development of
the social productive powers of labour.
It has been shown (Chapter 3) how it is not only ‘in representation*
but ‘in fact* that the ‘societal* character of his labour confronts the
worker not only in an alien, but in a hostile and opposed manner, and
as objectified and personified in capital.
Just as the production of absolute surplus-value can be regarded as
material expression of the formal subsumption of labour under capi­
tal, so the production of relative surplus-value can be regarded as that
of the real subsumption of labour under capital.
In any case, two separate forms of the subsumption of labour under
capital, or two separate forms of capitalist production of which the
first always constitutes the precedent of the second, although the
further-developed one, the second, can constitute again the basis for
the introduction of the first into new branches of production: these
two forms correspond to the two forms of surplus-value — the abso­
lute and relative— if they are considered in separate existence each for
itself (and the absolute surplus-value always precedes the relative).
Addenda concerning the formal subsumption of labour under capital
Before we go on to a consideration of the real subsumption of labour
under capital, I append the following from my note-books:
The form which rests upon the absolute surplus-value I name
Formal subsumption of labour under capital, because it distinguishes
itself only formally from the earlier modes of production upon whose
basis it immediately arises (is introduced), whether it be because the
producer is ‘self-employing’ in it, or because the immediate producers
have to provide surplus-labour for others. The compulsion which is
122
VALUE
exerted is of another variety (i.e., the method whereby the surpluslabour is exacted.) What is essential in formal subsumption is:
1) the pure money-relationship between the one who appropriates
the surplus-labour and the one who provides it: so far as subordination
ensues, it ensues from the determined content of the sale, not from a
subordination which is presupposed to it, a subordination whereby the
producer would be put into a relationship other than the moneyrelationship (relationship of commodity-owner to commodity-owner)
towards the exploiter of his labour as a result of a political, etc.,
relationship; it is only as owner of the preconditions of labour that the
buyer brings the seller into economic dependency upon him here; there
is no political and socially fixed relationship of super- and subordina­
tion; 2) what is included within the first relationship — for other­
wise the worker would not have to sell his faculty of labour — the fact
that his objective preconditions of labour (means of life) confront him as
capital, as monopolized by the buyer of his faculty of labour. The
more completely these preconditions of labour confront him as alien
property, the more completely does the relationship of capital and
wage-labour obtain in a formal way, thus formal subsumption of
labour under capital, the precondition and presupposition of real
subsumption.
Within the mode of production itself there is still no difference
here. The process of labour, regarded technologically, proceeds straight
ahead just as earlier, only now as process of labour subordinated to
capital. As we developed earlier, there develops within the process of
production itself, nevertheless (1) an economic relationship of superand subordination, by virtue of the fact that the consumption of the
faculty of labour occurs by the capitalist and consequendy is over­
viewed and directed by him; (2) greater continuity and intensity of
labour and greater economizing in the application of the precondi­
tions of labour develop, by virtue of the fact that all efforts are made to
ensure that the product represents only socially necessary (or ‘rather*
even less) labour-time, and that this holds as well with respect to living
labour which is used for its production as with respect to the objectified
labour which goes into it in forming value, as value of the applied
means of production.
In the case of the formal subsumption of labour under capital the
compulsion towards surplus-labour — and thereby on the one hand
towards the formation of needs and of the means for the satisfaction of
these needs just as of the production-mass beyond the measure of the
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
123
traditional needs of the worker — and towards creation offree time for
development independently of material production: the aforemen­
tioned compulsion acquires only another form from that which
obtained in earlier modes of production, but a form which increases
the continuity and intensity of labour, which augments production, is
more favourable to the development of variations in labour-faculties,
and is thereby more favourable to the differentiation in the modes of
labour and employment, and ultimately dissolves the relationship of
the possessors of the preconditions of labour and of the workers
themselves into a pure buy-and-sell relationship or money-relationship,
and separates the exploitation-relationship out from all patriarchal and
political or even religious enlivenings. Admittedly, the very
production-relationship itself creates a new relationship of super- and
subordination (which also produces political, etc. expressions of itself).
The less capitalist production gets beyond the formal relationship, so
much the less is that relationship developed too, since it presupposes
only small capitalists which are only slightly different from the work­
ers themselves in mode of culture and activity.
The difference in the type of the relationship of super- and subordina­
tion (without yet touching upon the mode of production itself) reveals
itself most of all where subsidiary work of agricultural or domestic
kinds which used to be plied merely for the need of the family are
metamorphosed into independently capitalistic branches of labour.
The difference of that labour which isformally subsumed by capital
from earlier types of application of labour steps forth in the same
scope in which the magnitude of capital grows which the individual
capitalist applied, thus the number of workers which are employed at the
same time by him. Only with a certain minimum of capital does the
capitalist cease to be a worker himself and begins to retain for himself
only the direction of the process of labour and the business with the
produced commodities. The real subsumption of labour under capital
(the genuinely capitalist mode of production) only occurs where capitals
of a certain magnitude have taken immediate possession of produc­
tion, whether it is because the merchant is becoming an industrial
capitalist, or because on the basis of the formal subsumption larger
industrial capitalists have formed.
If the relationship of super- and subordination takes the place of
slavery, bondage, vassalage, patriarchal forms of subordination and
the like, then the only thing that happens is a metamorphosis within its
124
VALUE
form. The form becomes freer because it remains of only thing-like
nature, formally voluntary, purely economic.
Or the relationship of super- and subordination in the process of
production takes the place of earlier self-sufficiency in the process of
production, as e.g. in the case of all ‘ self-sustaining peasants, far­
mers’, who only had a product-rent to pay whether to state or to
‘landlord*, of agriculture-domestic secondary industry or of indepen­
dent artisanate. Thus there is present here loss of the earlier selfsufficiency in the process of production and the relationship of superand subordination is itself the product of the introduction of the
capitalist mode of production.
Finally, the relationship of capitalist and wage-labourer can take
the place of the guild-master, his journey-men and apprentices, a transi­
tion which partly the manufacturing cities pass through at their
origin. The medieval guild-relationship which developed in analogous
form in Athens and Rome, also, within narrow limits, and which was
so decisively important in Europe for formation of the capitalists on
one hand and for formation of a free state of labour on the other hand,
is a limited, not yet adequate form of capital- and wage-labour
relationship. There exists here on the one hand the relationship of
buyer and seller. Wages are paid, and master, journey-man and
apprentice confront one another as free persons. The technological
basis of this relationship is the artisan-type business in which the more
or less competent manipulation of the labour-instrument is the decid­
ing factor of production, the independent, personal labour and conse­
quently its professional development which requires greater or lesser
training-time is here what determines the result of labour. The master
finds himself, to be sure, in possession of the pre-conditions of
production, the tools, the material of labour (although the tools can
also belong to the jouney-man), the product belongs to him. To that
extent he is capitalist. But as capitalist he is not master. First, he is
himself an artisan and ‘is supposed’ to be master in his profession.
Within the process of production itself he figures just as much as an
artisan as his journey-men and he is the first to initiate his apprentices
into the mystery of his technique. He has quite the same relationship
to his apprentices as a professor to his students. His relationship to
journey-men and apprentices is therefore not that of the capitalist as
such, but of th tmaster of a technique, who as such takes a hierarchical
position in the corporation (and therefore in opposition to them) which
‘is supposed* to rest upon his own mastery in the technique. His capital
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
125
is consequently also — as much in accordance with its thing-like form
as in accordance with its value-scope— bound capital which has by no
means still retained the free form of capital. It is not a determined
quantum of objectified labour, value as such, which can assume this
or that form of preconditions of labour, just as it chooses in
each case after it exchanges itself in order to appropriate surpluslabour for this or that form of living labour. Only after he has passed
through the prescribed steps of apprentice, journey-man, etc., has
himself provided his masterpiece, can he convert money which is in
this determined branch of labour (his own handicraft) partly into the
objective conditions for the handicraft and partly buy journey-men
and maintain apprentices. Only in his own handicraft is he able to
metamorphose his money into capital; i.e., employ it not only as
means of his own labour but also as means of exploitation of alien
labour. His capital is bound to a determined form of use-value and
consequently confronts his workers just as little as capital does. The
methods of labour which he applies are not only customary but
prescribed by the guild — count as the necessary ones, and thus from
this side too it is not the exchange value of labour but its use-value
which appears as the ultimate final-cause. It does not depend upon his
discretion whether to provide work of this or that quality but the
entire guild-business is directed towards the providing of determined
quality. The price of labour stands in his discretion as little as the
methods of labour. The limited form which hinders his property from
functioning as capital reveals itself further in the fact that in fact a
maximum has been prescribed for the value-scope of his capital. He
may not holdjoumey-men above a certain number, since it is by the guild
that all masters as a whole are to be assured an aliquot part of the profit
on their handicraft. Finally, the relationship of the master as member
of the same guild to other masters; as such he belongs to a corporation
which possesses certain preconditions of production (guild-ties, etc.),
political rights, participation in the civil administration, etc. He
works on order — with exception of his labours for merchants — for
the immediate use-value, and the number of masters was also regu­
lated in accordance with that fact. He does not confront his workers as
mere merchant. Still less can the merchant metamorphose his money
into productive capital; he can only ‘dispose over’ the commodities
but not produce them himself. The purpose and result of the exploita­
tion of alien labour appears here to be existence in accordance with orders
(castes) — not the exchange-value as such, not enrichment as such.
126
VALUE
What is decisive here is the instrument. The raw-material is provided
here in many branches of labour (e.g., tailoring) to the master himself
by his customers. The barrier of production within the totality of the
given consumption is here law. It is thus by no means regulated by the
barriers which disappear with the political-social bonds in which
capital still moves here and consequently does not yet appear as
capitaI.
The merely formal metamorphosis of the handicraft-like business
into the capitalistic (thus, where the technological process still
remains the same) consists in the falling-away of all these barriers —
with which the relationship of super- and subordination changes. The
master is now no longer as master capitalist; but as capitalist, master.
The barrier of his production is no longer conditioned by the barrier
of his capital. The capital (money) can be exchanged at will for each
kind of labour and consequently of preconditions of labour. He can
cease to be an artisan himself. With the sudden expansion of com­
merce and thereby of the demand for commodities by the order of
merchants, the guild-like business had to be driven beyond its bar­
riers by itself, change itself formally into a capitalist business.
As opposed to the self-sufficient artisan who works for ‘strange
customers’, the continuity of the worker who works for the capitalist
increases naturally, whose labour has no boundary at the accidental
need of individual 'customers*, but only at the need for exploitation of
the capital which employs him. As opposed to the slave, this labour
becomes more productive (since more intensive) by the slave’s work­
ing only under the stimulus of external fear but not for his own
existence, which does not belong to him, and is ncveTthelessguaranteed
him; the free worker on the other hand is driven by his 'wants*. The
consciousness (or rather the apperception) of free self-determinacy, of
freedom, makes the one a much better worker than the other, and
the ‘feeling* (consciousness) 'of responsibility* which is connected to it;
since he is responsible for the commodity which he provides and must
provide it in a certain quality, just like every commodity-seller, he
ought not be driven from the field by other commodity-sellers of the
same species. The continuity of the relationship of slave and slave-holder
is a relationship in which the slave is maintained by direct compul­
sion. The free worker however must maintain it on his own, since his
existence and that of his family depends upon his continually renew­
ing the sale of his labour-faculty to the capitalist.
In the case of the slave the minimum of salary appears as a constant
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
127
magnitude independent of his labour. In the case of the free worker
this value of his labour-faculty and the average wages for labour corres­
ponding to it manifests itself not in this predestined boundary, inde­
pendent of his own labour, which is determined by his merely physi­
cal needs. The average for the class is more or less constant, like the
value of all commodities; but it does not exist in this immediate reality
for theindividual worker, whose labour may stand above or below this
minimum. The price of labour at one time sinks beneath the value of the
labour-faculty and at another rises above it. Additional scope (‘within
narrow limits’) ΐο τ the individuality of the worker, whereby wagedifferentiation is partly in differing branches of labour partly in the
same branch of labour in accordance with industriousness, skill,
strength, etc. of the worker, and this differentiation, to be sure, is
partly determined by the measure of his own personal achievement.
Thus, wage-magnitude appears in alternation as result of his own
work and of its individual quality. Namely, this is developed where
wages for piece-work are paid. Although this latter, as we have shown,
changes nothing in the universal relationship between capital and
labour, between surplus-labour and necessary labour, thus the rela­
tionship thereby expresses itself nevertheless differently for the indi­
vidual worker and indeed in accordance with the measure of his
personal achievement. In the case of the slave special strength of skill
can elevate the sale-value of his person but that does not concern him
at all himself. It is otherwise in the case of the free worker, who is
possessor of his labour-faculty.
The higher value of this labour-faculty must be paid to him himself
and expresses itself in higher wages. Thus greater wage-differences
prevail here in accordance with whether the particular labour
demands a more highly developed labour-faculty which demands
greater costs of production or not, and thereby scope is opened up on
the one hand to individual difference and on the other hand the
development of a man’s own labour-faculty is spurred on. As sure as it
is also that the mass of labour must arise out of more or less ‘unskilled
labour* and consequently the mass of wages of labour also must be
determined by the value of the simple labour-faculty, thus it remains
possible to single individuals to elevate themselves by particular
energy, talent, etc., into higher spheres of labour just as the abstract
possibility remains that this or that worker himself becomes capitalist
and exploiter of alien labour. The slave belongs to a particular ‘Mas­
ter*; the worker has to sell himself, to be sure, to capital; but not to a
128
VALUE
particular capitalist and thus he has withih a particular sphere the
choice of to whom he wishes to sell himself, and he can change his
‘master’. All these altered relationships make the activity of the free
worker more intensive, continuous, mobile, and competent than that
of the slave, quite apart from the fact that they render him capable of
an entirely different historical action. The slave receives the neces­
sities which are necessary for his maintenance in natural-form which is
fixed as well in kind as in scope in use-values. The free worker receives
them in the form of money, of exchange-value: the abstract social form
of wealth. As much as the salary is now actually nothing but silvered or
goldened or coppered oxpapered form of the necessary means of life into
which it must continuously dissolve itself (money here functioning as
merely vanishing form of exchange-value, as merzmeans of circulation)
nevertheless remains in imagination the abstract wealthy the
exchange-value — and it is not then some particular use-value which
has traditional and local limitations which is the purpose and result of
the worker’s labour. It is the worker himself who transforms money
into random use-values, buys random commodities and as moneyowner, as buyer of commodities he stands in the exact same relation­
ship to the sellers of commodities as all other buyers. The pre­
conditions for his existence naturally compel him (just as does the
extent of the value of the money earned by him) to dissolve it into a
rather circumscribed circle of means of life. Nevertheless, a certain
variation is possible here, as for example newspapers are included in
the necessary means of life of the English urban worker. He can save
something, hoard it up. He can also waste his wages on schnapps,
etc. But thus he is acting as free agent, and must accept responsibility
on his own; he is accountable himself for the way in which he spends
his wages. He learns to control himselfyas opposed to the slave, who needs
a master. This holds, to be sure, only if one considers the metamor­
phosis of serfs or slaves into free wage-labourers. The capitalist rela­
tionship appears here as an elevation in the social scale. It is reversed
where the independent farmer or artisan is metamorphosed into a
wage-labourer. What a difference between the ‘proud yeomanry of
England’ of whom Shakespeare speaks, and the English agricultural
day-labourers! Since the only purpose of the labour is in the case of the
wage-labourer the salary, money, a particular quantum of exchangevalue, in which each peculiarity of use-value is extinguished, thus
he is completely indifferent to the content of his work and conse­
quently to the particular kind of his activity, while this activity counts
in the guild or caste-system as professional activity; but in the case of
the slave just as in the case of the draft-animal it is just a kind of
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
129
activity which has been forced upon him and accepted: the activation
of his labour-faculty. Consequently, insofar as the division of labour
has not rendered the labour-faculty completely one-sided, the free
worker is principally receptive to and ready for each variation in his
labour-faculty and his labour-activity which promises better wages (as
is revealed to be sure in the case of the surplus population in the
country which constantly migrates into the cities). If the developed
worker is more or less unable to sustain this variation, he regards it as
always available for the next generation, and the new generation of
workers as it grows is constantly divisible and at the disposal of new
branches of labour or for those branches which happen to be burgeon­
ing. North America, where wage-labour has developed most freely
of all from recollections of the old guild-system, etc., is above all
where this variability shows itself, this complete indifference towards
the particular content of labour and towards the transition from one
branch to another. The opposition of this variability to the monoton­
ous, traditional character of slave-labour (which does not vary in
accordance with the relationships of production, but demands to the
contrary that production be adapted to the mode of labour which was
once introduced and then inherited in a traditional manner) is conse­
quently also stressed by all authors of the United States as a special
characteristic of the free wage-labour of the North as opposed to the
slave-labour of the South. The constant creation of new types of
labour, this continuous variation — the manifold of use-values cor­
responds and consequently is also actual development of exchangevalue — consequently continuing division of labour in the totality of
society is only first possible with the capitalist mode of production. It
begins with the free artisan-like guild-business, where it does not
encounter a barrier in the ossification of each particular branch of
business.
After this digression concerning the formal subsumption of labour
under capital, we thus come to the:
Real subsumption of labour under capital
That which is universally characteristic of the formal subsumption
remains; id est, the direct subordination of the process of labour (in
whatever mode it is technologically carried on) under capital. But upon
this basis there arises a mode of production, which is specific both
technologically and otherwise, which transforms the real nature of the
process of labour and its real pre-conditions - capitalist mode ofproduction.
As soon as this makes its appearance, real subsumption of labour under
capital takes place.
130
VALUE
Note: ‘Agriculture for subsistence . . . changed for agriculture for
trade, the improvement of the national territory . .. proportioned to this
change.’ A. Young, Political Arithmetic, London 1774.
The real subsumption of labour under capital is developed in all the
forms which develop relative surplus-value as distinct from absolute.
With the real subsumption of labour under capital, a complete (and
constantly advancing and self-repeating) revolution in the mode of
production itself takes place, in the productivity of the labour and in
the relationship of capitalist and worker.
Upon the real subsumption of labour under capital, all those
4changes’ in the labour-process itself which we developed earlier enter
the scene. Thesocuz/ productive-powers of labour are developed and also
the application of science and machinery to the immediate produc­
tion, as work begins to take place on a large scale. On the one hand,
the capitalist mode of production (which now structures itself as a mode
of production sui generis) creates an altered structure of material
production. On the other hand, this alteration in the material struc­
ture forms the basis for the development of the capital-relationship,
whose adequate structure consequently corresponds to a particular
degree of development of the productive-powers of labour.
We have already observed that a particular and constantly increasing
minimum of capital in the hand of individual capitalists is on the one
hand the necessary presupposition and on the other hand the constant
result of the specifically capitalist mode of production. The capitalist
must be holder or possessor of means of production on a socially
relevant scale, in a value-scope which is completely out of proportion
to the production possible for a single man or his family. The minimum
of capital is the greater in a branch of business, the more capitalisti­
cally it is carried on, the higher the social productivity of labour in it is
developed. It is in just the same scope, that capital must increase in
value-magnitude and must assume social dimensions, thus cast off all
individual character. Precisely the productivity of labour, mass of
production, mass of population, mass of surplus population which
this mode of production develops, constantly summons forth, with its
unleashed capital and labour, new branches of business in which
capital can again work on a small scale and again run through the
various developments, until these new branches of business too, are
carried on on a social scale. This process is continuous. At the same
time, there is the capitalist production tending to conquer all of the
industry-branches which it has not yet mastered, where there is yet
r e s u l t s o f t h e im m e d ia t e p r o c e s s
131
only formal subsumption. As soon as it has prevailed over agriculture,
mining, manufacture of clothing, etc., it seizes the other spheres
where there is still only formal subsumption or even independent
artisans still extant. We already remarked during our consideration of
machinery how the introduction of machinery in a branch brings with
it the introduction into other branches and at the same time in other
kinds of the same branch. For example, mechanical spinning leads to
mechanical weaving; the mechanical spinning in the wool industry to
mechanical spinning in wool, linen, silk, etc. The intensified applica­
tion of machinery in coal, wool-manufactures, etc., made the intro­
duction of the large-scale mode of production in machine construction
itself necessary. Apart from the augmented means of traffic which this
mode of production demands when it is on a large scale it is on the
other hand only through the introduction of machinery in the
machine-building industry itself (namely, of the rotary prime movers)
that the introduction of steamships and trains was made possible, and
the entire shipbuilding industry was revolutionized. Large industry
throws just such masses of people into those branches which it has not
yet subdued, or creates just such relative surplus population in them,
as is demanded for the metamorphosis of the handicraft or of the small
formally-capitalis tic business into heavy industry. Compare the fol­
lowing jeremiad of the Tories:
In the good old rimes, when ‘live and let live* was the general motto, every
man was contented with one avocation. In the cotton trade, there were
weavers, cotton spinners, blanchers, dyers and several other independent
branches, all living upon the profits of their respective trades, and all, as
might be expected, contented and happy. By and by, however, when the
downward course of trade had proceeded to some extent, first one branch
was adopted by the capitalist, and then another, till in time, the whole of
the people were ousted, and thrown upon the market of labour, to fihd out
a livelihood in the best manner they could. Thus, although no charter
secures to these men the right to be cotton-spinners, manufacturers,
printers, etc., yet the course of events has invested them with a monopoly of
all . . .They have become Jack-of-all-trades, and as far as the countrv is
concerned in the business, it is to be feared, they are masters of none.
(Public Economy Concentrated, Carlisle, 1833).
The material result of capitalistic production, apart from the
development of the social productive-forces of labour, is the intemification in the mass of production and the increase and multiplication of the
spheres of production and their ramifications, whereby the exchange-
132
VALUE
value of the products first develops accordingly — the sphere in which
they act as exchange-value or realize themselves.
'Production for the sake of production’ — production as an end in
itself — already makes its appearance to be sure even with the formal
subsumption of labour under capital, as soon as it becomes as such
immediately the purpose of production, to produce as much surplusvalue as postible, as soon as the exchange-value of the product becomes
as such the decisive purpose. In the meanwhile this tendency which is
immanent to the capital-relationship realizes itself for the first time in
an adequate way — and becomes on its own a necessary precondition
even in a technological sense — as soon as the specifically capitaliste
mode ofproduction and along with it the real subsumption of labour under
capital has developed.
This latter aspect has been developed fully as far as the substance of
the matter is concerned earlier, so we can be brief here. It is produc­
tion which does not bind itself to a limitation on needs, which
both determines and is determined in advance. (Its contradictory
character includes limit upon production, beyond which it is constantly
driving itself.) This is one side of it, which is distinct from any earlier
mode of production; 'if you like’, the positive side. On the other hand,
the negative or the contradictory character: production in opposition
to, and unconcerned about, the producer. The actual producer is a
mere means of production; stuff-like wealth being the end in itself.
And the development of this stuff-like wealth is consequently in
opposition to, and at the cost of, the human individual. Productivity of
labour as such = maximum of product with minimum of labour,
consequently the greatest possible cheapening of commodities. This
turns into a law, independent of the will of the particular capitalists, in
the capitalistic mode of production. And this law only actualizes itself
if the other aspect is involved, that the scale of production is not
determined in accordance with given needs, but on the contrary the
mass of the product is determined by the scale of production which is
prescribed by the mode of production itself and which always
increases. Its purpose is that the individual product, etc., contain as
much as possible unpaid labour, and this is only attained by production
for the sake of production. This makes its appearance on the one hand
as a law, insofar as the capitalist who produces on too small a scale
would cause more than the socially necessary quantum of labour to be
embodied in the products. It makes its appearance, thus, as adequate
execution of the law of value, which develops itself completely only for
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
133 '
the first time on the basis of the capitalistic mode of production. But it
makes its appearance on the other hand as compulsion of the individual
capitalist who attempts to depress the individual value of his commod­
ity beneath its socially determined value, in order to break through this
law or deceive it to his own advantage.
There is common to all these forms of production (of relative
surplus-value) apart from the increanng minimum oi capital requiredfor
production the circumstance that the communal preconditions for the
labour of many immediately co-operating workers permit as such an
economizing to take place, in opposition to the fragmentation of these
preconditions in the case of production on a small scale, through the
fact that the efficacy o f these communal preconditions o f production
conditions an increase in their mass and value which is not of a
proportionally equal magnitude. Their common, contemporaneous use
allows their relative value (with respect to the product) to fall, how­
ever much their absolute mass of value increases.
Productive and tmproducnve labour
We insert here a few advance remarks on this question before we go
on to consider further the altered shape o f capital as it is yielded as a
result of the capitalistic mode of production.
Since the immediate purpose and the genuine product of capitalistic
production is surplus-value, so only that labour is productive which,
and only that déployer of labour-capacity is λ productive worker who
immediately produces surplus-value: thus, only the labour which is
consumed directly in the process of production for the valorization of
capital.
From the simple standpoint of the process o f labour as such, that
labour seems productive to us which realizes itself in a product— more
precisely, in a commodity. From the standpoint of the capitalistic
process of production, there is added the more precise determination
that that labour is productive which immediately valorizes capital or
produces surplus-value; thus, it realizes itself without equivalent for
the worker (for its user, that is) in a ‘surplus value* manifested in a
‘surplus p r o d u c e thus in an extra increment o f commodity for the
‘monopolizer* of the means of labour, for the capitalist; only that labour
is productive as c+ A c = c+ Δν. Thus it is that labour which serves
capital immediately as agency of its self-valorization, as means for the
production of surplus-value.
The capitalistic process of labour does not sublate the universal
134
VALUE
determinations of the process of labour. It produces product and
commodity. Insofar as that holds, that labour remains productive
which objectifies itself in commodities, as unity of use-value and
exchange-value. But the process of labour is only a means for the
process of valorization of capital. That labour, thus, is productive
which manifests itself in commodities; but if we are considering the
individual commodity, it manifests unpaid labour in an aliquot part of
same, or if we are considering the total product, manifests the labour
which is only unpaid in an aliquot part of the total commodity-mass,
thus manifests a product which costs the capitalists nothing.
That worker is productive who accomplishes productive labour, and
that labour is productive which creates surplus-value, i.e, valorizes
capital.
Only the limitedness of the bourgeois, who considers that the
capitalistic form of production is the absolute form of same and
consequently is a unique natural-form of production, can mistake the
question of what productive labour and productive labourer are from the
standpoint of capital for the question of what productive labour is as
such, and can satisfy itself accordingly with the tautological answer
that all labour is productive which produces at all, which results in a
product or any use-value at all, which yields any result.
Only that labourer is productive whose process of labour = the
productive process of consumption of the labour-faculty — of the bearer
of this labour — by capital or the capitalist.
From this, there emerge right away two conclusions:
First: Since with the development of the real subsumption of labour
under capital or of the specifically capitalistic mode of production, it is not
the individual worker, but more and more a socially combined labourfaculty which becomes the actual functionary of the total process of
labour, and the various labour-capacities which compete and form the
total productive machine participate in extremely diverse manner in
the immediate process of commodity- (or here, better) productformation: one man works more with the hand, the other more with
the head; the one as ‘manager’, engineer, technologist, etc., the other
as ‘overseer*, the third as direct artisan, or even mere manual
labourer. Thus it happens that more and more functions of labourcapacity are ranked under the immediate concept of productive labour;
and its bearers, under the concept of productive labourers, of workers
directly exploited by capital and subordinated to its valorization- and
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
135
production-process as such. If one considers the total-labourer of
which the workshop consists, then his combined activity actualizes
itself materialiter immediately in a total-product which is at the same
time ol total-mass of commodities, whereby it is quite irrelevant whether
the function of the individual worker who is only a member of this
total-labourer is situated closer to or farther from immediate handlabour. Then, however: The activity of this total-labour capacity is its
immediate productive consumption by capital, i.e., thus self-valorization
process of capital, immediate production of surplus-value, and conse­
quently, as will be expounded later in greater detail, is immediate
metamorphosis of surplus-value into capital.
Second: The more precise determinations of productive labour
follow of themselves from the given characteristic marks of the
capitalistic process of production. First, the possessor of the labourfaculty, as seller of same, expressed irrationally as we have seen as
direct seller of living labour not of a commodity, confronts capital or the
capitalist. He is a wage-labourer. This is the first presupposition. Sec­
ond, however, in a way which is introduced by this advance process
which belongs to circulation, his labour-capacity and his labour are
embodied as living factor immediately in the production-process of
capital, become themselves one of its ingredients, and to be sure pre­
cisely thtvarying one, which not only both maintains and reproduces
the capital-values which have been advanced, but also at the same
time increases, and consequently only metamorphoses into selfvalorizing value (capital) through the creation of surplus-value. This
labour objectifies itself immediately during the process of production
as of flowing value-magnitude.
On the one hand, the first precondition can obtain without the second
obtaining. A worker can be wage-labourer, day-labourer, etc. This
obtains whenever the second moment is lacking. Every productive
worker is a wage-labourer, but that is not a reason why every wagelabourer is a productive worker. As often as labour is bought in order
to be consumed as use-value, as service (not in order to appear as living
factor in the place of the value of the variable capital and be embodied
within the capitalistic process of production) — so long is the labour
not productive labour and the wage-labourer not a productive worker.
His labour is then consumed for the sake of its use-value, not as
positing exchange-value; it is consumed unproductively not produc­
tively. The capitalist confronts it consequently not as capitalist, as
representative of capital. He exchanges his money for it as revenue,
136
VALUE
not as capital. Its consumption constitutes not the cycle M-C-M
(money-commodity-money +), but C-M-C (the latter being the labour
or the service itself). Money functions here only as means of circula­
tion, not as capital.
As little as the commodities, which the capitalist buys for his private
consumption, are consumed productively and becomefactors of capi­
tal, so little do the services which he buys voluntarily or involuntarily
(in the case of government, etc.) for the sake of their use-value for his
consumption. They do not become a factor of capital. They are
consequently not productive labours and their bearers are not produc­
tive workers.
The more production as such develops as production of com­
modities, the more everyone must and wishes to become commoditydealer, to make money, whether from his product or from his services,
if his product exists in its natural character only in the form of service,
and this money-making appears as the final cause of each kind of
activity. (See Aristotle). In capitalistic production on the one hand the
production of products as commodities becomes absolute, and on the
other hand the form of labour as wage-labour becomes absolute. A
mass of functions and activities which had an aura of holiness,
counted as ends in themselves, were done gratis or were paid in
indirect ways (as all ‘profesrionals*, doctors, ‘barristers’, etc. in England
where the barrister and the \physician’ neither could nor can sue for
payment) metamorphose on the one hand directly into wage-labourers,
however different their content and payment may be. On the other
hand, they — that is, their estimated value, the price of this different
activity from the whore to the King — fall under the laws which
regulate the price of wage-labour. The development of this latter point
belongs in a special treatise on wage-labour and the wages of labour —
not here. Now this appearance of things, that with the development of
capitalistic production all services metamorphose into wage-labour
and their performers all metamorphose into wage-labourers
and thus have this character in common with the productive worker
— this appearance is all the more cause for confusion of both, because
it is an appearance which characterizes capitalistic production and is
created by it. On the other hand, it gives a reason to the apologists to
metamorphose the productive worker (because he is a wage-labourer)
into a worker who merely exchanges his services (i.e., his labour as
use-value) for money. Thereby, then, one blithely glides over the
differentia specifica of this ‘productive worker’ and self-valorization
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
137
process of capital, whose mere self-embodied agency is what living
labour is. A soldier is a wage-labourer, a salaried man, but that is no
reason why he is a productive worker.
An additional error comes from two sources.
First: within capitalistic production there are always parts of com­
modity-producing labours which are performed in a manner which
belongs to earlier modes of production, where thus the relationship of
capital and wage-labour does not in fact yet exist and consequently the
category which corresponds to the capitalistic standpoint of produc­
tive and unproductive labour is totally inapplicable. But in accordance
with the dominant mode of production, even the relationships which
are not yet actually subsumed by it are subsumed under it idealiter.
E.g., the ‘self-employing labourer* is his own wage labourer, his own
means of production confront him as capital in imagination. As his
own capitalist, he applies himself as wage-labourer. Such anomalies
open the field for baseless nonsense about productive and unproduc­
tive labour.
Second: Certain unproductive labours may incidentaliter be connected
with the process of production and even their price may go into the
price of the commodity, thus the money expended upon them ‘so far*
form apart of the advanced capital and their work consequently appear
as work which is not exchanged with revenue but directly with capital.
Let us consider the last case right away, the taxes, the price for
governmental services, etc. But this belongs to the faux frais de
production and this is a form which is in and for itself accidental to the
capitalistic process of production and in no way a form which is
conditioned by same and necessary and immanent to it. If, e.g., the
entirety of indirect taxes are metamorphosed into direct ones, then the
taxes are paid just as before, but they no longer form a capitaladvance, but an expenditure of revenue. The possibility of this formmetamorphosis reveals its externality, indifference and contingency
for the capitalistic process of production. The revenue of capital,
however, and capital itself would cease along with a formmetamorphosis of productive labour.
Further, e.g., processes, material acts, etc. All this is related to
stipulations between the commodity-possessors as buyers and sellers
of commodities, and has nothing to do with the relationship of capital
and labour. The functionaries may turn into wage-labourers of capital
thereby; they do not thereby turn into productive workers.
Productive labour is only an abbreviation for the whole relationship,
138
VALUE
and manner and mode in which the labour-capacity and labour figures
in the capitalistic process of production. If we speak thus ofproductive
labour, then we are speaking of socially determined labour, labour
which includes a very specific relationship between the buyer and
seller of labour. Productive labour exchanges itself direcdy with
money as capital, i.e., with money which is in itself capital, has the
attribute of functioning as capital and confronting the labourcapacity, but as value-creating activity it valorizes capital, puts the
values which have been created by it into confrontation with the
worker itself as capital. The specific relationship between the objec­
tified and the living labour which makes the first into capital and the
latter into productive labour.
The specific product of the capitalistic process of production,
surplus-value, is only created by exchange with productive labour.
That which forms its specific use-value for capital is not its specific
useful character, just as little as it is the particular useful properties of
the product in which it objectifies itself, but its character as creative
element of exchange-value (surplus-value).
The capitalistic process of production is not only the production of
commodities. It is a process which absorbs unpaid labour, which
makes means of production into means for the sucking in of unpaid
labour.
Out of the preceding it emerges that being productive labour is an
attribute of labour which in and for itself has absolutely nothing to do
with the specific content of labour, its particular utility or the peculiar
use-value in which it manifests itself.
Work of the same content can consequendy be productive and
unproductive.
E.g.(Milton, who did the Paradise Lost, wasanunproductive worker.*
The writer who provides factory-work for his book-seller is a produc­
tive worker. Milton produced the Paradise Lost as a silkworm pro­
duces silk, as action of his nature. Later he sold the product for £5 and
became a commodity-dealer to that extent. But the Leipzig literatureproletarian, who produces upon command of his book-seller books,
e.g. compendia on Political Economy, is a productive worker approx­
imately insofar as his producdon is subsumed under capital and only
takes place for the purpose of its valorization. A singer who sings like a
bird is an unproductive worker. If she sells her song for money, to that
extent she is a wage-labourer or commodity-dealer. But the same
singer, if she is engaged by an entrepreneur who has her sing in order
r e s u l t s o f t h e im m e d ia t e p r o c e s s
139
to make money, is a productive worker since she produces capital
directly. A school master who teaches others is not a productive
worker. But a school master who is engaged as a wage-labourer in an
institute along with others in order to valorize through his labour the
money of the entrepreneur of the ‘knowledge mongering institute9 is a
productive worker. But most of these labours, considered in respect
to their form, are hardly subsumed formally under capital, but belong
to the transitional forms.
As a whole, the labours which are only enjoyed as services are not
metamorphosed into products which are separable from the workers
and consequently products which exist as self-sufficient commodities
outside of them, but are nevertheless able to be exploited in a directly
capitalistic manner, are vanishing quantities compared with the mass
of capitalistic production. They are consequently to be completely
ignored and only to be treated in wage-labour, under the category of
wage-labour which is not at the same time productive labour.
The same labour (e.g. ‘gardening, ‘tailoring, etc.) can be
performed, etc. by the same ‘working man9 in the service of an indus­
trial capitalist or of an immediate consumer. In both cases he is a
wage-labourer or day-labourer, but in the one case he is a productive,
in the other he is an unproductive worker, since he produces in the one
case capital, but in the other case not; because in the one case his
labour forms a moment in the self-valorization process of capital, but
in the other case not.
A large part of the annual product, which is consumed as revenue
and no longer enters into production anew as means of production,
consists of the most inane products (use-value) which satisfy the
most pitiful caprices, fancies, etc. This content is quite irrelevant to
the determination of productive labour [although naturally if a disproportional part were reproduced in such a way instead of being
metamorphosed back into means of production and means of living
which enter anew into reproduction whether of commodities or
whether of the labour-capacities themselves (in a word, are consumed
productively) the development of wealth would naturally suffer a
‘check’]· This sort of productive labour produces use-values, objec­
tifies itself in products which are specified only for unproductive
consumption and have in their reality as articles no use-value for the
process of reproduction [they can only acquire this by digestion, by
exchange with reproductive use-values; but that is only a ‘displace­
ment9. ‘Somewhere9 they must be consumed as unproductive. Other
140
VALUE
of such articles which fall into the unreproductive process of con­
sumption could under necessity also function again as capital. More
precision concerning this belongs in Chapter III Book U concerning
the process of reproduction. Here we merely anticipate with this
remark: It is impossible for ordinary economics to say a sensible
word about the limits upon production for luxuries from the stand­
point of capitalistic production itself. The matter turns out to be quite
simple if the moments of the process of reproduction are analysed in a
proper way. If the process of reproduction is interrupted or its prog­
ress is arrested (insofar as it is already determined by the natural
progress of population) by disproportional application of such productive labour which displays itself in unreproductive articles, then too
few necessary means of living or too few means of production have
been reproduced, then luxury is to be condemned from the stand­
point of capitalistic production. In any case, it is an absolute necessity
for a mode of production which produces wealth for non-producers,
thus must give necessary forms to it in which it is able to be approp­
riated by wealth which is merely enjoying itself]. For the worker
himself, this is productive labour just like any other, is merely means
for the reproduction of his necessary means of living; for the capitalist
to whom the nature of the use-value and the character of the applied
concrete labour is in and for itself quite irrelevant, is merely a ‘means
of making money, of producing surplus-value’.
The frenzy to specify productive and unproductive labour by their
material content comes from three sources.
1) The fedshisdc view which is peculiar to the capitalistic mode of
production and springs from its essence which considers economic
form-determinacies (such as to be a commodity, to be productive
labour, etc.) as property inhering in and for itself in the material
bearers of these form-determinacies or categories.
2) The fact that as far as the process of labour as such is considered,
that labour is only productive which results in a product (material
product, since one is dealing here with material wealth).
3) The fact that in the actual process of reproduction — consider­
ing its real moments — there is a big difference with respect to the
formation, etc., of wealth between labour which displays itself in
reproductive articles and some other which displays itself in mere
‘luxuries’.
Example: Whether I buy trousers or I buy cloth and have a tailorapprentice come to my home whom I then pay for his service (i.e., his
r e s u l t s o f t h e i m m e d ia t e p r o c e s s
141
tailoring) is quite indifferent for me. I buy them from a ‘merchant
tailor* because they are cheaper that way. In both cases I metamor­
phose the money which I expend into a use-value which is to go to my
individual consumption, is to satisfy my individual need, not to go
into capital. The tailor-apprentice performs the same service for me
whether he works for me at the ‘merchant tailor's* or at my own home.
On the other hand, the service which the same tailor apprentice
performs for the ‘merchant tailor* if he is employed by this capitalist
consists in his working 6 hours for nothing. The fact that this happens
in the form of trouser-making only conceals the actual transaction. Às
soon as the ‘merchant tailor* can, he consequently attempts to
metamorphose the trousers again into money, i.e., into a form in
which the specific character of tailoring has completely vanished, and
the service performed expresses itself in the fact that two pounds have
come out of one.
Service is as such only an expression for the particular use-value of
labour so far as it is useful not as thing but rather as activity. T give so
that you do, I do so that you do, I do so that you give, I give so that you
give’, are here quite indifferent forms of the same relationship, while
in capitalistic production the expression Ί give so that you do’ expres­
ses a very specific relationship between objective wealth and living
labour. Thus since in this buying of services the specific relationship of
labour and capital is not contained at all, being either completely
extinguished or not at all present,* it is the favourite form of Say,
Bastiat and company in order to express the relationship of capital and
labour.
The worker too buys services with money, which is a kind of
expenditure but is no manner of metamorphosing money into capital.
No one buys medical or legal ‘services’ as means of metamorphos­
ing the money expended that way into capital.
A large part of the services belongs in the costs of consumption of
commodities, as cook, etc.
The difference between productive and unproductive labour simply
consists in whether labour is exchanged for money as money or for
money as capital. Where, in the case of the *self-employing labourer,
artisan, etc.* for example, I buy his commodity, the category does not
come into the picture because there is no direct exchange between
money and labour of any kind, but rather between money and commod­
ity.
In the case of production which is not material, even whenever it
142
VALUE
goes on strictly for exchange, two kinds of things can happen:
1) It results in commodities which exist in separation from the
producer, thus are able to circulate in the interval between production
and consumption as commodities, like books, paintings, all artistic
products which are different from the artistic accomplishment of the
performing artist. Capitalistic production is applicable here in only
very limited measure. These people insofar as they do not acquire
apprentices etc., as sculptors etc. do, for the most part work (if not
independendy) for some merchant-capital, for example booksellers, a
relationship which forms only a transitional form even to the merely
formally capitalistic mode of production. The fact that in these transi­
tional forms it is precisely the exploitation of labour which is most
intense, does not change anything in the matter itself.
2) The product is not separable from the act of producing. Here too
a capitalistic mode of production only goes on in a limited way, and is
able to take place only in a few spheres just by the very nature of the
case. (I want the doctor, not his errand boy.) E.g., in the case of
educational institutions the teachers can be mere wage-labourers for
the entrepreneur of the learning-factory. (Such things are not to be
taken into account in considering the totality of capitalistic produc­
tion.)
Productive labourer who directiy increases his master's wealth. (Malthus)
The difference between productive and unproductive labour is
important in connection with accumulation, since only the exchange
for productive labour is one of the preconditions for the reversemetamorphosis of surplus-value into capital.
The capitalist as representative of the capital which is com­
prehended in its process of valorization (of productive capital) per­
forms a productive function which precisely consists in its directing
and exploiting productive labour. As opposed to the fellowconsumers of surplus-value, who do not stand in any such immediate
and active relationship to its production, his class is Xhcproductive class
par excellence. (As guide of the process of labour, the capitalist can
perform productive labour in the sense that his labour is included
within the total labour process which embodies itself in the product.)
Here we recognize only that capital which is within the immediate
process of production. What the situation is with other functions of
capital — and with the agents which it makes use of within these
functions — can only be developed later.
The specificity of productive labour (and consequently also of
unproductive as its opposite) thus resides in the fact that the produc-
r e s u l t s o f t h e im m e d ia t e pr o cess
143
tion of capital is production of surplus-value and the labour applied by
that production is labour which produces surplus-value.
Gross and Net-product
(Perhaps belongs better in Volume III, Ch. 3)
Since the purpose of capitalistic production (and consequently of
productive labour) is not the existence of the producers but the produc­
tion of surplus-value, thus all necessary labour which produces no
surplus-labour is superfluous and without value for capitalistic pro­
duction. The same holds for a nation of capitalists. AllKgross producf
which only reproduces the worker (i.e., produces no net product —
‘surplus produce’) is just as superfluous as that worker himself. Or if
workers were necessary at a particular level of development of produc­
tion in order to produce net product, they become superfluous at a
mere advanced level of production which no longer needs them. Or
only the number of people which is profitable for capital is necessary.
The same holds for a nation of capitalists. Ts not the real interest of a
nation similar’ to the interest of a private capitalist for whom ‘it would
be a matter quite indifferent whether his capital would employ a
hundred or a thousand men . . . provided his profits on a capital of
£20,000 were not diminished below £2,000’? ‘Provided its net real
income, its rents and profits be the same, it is of no importance
whether the nation consists of ten or of twelve millions of inhabitants.
.. If five millions of men could produce as much food and clothing as
was necessary for ten millions, food and clothing for five millions
would be the net revenue. Would it be of any advantage to the
country, that to produce this same net revenue, seven millions of men
should be employed to produce food and clothing sufficient for twelve
millions? The food and clothing of five millions would still be the net
revenue.’
Even Philanthropy can find no objection to this theorem of Ricar­
do. For it is always better for only 50 per cent of a population of 10
million to vegetate as pure machines of production for 5 million, than
for 7 million (or 58% per cent) of a population to do so.
Of what use in a modern kingdom would be a whole province thus divided
(between self-sustaining litde farmers like in the first times of ancient
Rome), however well cultivated, except for the mere purpose of breeding
men, which, singly taken, is a most useless purpose. (Arthur Young,
Political Arithmetic).
That the purpose of capitalistic production is net produce actually
only in the form of surplus produce, in which surplus-value manifests
144
VALUE
itself, obtains under the assumption that capitalistic production is
essentially production of surplus-value.
In opposition to this is the view which corresponds to the antique,
earlier modes of production, in accordance with which civil magis­
trates, etc., have forbidden inventions (e.g.) in order to prevent
workers from being deprived of bread, since the worker counted as
such as an end in himself, and the livelihood which accorded with his
caste counted as his privilege in whose maintenance the entire old
order was interested. The conception stands in opposition to that
understanding which is still imposed upon by national sentiment,
namely of the Protection system (as opposed to \free trade*), in accor­
dance with which industries, etc., are to be protected by the nation as
means of existence for a large mass of people against foreign competi­
tion, etc. The view of Adam Smith also stands in opposition, in
accordance with which (e.g. ) the investment of capital in agriculture is
‘more productive’ since the same capital occupies more hands. All
these views are outmoded and untrue, false conceptions for the
developed capitalistic mode of production. A large gross product (‘as
far as the variable part of capital is concerned’) in proportion to a small net
product is equal to a lower productive power of labour and conse­
quently of capital.
Traditionally, however, all kinds of confused conceptions are
bound up with this distinction between gross- and net-product. This
comes partly from Physiocracy (Cf. Book IV) and partly from Adam
Smith who confuses over and over again at various points capitalistic
production with production for immediate producers.
If a single capitalist sends money abroad where he gets 10 per cent
interest, although he could provide employment within his own coun­
try for a mass of surplus people, he deserves a civic crown from the
capitalistic standpoint, since this virtuous bourgeois carries out the
law which apportions capital within the world market just as within
the walls of a society just in accordance with the rate of profit which
particular spheres of production offer, and precisely thereby equalizes
the rate of profit and proportionizes production. (It is irrelevant
whether the money is — e.g. — offered to the Tsar for wars against
Turkey, etc.). The individual capitalist is only therein obeying the
immanent law and hence the moral code of capital ‘to produce as much
surplus value as possible * This, however, has nothing to do with the
investigation of the immediate process of production.
Further, one often counterposes uncapitalistic production to
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
145
capitalistic; e.g., ‘agriculture for subnstence’ in which hands are emp­
loyed to ‘agriculture for trade’ which provides a much larger product
for the market and thereby makes it possible to beat a net produce in
manufacturing out of people who used to be employed in agriculture.
But this opposition is by no means a specificity within the capitalistic
mode of production itself.
In general, we have seen that the law of capitalistic production is to
increase constant capital against variable, and increase surplus-value,
'Net Produce9; secondly, to increase net produce in relation to that part
of the product which replaces capital, i.e., wages. Now these two
things are confused. If one calls the total product gross-product then it
grows in capitalistic production against net-product; if one calls that
part of the product which can be divided into wages and net produce
net-product, then net-product grows against gross-product. Only in
agriculture (through the metamorphosis of fields under cultivation
into fields for cattle-grazing, etc.) does net-product often grow at the
cost of gross-product (of the total product-mass) as a consequence of
certain specificities which are peculiar to rent, and which it is not
appropriate to discuss at this point.
In other respects, the theory of the net-product as the last and highest
purpose of production is only the brutal but accurate expression for
the fact that the valorization of capital and consequently the creation of
surplus-value without regard to the worker is the driving soul of
capitalistic production.
As the highest ideal — corresponding to the relative increase of net
product — of capitalistic production: greatest diminution of salary
possible, greatest increase of those living from net-product.
Mystification of Capital, etc.
Since living labour— within the process of production — is already
embodied in capital, all social productive-forces of labour manifest
themselves as productive-forces, as properties inherent in capital, just
as in money the universal character of labour insofar as it is valueforming appeared as property of a thing. And it is all the more the case
when
1) Although labour as expression of the labour-capacity, as exertion,
belongs to the individual worker (that being what he pays the capitalist
back with, for what the latter gives him) — though it is labour such as
is objectified in the product, as belonging to the capitalist— neverthe­
less, the social combination, in which the single labour-capacities func-
146
VALUE
tion only as particular organs of the total-labour capacity which makes
up the total industrial plant, does not belong to them but rather
confronts them as capitalistic arrangement, is done to them;
2) these social productive-forces of labour or productive-forces of
social labour develop historically only along with the specifically
capitalistic mode of production, thus appear as something which is
immanent to and inseparable from the capital-relationship;
3) the objective preconditions for labour assume, as the capitalistic
mode of production develops, an altered appearance due to the
dimension in which and the economizing whereby they are applied
(completely apart from the form of the machinery, etc.). They
become more developed as concentrated means of production, rep­
resenting social wealth; and, what really exhausts the whole matter,
they become more developed in the scope and effect of the precondi­
tions for production of socially combined labour. Disregarding the
combination of labour itself, this social character o f the preconditions of
labour — to which among other things their form as machinery ana
fixed capital in every form belongs — appears as something com­
pletely self-sufficient, existing independently of the worker, as a mode
of existence o f capital and consequently also as something arranged by
the capitalists independently of the workers. Just as the social charac­
ter of their own labour does, so even more does the social character
which the preconditions of production acquire appear as a capitalistic
character which inheres as such in these preconditions of production
independently of the workers.
To (3) let us add right away the following although it partly antici­
pates later considerations:
Profit as distinct from surplus-value can increase as a result of an
economizing employment of common preconditions of labour,
whether because (e.g.) construction is spared, heating, lighting, etc.,
the value of the ‘Prime Mover’ does not increase in the same degree as
its power, there is economizing in the price of raw-material, re-usage
of waste, diminution of costs of administration or of warehouses in
the case of more mass production, etc.: all these relative cheapenings
of constant capital along with absolute increasing of its value reside in
the fact that these means of production, means of labour and material
of labour are employed in common, and this common employment has
as its absolute presupposition the common working together of con­
glomerated workers, and is thus itself only an objective expression of
the social character of labour and of the social productive-force which
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
147
results from it, just as the particular structure of these preconditions
(e.g., as machinery) are not, to be sure, for the most part applicable
except for combined labour. They appear, however, to the worker
who enters into them, as given preconditions, independent of him, as
structure of capital. Therefore even (e.g.) the economizing of same (and
the increase in profit and cheapening of commodities which result
from it) appears as something quite different from the surplus-labour
of the worker, as direct deed and operation of the capitalist, who at
this point functions exclusively as personification of the social
character of labour, of the total plant as such. Science as
the general intellectual product of social development similarly
appears at this point as directly embodied in capital (the application of
it as science, separated from the knowledge and ability of the single
workers, to the material process of production), and the general
development of society, since it is exploited by capital as opposed to
labour and acts as a productive-force of capital as opposed to labour,
appears as development ofcapital, and all the more so since for the large
majority the hollowing out of the labour-capacity keeps step with such
development.
The capitalist himself is only a wielder of power as he is personifica­
tion of capital (for which reason he constantly appears in Italian
bookkeeping as a double-figure, e.g. as ‘debtor’ of his own capital).
The productivity of capital consists right away (from the point of
view of formal subsumption) merely in the compulsion towards
surplus-labour; a compulsion which the capitalistic mode of produc­
tion shares with earlier modes of production but exercizes in a form
which is more favourable to production.
Even from the point of view of the merely formal relationship and
the universal form of capitalistic production which shares its less
developed mode with its more developed mode, the means of producnon, the object-like preconditions of labour appear not 'as subsumed
under the worker but rather he appears subsumed under them.
‘Capital employs labour.’ This relationship is in its simplicity already a
personification of things and objectification of persons.
The relationship becomes more complex, however, and apparently
more mysterious, through the fact that with the development of the
specifically capitalistic mode of production not only these things —
these products of labour, as use-values just as exchange-values —
stand on their own feet confronting the worker and oppose him in
their role of ‘capital’, but also manifest themselves to the social form of
148
VALUE
labour asforms of development of capital and consequently manifest the
productive-forces of social labour which have developed in that way as
productive-forces of capital As such social forces, they are *capitalized9
as opposed to labour. In fact, communal unity in co-operation, combi­
nation in division of labour, application of natural forces and sciences
and of products of labour as machinery: all of this confronts the single
workers as alien, object-like, as something just/oimd there without and
often against their own contribution of effort, as mere presence-forms
of the means of labour which are independent of them and control them
insofar as they are object-like, and confronts the insight and will of the
total-plant incarnated in the capitalist or his ‘understrappers9(represen­
tatives) insofar as this is formed by their own combination asfunctions
of capital which lives in the capitalist. The social forms of their own
labour — subjective-objective — or the form of their own social
labour are relationships which are formed in entire independence of
single workers; the workers as subsumed under capital become ele­
ments of these social formations but these social formations do not
belong to them. They confront them consequently as structures of
capital itself, as combinations which, as distinct from their isolated
labour-capacity, belong to capital, are derived from it and are
embodied in it. And this assumes a form which is all the more real, the
more their labour-capacity, on the one hand, is itself so modified by
these forms that it becomes impotent when on its own (thus, outside of
this capitalistic connection) and its self-sufficient productive-ability is
broken, and on the other hand the preconditions of labour, as
machinery develops, appear as controlling labour technologically
also, and at the same time replace them, suppress and make them
superfluous in their self-sufficient forms. In this process in which the
social characters of their labour confront them as to a certain extent
capitalized — as in machinery the visible products of labour appear as
controllers of labour, e.g. — naturally the same thing takes place for
the natural-forces and science (the product of universal historical
development in its abstract quintessence): they confront the workers
aspozjoers of capital. Indeed, they separate themselves from the tech­
nique and skill of the single worker — although they are again the
product of labour if you look at their source— and appear at all places
where they enter into the process of labour as embodied in capital.
The capitalist who applies a machine does not have to understand it
(cf. Ure). But in the machine the realized science appears as capital
towards the workers. And indeed all this application of science,
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
149
natural-force, and products of labour in large amounts which is based
upon social labour appears in itself as only means of exploitation of
labour, as means of appropriating surplus-labour and hence as powers
belonging to capital as opposed to labour. Naturally, capital only
applies all these means in order to exploit labour, but in order to
exploit it, it must apply it to production and thus the development of
the social productive-forces of labour and the preconditions for these
developments appear as a deed of capital, to which the single worker
not only relates himself passively but which take place in opposition to
him.
Capital itself is double since it consists of commodities.
1) Exchange-value (money), but self-valorizing value, value which
creates value, increases as value, obtains an increment by virtue of the
fact that it isvalue. This reduces itself to exchange of a given quantum
of objectified labour for a larger quantum of living labour.
2) Use-value, and here it appears in accordance with its particular
relationships in die process of labour. But precisely here it remains
not merely means of labour, material of labour to which labour
belongs, which have incorporated labour, but along with labour also
its social combinations and the development of the means of labour
which corresponds to these social combinations. Capitalistic produc­
tion first develops the preconditions for the process of labour at large
— tears them free from the single, self-sufficient worker — as much
its objective as its subjective preconditions, but it develops them as
powers which control the single worker and are alien to him.
Thus capital becomes a very mysterious essence.
The preconditions of labour rise up as social powers against the
worker and in this form they are capitalized.
Thus capital is productive:
1) as compulnon towards surplus-labour. Labour is productive pre­
cisely as performer of this surplus-labour, through the difference
between the value of the labour-capacity and its valorization.
2) as personification and representative, reified structure of the
‘social productive-forces of labour’ or of the productive-forces of
social labour. Just how the law of capitalistic production (the creation
of surplus-value, etc.) brings this about has been discussed earlier.lt
appears as a compulsion which the capitalists do to themselves and to
the workers — thus in fact as law of capital against both. The social
natural-force of labour does not develop itself within the process of
valorization as such; but rather within the actual process of labour.
150
VALUE
Consequently it manifests itself as properties which inhere in capital
as a thing, as its use-value. Productive labour — as productive of value
— always confronts capital as labour of isolated workers whatever
social combinations these workers may enter upon within the process
of production. While capital in this way manifests the social produc­
tive power of labour towards the workers, productive labour always
manifests only the labour of isolated workers towards capital.
We have seen in the case of the process of accumulation how the
moment whereby labour, which has already occurred and exists in the
form of produced productive forces and preconditions for produc­
tion, increases reproduction both in accordance with use-value and
exchange-value (as much the value-mass which a particular quantum
of living labour maintains as the mass of use-value which it produces
afresh) and appears as power immanent to capital because tht objectified
labour always functions against the worker in capitalized form.
Capital is power which is democratic, philanthropic and egalitarian par
excellence. (Basdat)
Stock cultivates land: stock employs labour. (A. Smith)
Capital is . . . collective force. (Wade)
Capital is only a n o th er name for civilization.
The class of capitalists considered en bloc is situated in a normal position
inasmuch as its well-being follows the onwards march of social progress
. . . The capitalist is social man par excellence’; he represents civilization.
(Cherbuliez)
Superficial:
is nothing but the quantity of real productive
power which the capitalist can command by means of his capital. (J.S.
Mill)
The accumulation of c a p ita l , or the m eans o f e m p lo yin g labou r .. . must in
all cases depend on the p ro d u c tiv e p o w e rs o f la b o u r (Ricardo)
P r o d u c tiv e p o w e r o f c a p ita l
A com m entator on R icardo rem arks on this:
I f the p ro d u c tiv e p o w e rs o f la b o u r m ean the sm alln ess o f th a t aliqu ot p a r t o f an y
p ro d u ce th a t goes to those w h ose m a n u a l la b o u r p ro d u ce d it, the sentence is
nearly id e n tic a l.
( Anon.
O b serva tio n s on certain v e r b a l dispu tes)
The perpetual transposition of labour into capital is well expressed
in the following naive sentences of Destutt de Tracy:
Those who live from profits — (the capitalists of industry) nourish
all the rest, and are the only ones to augment public wealth and create
all our means of enjoyment. That ought to be so, since labour is the
source of all riches, and since they are the only ones who give a useful
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
151
direction to daily labour by making a useful utilization of accumulated
labour.’ Since labour is the source of all wealth, capital is the
increaser of all wealth. O u r faculties are our sole original riches, our
labour produces all the others, and all well-directed labour is produc­
tive.’ Our faculties are our sole original riches. Hence the labourfaculty is no riches. Labour produces all other riches; i.e., it produces
riches for all others except itself, and it is not itself riches, but only its
product is. Each well-directed labour is productive; i.e., each produc­
tive labour, each labour which yields profit to the capitalist, is welldirected.
The transposition of social-productive forces of labour into stuff­
like properties of capital is so embedded in the ordinary view that the
advantages of machinery, application of science, invention, etc., are
viewed in what is in fact this alienated form as the necessary form and
hence all of this is viewed asproperties of capital. What is serving here
as the basis is: ( 1) the form in which the matter manifests itself upon
the basis of capitalistic production, thus also in the consciousness of
those who are contained within this mode of production; (2) the
historical fact that it is within the capitalistic mode of production first
of all and as opposed to earlier modes of production that this develop­
ment takes place, the contrary character of this development thus
appears as immanent to it.
152
VALUE
2. The product of capitalistic production is not only surplus-value, it is
capital.
Capital is, as we saw, M-C-AT, self-valorizing value, value which
bears value.
The money- or value-sum which has been advanced is (even after its
metamorphosis into the factors of the labour-process — into means of
production, i.e. constant capital, and into labour-capacity into which
the variable capital has turned itself) capital immediately only in itself
only in potentia, and it is such henceforth only before its conversion
into the factors of the actual process of production. Only within this
latter by the actual incorporation of living labour into the objective
existence-forms of capital, only by the actual sucking in of additional
labour, is it not only this labour which metamorphoses into capital, but
the value-sum which has been advanced metamorphoses out of possi­
ble capital (capital by definition) into acting and actual capital. What
happened during the total process? The worker sold the disposition
over his labour-capacity for the necessary means of life for a given
value determined by the value of his labour capacity. So what is the
result with regard to him? Purely and simply, the reproduction of his
labour-capacity. So what did he give up? Just that activity which
maintains value, creates and increases value, his labour. So he comes
out of the process just as he (disregarding the wearing away of his
labour power) entered into it, as merely subjective labour-power
which has to pass through the same process anew in order to maintain
itself.
Capital, however, does not come out of the process as it entered into
it. It is only in it that it metamorphoses into actual capital, into
self-valorizing value. The total product is now the form in which it
exists as actualized capital and as such it confronts labour anew as
possession of the capitalist^ as independent power created by labour
itself. So the process of production was consequently not only its
process of reproduction but its process of production as capital.
Previously, the conditions of production confronted him as capital
insofar as he found them confronting him already in self-sufficient
form. Now it is the product of his own labour which brings it about
that he finds his own labour confronting him as conditions of produc­
tion which have metamorphosed into capitaL What was the presup­
position of the process of production is now the result.
The fact that the process of production creates capital is to that
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
153
extent only another expression for the fact that it has created surplusvalue.
But things don’t just stop at this level. The surplus-value is
metamorphosed back again into additional capital, reveals itself as the
formation of new capital or of magnified capital. In that way, capital
has created capital and not merely realized itself as capital. Th e process
of accumulation is itself an immanent moment of the capitalist process
of production. It includes a new neation of wage-labourers, means for
the actualization and increase of present capital, whether what is
happening now is the fact that parts of the population (like women and
children) which earlier had not yet been gripped by capitalist produc­
tion are subsumed by it, or whether what is happening is the fact that
the mass of labourers increased by the natural growth of the popula­
tion is subjected to it. Upon closer inspection, it appears that capital
regulates this production of labour-power itself, the production of that
human mass which is to be mulcted by it, in accordance with its
requirements of exploitation. So capital produces not only capital, it
produces an increasing mass of workers — the matter which is the
only medium in which it can function as additional capital. So not only
does labour produce the conditions of labour on a constantly increas­
ing scale as capital in opposition to itself, but capital produces on a
constantly increasing scale the productive wage-labourers which it
needs. Labour produces its conditions of production as capital, and
capital produces labour as means of its actualization of capital, as wage
labour. Capitalist production is not only reproduction of the relation­
ship, it is its reproduction on a constantly increasing scale, and in the
same measure as the social productive power of labour develops along
with the capitalist mode of production, just in that measure does the
wealth heaped up against the worker grow as wealth which controls
him9 as capital, the world of wealth expands against him as a world
which is alien to him and which controls him; and to tjie same
proportion his subjective poverty, need and dependence grows in
opposition. The emptying of the workers and the filling of capital
correspond and pace each other. At the same time the mass of these
living means of production of capital, the labouring proletariat, con­
tinues to increase.
Growth of capital and inaease of the proletariat consequently appear
as products of the same process which belong together even if they are
apportioned in polar opposition.
The relationship is not only reproduced, not only produced on
154
VALUE
constantly extended scale which not only creates more workers for
itself and also continually branches of production which had not
earlier been subjected to it, but, as the description of the specifically
capitalist mode of production has revealed, it is reproduced under
continually more favourable conditions for one side (the capitalists)
and continually less favourable conditions for the other (wagelabourers).
Considering the continuity of the process of production, the
labour-wage is only thatparr of the product which is being continually
produced by the worker which converts itself upon him into neces­
sities of life and consequently into means for the maintenance and
augmentation of those labour-capacities which capital requires for its
self-valorization, for its life-process. This maintenance and augmen­
tation of labour-capacities (as result of the process) thus appear them­
selves only as reproduction and expansion of the conditions of repro­
duction and conditions of accumulation which belong to them. (For
example, the Yankee.)
Thereby, the appearance which the relationship possessed on the
surface disappears: what was going on was that possessors of
commodities who have equal rights confront one another within circu­
lation on the commodity-market, who differ from one another like all
other possessors of commodities only in the material content of their
commodities, the particular use-value of the commodities which they
have to sell to one another. Or this original form of the relationship
remains henceforward only asappearance of thaicapitalist relationship
which lies at its basis.
Two moments must be distinguished at this point by which the
reproduction of the relationship itself on constantly increasing scale
differs as result of the capitalist process ofproduction from the first form,
on the one hand in the way it makes its historical appearance and on the
other hand in the way that it constantly displays itself anew on the
surface of the developed capitalist society.
1) First with reference to the initiating process, which proceeds within
circulation, the buying and selling of labour-capacities.
The capitalist process of production is not only the metamorphosis of
the value or of the commodity, which the capitalist brings in part to
market and in part retains for himself within the labour process, into
capital; but these products which have metamorphosed into capital are
not its products, but rather those of the worker. The process keeps
selling the worker part of its product (necessities of life) for labour: for
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
155
the maintenance and augmentation of the labour-capacity (the buyer
himself) and keeps lending him another part of its product, the
objective conditions of labour, as means for the self-valorization of
capital, as capital. While the worker reproduces his products in this
way as capital, the capitalist reproduces the worker as wage-labourer
and consequently as seller of his labour. The relationship of mere
commodity sellers includes the fact that they exchange their own
labours embodied in differing use-values. The buying and selling of
the labour-capacity as continuous result of the capitalist mode of
production includes the fact that the worker must continually buy
back a part of his own product with his own living labour. Thereby the
appearance that what holds is mere relationship of commodity-possessors
dissipates. This continual buying and selling of labour-capacities and
the continual confronting of the commodity produced by the worker
himself as seller of his labour capacity and as constant capital only
appears as mediating form of its subjugation to capital — of living
labour as mere means for the maintenance and increase of the objec­
tified labour which stands over against it in self-sufficient form. What
this is, is a form of mediation immanent to this mode of production,
this eternalizing of the relationship of capital as buyer and of the
worker as seller of labour; but it is a form which only differs in form
from other more direct forms of the enslavement of labour and of
possession of it on the side of the possessors of the conditions of
production. As mere monetary relationship it covers over the actual
transaction and the perpetual dependence which is continually
renewed by this mediation of buying and selling. It isn’t only the
conditions of this commerce which are continually reproduced; but
that by which the one buys and that which the other must sell is result
of the process. The continual renewal of this relationship of buying
and selling only mediates the continuousness of the specific relation­
ship of dependence and provides it with the deceptive appearance of a
transaction, of contract between possessors of commodities which have
equal rights and confront each other in equal freedom. This imitating
relationship now itself appears as immanent moment of the domina­
tion of objectified labour over living labour which is produced within
capitalist production.
Thus equally in error are
those who look at wage-labour, the sale of labour to capital, and
thereby the form which consists in salary as external to capitalist
production; it is an essential form of the mediation of the capitalist
156
VALUE
production-relationship and one which is created by that relationship
itself;
those who find the essence itself of the capital-relationship in this
superficial relationship, in this essential formality, appearance of the
capital-relationship, and consequently propose to characterize the
relationship by subsuming workers and capitalists under the general
relationship of commodity-possessors, and thereby provide apologies by
blotting out the specific differences of that relationship.
2) In order for the capital-relationship to make its appearance at
all, a determinate historic level and form of social production is
presupposed. Means of traffic and production and needs must have
developed within an earlier mode of production which force through
the old relationships of production and impel them towards
metamorphosis into the capital-relationship. But they only have to be
developed to the point that the formal subsumption of labour under
capital proceeds. On the basis of this changed relationship, however, a
specifically altered mode of production develops which on the one
hand creates new material productive forces and on the other develops
on their basis fewthe first time and thereby actually creates itself new
real conditions. There enters, thereby, a complete economic revolu­
tion which on the one hand first creates the real conditions for the
domination of capital over labour, completes them, and provides
them with the adequate form, and on the other hand creates, within
the productive forces of labour developed by it in opposition to the
worker, conditions of production and commercial relationships, the
real conditions of a new mode of production sublating the antagonistic
form of the capitalist mode of production, and creates in that way the
material basis of a newly-formed social life-process and thereby of a
new social formation.
This is an interpretation which differs essentially from that of the
bourgeois economists who are ensnared in capitalist assumptions,
who admittedly see how production goes on within the capitalrelationship, but not how this relationship is itself produced and at the
same time produces in it the material conditions of its break-up, and
thereby its historical justification as a necessary form of economic
development, of the production of social wealth, is eliminated.
We have seen, however, not only how capital produces but how it is
itself produced, and how it comes out of the process of production as
something essentially altered from what it was when it entered it. On
the one hand, it overthrows the mode of production, changing it to a
r e s u l t s o f t h e im m e d ia t e p r o c e s s
157
new shape; on the other hand, this changed shape of the mode of
production, along with the presence of a particular level of the
development of the material forces of production, is the basis and
condition — the presupposition for its own shapening.
Result of the immediate Process of Production
Not only the objective conditions of the process of production
appear as its result; but, just as much, its specifically social character;
the social relationships (and consequently the social status of the
agents of production towards one another) — the relationships of
production are themselves produced, are a continually renewed result
of the process.
[The text of the VIth Chapter breaks off at this point — Ed.]
Transition from I ) and 2) of this Chapter to 3), which we are dealing with
herefor the first time as 1)*. We have seen that capitalist production is
production of surplus-value and as such production of surplus-value
(in accumulation) is at the same time production of capital and produc­
tion and reproduction of the whole capital-relationship on continu­
ously more expanded (broadened) scale. But surplus-value is only
produced as a part of the commodity-value as it thereupon displays
itself in a particular quantum of commodity or surplus produce [in
English — Ed.]. Capital produces only surplus-value and reproduces
itself only as producer of commodities. So what we must first return to
deal with is the commodity as its immediate product. But commodities, as
we have seen, are as far as we consider their form (their economic
form-determinacy) incomplete results. They first have to go through
certain metamorphoses of form — they have to enter again into the
process of exchange in which they pass through these metamorphoses
of form — before they can function again as wealth, whether in the
form of money or as use-values. So what we now must do is consider
more closely the commodity as direct result of the capitalist process of
production, and then the additional processes which it has to pass
through. (Commodities are the elements of capitalist production and
commodities are the product of it, are the form in which capital again
appears at the end of the process of production.)
We base ourselves on the commodity as point of departure, from
this specifically social form of the product — as basis and presupposi* W h at M arx m eans is th at he is a d d in g a b ridge passage w ith a n eye to th e reconsti­
tu ted o rd e r o f the th re e sections o f th is w ork w ere it to be pu b lish ed as a signpost
po in tin g to w hat we kn o w as V olum e II.
158
VALUE
tion of capitalist production. We take the single product in hand and
analyse the form-detenninacies which it contains as a commodity,
which stamp it as a commodity. Before capitalist production, a large
part of the (social) product is not produced as commodity, not pro­
duced to be a commodity. On the other hand, a large part of the
products which enter into production are not commodities, it is not as
commodities that they enter into the process of production. The
metamorphosis of products into commodities only takes place at
single points, only extends to what is surplus in the production, or
only to individual spheres within production (products for manufac­
turing) etc. Neither do products in their entire scope enter into the
process as commercial articles, nor do they leave the process in such
form (considering their entire spectrum). In France about 1752,
wheat was considered exclusively as a commercial article. Neverthe­
less, a circulation of commodities and a circulation of money within
certain limits (consequently, a particular level of development of
commerce) is presupposition, point o f departurefor capital-formation and
for the capitalist mode of production. We treat of the commodity as
such a presupposition, by basing ourselves on it as the simplest
element in capitalist production. On the other hand, however, the
commodity is product, result of capitalist production. What appears
first as its element appears later as its own product. Only upon its
basis, does being a commodity become universal form of the product;
and the more it develops, the more it holds that it is as commodities
that all ingredients of production enter into their process.
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
159
3. Commodities as Product of Capital
The commodity, as elementary form of bourgeois wealth, was our
point of departure, the presupposition for the rise of capital. On the
other hand, commodities now appear as the product o f capital.
This circularity of our presentation corresponds as well to the
historical development of capital for which a commodity-exchange,
commodity-commerce forms one of the preconditions for the rise,
which forms itself, however, on the basis of various levels of produc­
tion which all have in common the fact that in them capitalist produc­
tion does not yet exist at all or only sporadically. On the other hand,
developed commodity-exchange and the form of commodity as the
universally necessary social form of the product itself is only the result
of the capitalist mode of production.
On the other hand, if we consider the societies of developed
capitalist production, then the commodity appears in them to be as
much the continual elementary condition of existence and presuppos­
ition of capital as on the other hand the immediate result of the
capitalist process of production.
Commodity and money are both elementary presuppositions of
capital, but only develop into capital under certain conditions. For­
mation of capital cannot take place except upon the basis of
commodity-circulation (which includes money-circulation), that is to
say upon an already given level of commerce which has flourished to a
certain extent; while commodity-production and commoditycirculation by no means, however, presuppose the capitalist mode of
production for their existence, but rather, as I have already exp­
lained/ belong even to ‘pre-bourgeois forms of society’. They are
historical présupposions for the capitalist mode of production. On the
other hand, it is only upon the basis of capitalist production that the
commodity first turns into the universal form of the product, that each
product must assume the form of commodity, that buying ahd selling
extend not only to the excess of production but to its very substance,
that the various conditions of production themselves appear broadly
as commodities which pass out of circulation into the process of produc­
tion. So if the commodity appears on the one hand as presupposition for
the formation of capital, on the other hand iht commodity, insofar as it
is the universal elementary form of the product, appears essentially as the
product and result of the capitalist process of production. On earlier*
* In Contnbution to the Cntique o f P olitical Economy.
160
VALUE
levels of production, products assume the form of commodity to a
partial degree. Capital, however, produces its product necessarily as
commodity. In proportion to the development of capitalist production,
(i.e. of capital) there consequently realize themselves those universal
laws which have developed around the commodity; e.g. the ones
which refer to value in the differing form of money-circulation.
What is revealed at this point is how even economic categories
which belong to earlier epochs of production acquire a specifically
different, historical character on the basis of the capitalist mode of
production.
The metamorphosis of money (which is itself only a metamor­
phosed form of the commodity) into capital only takes place as soon as
the labour-capacity is metamorphosed into a commodity in the eyes of
the worker himself, and therefore that the category of commoditycommerce has already come to dominate a sphere which was earlier
excluded from it or only sporadically included in it. Only once the
working population has ceased either itself any longer to belong to the
objective conditions of labour, or itself any longer to appear on the
market as commodity-producer, and instead of selling the product of
its labour rather sell its labour itself, or more precisely labourcapacity, only then does it come about that production turns into
commodity-production in its entire scope, its entire depth and breadth,
that each product metamorphoses into a commodity and the objective
conditions of each single sphere of production itself enter as com­
modities into that sphere. Only upon the basis of capitalist production
does the commodity actually turn into the universal elementary form of
wealth. If capital hasn’t yet mastered agriculture (for example), then a
large part of the product will be produced as what is still immediately
means of subsistence, not as commodity; a large part of the working
population will not yet have metamorphosed into wage-labourers, and
a large part of the conditions of labour will not yet have metamor­
phosed into capital. Included in this circumstance is the fact that the
developed division of labour as it appears accidentally in the inside of
society and the capitalist division of labour inside the work-place
determine and produce each other reciprocally. For commodity as
necessary form of the product and consequently the extemalization of
the product as necessary form of its appropriation presuppose a
completely developed division of social labour, while on the other hand
only upon the basis of capitalist production (that is, also on that of the
capitalist division of labour inside the work-place) does each product
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
161
necessarily assume the form of the commodity and all producers are
consequently commodity-producers, of necessity. As a consequence,
it is only with capitalist production that use-value is universally
mediated by exchange-value.
Three points
1) Capitalist production is what first turns commodity into the
universal form of all products.
2) Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist produc­
tion as soon as the worker has ceased to be part of the conditions of
production (slavery, serfdom), or the basis doesn’t just remain
primordial communality (India). From that moment where labourpower itself universally turns into commodity.
3) The capitalist production destroys (sublates) the basis of com­
modity production, the isolated, independent production and the
exchange of the owners of commodities as the exchange of equival­
ents. The exchange of capital and labour-power becomes formal.
Upon this standpoint, it also becomes quite indifferent in just what
form the conditions of production themselves enter into the labourprocess, whether they (as for example in the base of a part of the
constant capital, machinery, etc.) only gradually yield their value to
the product or like raw-material go into it in a material way; or
whether a part of the product (as for example seed in agriculture) is
again directly used by producers themselves as means of labour or
whether must first be bought and then be metamorphosed into a
means of labour all over again. All produced means of labour now
function (disregarding their service as use-value within the process of
production) at the same time as elements of the valorization-process.
Insofar as they are not metamorphosed into real money, they are
metamorphosed into money of account, are treated as exchange-value
and the value-element which they add to the product in one or another
manner is reckoned up with exactitude. To the same extent that for
example agriculture becomes a branch of industry which is conducted
in a capitalist manner (capitalist production sets itself up in the
country), to the same extent that agriculture produces for the market,
produces commodities, articles for sale and not for its own immediate
consumption, to just that extent does it reckon its investments, hand­
les each item involved, as commodity (whether it buys it from a third
party or from itself, production) and consequently as money, to the
extent that the commodity is treated as self-sufficient exchange-value.
162
VALUE
So since wheat, hay, cattle, seeds of all kinds, etc., are sold as com­
modities (and apart from sale they don’t count as products at all) they
also enter into production as commodities (or as money). To the same
extent as the products turn into commodities, so naturally do the condi­
tions of production too (which are things identical to those products)
and to the extent that the valorization-process plays a role they are
booked as monetary-quantities in the self-sufficient form of exchangevalue. The immediate process of production is at this point labourprocess and valorization-process inseparably, just as the product is unity
of use-value and exchange-value, i.e., commodity. Apart from this for­
mal aspect: To the same extent, it evolves that the farmer buys (e.g.)
his outlays, and thus a commerce in seeds, fertilizer, catde etc. —
while he sells what he takes in; thus, that for the single farmer, these
conditions of production on even a daily basis pass out of the
circulation-system into his process of production, circulation in fact
turns into the presupposition of his production by virtue of the
[conditions of production] being more and more actually bought (or
buyable) commodities. They are already in any case commodities for
him, as articles, means of labour which at the same time form parts of
the value of his capital. (He reckons them in, consequendy, as in
themselves sold qua producer, whenever he yields them to production
in natura). And this develops to be sure to the same proportion as
capitalist production develops within agriculture, and it is conducted
thus in a more and more factory-like manner.
The commodify as universally necessaryform of the product, as specific
peculiarity of the capitalist mode of production, reveals itself palpably
in the production on expanded scale which is brought in along with
the development of capitalist production and one-sidedness and masstve scope of the product which forces upon the products a character
which is social and strictly bound to social connections, but on the
other hand allows its immediate relationship as use-value aiming at
the satisfaction of the need of the producer to appear as something
indifferent and inessential. This mass product must be realized as
exchange-value, pass through the metamorphosis of the commodity,
not only as a necessity for the subsistence of the producer who is
producing as a capitalist, but as necessity for the renewal and con­
tinuity of the process of production itself. Consequently, it falls into
the province of commerce. It is not the immediate consumer who is its
buyer, but the businessman who plies the metamorphosis of the
commodity as his own business. Finally, the product develops its
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
163
character as commodity, and thereby its character as exchange-value,
as the manifold of spheres of production (thus, the sphere of
exchangeability of the product continually multiplies itself along with
capitalist production).
The commodity as it comes out of capitalist production has determi­
nations which are different from the commodity in its status as
element, presupposition of capitalist production from which depar­
ture is made. We took our departure from the single commodity as a
self-sufficient article in which a particular quantum of labour-time has
objectified itself and which has in consequence an exchange-value of a
given magnitude.
The commodity appears now with double additional determina­
tion:
1) That which is objectified in it (apart from its use-value) is a
particular quantum of socially necessary labour, but while it is totally
undecided in the case of the commodity as such (and it is in actuality a
matter of indifference) just who is the source of this objectified labour,
etc., the commodity asproduct of capital contains labour which is partly
paid for and partly not paid for. It has been remarked earlier that this
expression is to that extent incorrect that labour is not itself directly
bought and sold. But a total sum of labour is objectified in the com­
modity. One part of this objectified labour (apart from the constant
capital, for which an equivalent is paid) is exchanged for the equival­
ent of the wage, another part is appropriated by the capitalist without
an equivalent. Both parts are objectified, and consequendy present as
parts of the commodity-value. And it serves as an abbreviation to
characterize the one part as paid and the other part as unpaid labour.
2) The single commodity does not only appear in a material man­
ner as part of the total product of capital, as an aliquot part of the lot
produced by it. We no longer have the single, self-sufficient commod­
ity, the single product before us. It isn’t single commodities which
appear as result of the process, but a mass of commodities, in which the
value of the advanced capital + surplus-value (of the appropriated
surplus-labour) has reproduced itself, and each particular commodi­
ty, bearer of the value of the capital and of the surplus-value produced
by it. The labour applied to a particular commodity is in no way
actually able to be calculated: the fact that the first step is the calcula­
tion of an average (thus an ideal estimation) which holds for the part of
the constant capital which only enters into the value of the total
product as a detraction, as is in general the case for the conditions of
164
VALUE
production which are consumed communally, as finally on account of
the labour which is directly social and which evens itself out in its
assessment to the labour which is the average of many co-operating
individuals. It only counts as aliquot part of the total labour which
falls toit and is estimated in anideal manner. In the determination o f the
price of the single commodity it appears as a merely ideal part of the
total product in which capital reproduces itself.
3)
As such— bearer of the total-value of the capital +surplus-value
as distinct from the commodity which originally appeared to us in
self-sufficient manner — as product o f capital (actually, as metamor­
phosed form of that capital which now has valorized itself) the com­
modity now reveals itself in that scope, those dimensions of sale, which
must obtain in order that the old capital-value and ditto the surplusvalue created by it be realized, which is something that doesn’t just
happen by virtue of the fact that the single commodities or a part of the
single commodities are sold at their value.
We have seen earlier how the commodity has to acquire a double
mode of existence in order to be properly adapted to circulation. It has
to confront the buyer as an article which is not only characterized by
particular useful qualities, as a particular use-value which satisfies
particular needs, whether of individual or of productive consump­
tion. Its exchange-value must have acquired aform which is different
and distinct from its use-value, self-sufficient though ideal. It must
appear as the unity of use-value and exchange-value, but within that at
the same time as something double. Its exchange-value obtains this
self-sufficient form, which is completely independent of its use-value,
as mere existence of materialized social labour-time in its price: this
expression in which exchange-value is expressed as exchange-value
(i.e., as money) and is so expressed as money o f account.
Now there actually exist single commodities (like railways, largescale construction, etc.) which are on the one hand of such continuous
nature and on the other hand of such scope, that the entire product of
the capital advanced appears as a angle commodity. So at this point
the law would hold which has shown itself upon the consideration of
the single commodity, that its price is nothing other than its value
expressed in money. The total-value of capital + surplus-value would
be contained in the single commodity and be expressed in money of
account. The determination of the price of one such commodity
would not differ to any further extent from the one provided earlier
for the individual commodity, since the total-product of capital would
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
165
be really present here zsàngle commodity. So we need not dwell upon
this point any further.
The majority of commodities, however, have a discrete nature (and
even the continuous ones can for the most part be treated ideally as
discrete magnitudes); i.e., they are (considered as masses of a particu­
lar article) divisible in accordance with measures which are habitually
applied to them as particular use-values; e.g., a bushels of wheat, im­
pounds of coffee, c yards of linen, x dozen knives, where the indi­
vidual commodity itself counts as the unit of measurement, etc.
Now our task is to pay attention to the total-product of capital which
always as a single commodity (whatever its scope may be, and whether
discrete or continuous) can be considered as a single use-value whose
exchange-value consequently appears even in the total-price as expres­
sion of the total-value of this total-product.
Upon consideration of the process of valorization it was revealed that
one part of the constant capital advanced (like buildings, machinery,
etc.) only yields particular value-quantities, which it loses within the
labour-process as means of labour, up to the product; that it never
goes materially up in the product in the form of its own use-value; that
it continues during rather long periods in the labour-process to serve
the production of the commodity; and that the value-part which it
gives up during a particular period of time to the product created
during this period is estimated in accordance with the ratio of this
particular period to the total period during which it uses itself up as
means of labour, thereby loses its total-value and has thereby transfer­
red its total-value to the product, so that if it serves (e.g.) for ten years,
it has given up if we reckon the average 1/10 of its value to the product
one year, it has added 1/10 of its value to the annual product of cap­
ital. To the extent that this part of the constant capital continues after
tossing off a certain mass of product to serve as means of labour, and
continues in accordance with the above-mentioned average reckoning
to represent a particular value, it does not go into the formation of the
mass of products which are tossed off. Its total-value is as such only
determinate for the value of the mass of products tossed off, of that
mass of products for whose production it has already served, insofar as
the value yielded by it during a particular period of time is reckoned as
aliquot part of its total-value, is determined by the ratio of the period
of time in which it has served and yielded part of its value to the total
period of time during which it serves and yields its total-value to the
product. In any case, the value which it goes on to possess does not
166
VALUE
come into consideration for the estimation of the value of the mass of
commodities which have already been tossed off. So it can be set equal
to zero with reference to it. Or what amounts to the same thing, for the
present purpose the matter can be so considered for the sake of
simplification as if the total capital (even the part of its constant capital
which only goes completely into its product after longer periods of
time) had been completely contained, absorbed in the product of
total-capital which is to be investigated by us.
So let us assume that the total product is = 1200 yards of linen. Let
the capital advanced = £100, of which £80 represent constant capital,
£30 variable capital, and let the rate of surplus-value be = 100 per
cent, so that the worker works half the working day for himself, the
other half gratis for the capitalist. In this case, the produced surplusvalue = £20 and the total-value of the 1200 yards = £120, of which £80
represent value added by constant capital, £40 represent labour which
has been newly added, of which half replaces the wages, half repres­
ents surplus-labour or forms surplus-value.
Since with the exception of the newly-added labour, the elements
of capitalist production enter on their own in the process of produc­
tion already as commodities — that is, with determined prices — so is
the value which constant capital adds already provided as price (e.g.,
in the above case, £80 for flax, machinery, etc.). As far as concerns the
newly added labour, if the wage determined by the necessary means of
subsistence = £20, and surplus-labour is as large as paid labour, then
it has to represent itself in a price of £40, since the value in which the
added labour manifests itself depends upon its quantum but not at all
upon the relationships in which it is paid. The total-price of the 1200
yards produced by the capital of £100 thus = £120.
Now how determine the value of the single commodity, in this case
the yard of linen? Obviously, by dividing the total-price of the totalproduct by the number of the product divided and apportioned into
aliquot parts in accordance with given amounts, by dividing the
total-price of the product by the number of amounts in which the
use-value obtained its measure, thûs (e.g.) in the present case
£120/1200 yards: this yields for the single yard of linen a price of 2
shillings. If the yard which serves as measure for the linen is now
developed further as measuring-rod by its further division into aliquot
parts, then we can go on to determine the price of half a yard, etc., in
the same way. The price of the single commodity is determined by its
use-value being reckoned as aliquot part of the total product and its
167
r e s u l t s o f t h e im m e d ia t e p r o c e s s
price as corresponding aliquot part of the total-value created by
capital.
We have seen that corresponding to differing grades in productivity
ot productive-power of labour the very same labour-time displays itself
in a very differing quantum of product, or exchange-value of equal
magnitude displays itself in entirely different quanta of use-value.
Assume that the productivity of labour in weaving increases four-fold
in the present case. That constant capital (flax, machinery etc.) which
was put into motion by that labour which was displayed in £40, was =
£80. If the productivity of labour in weaving should increase four­
fold, then it will put four times as much of it in motion; thus for £320
flax, etc. And the number of yards would increase four-fold, from
1200 to 4800 yards. The weaving-labour which has been newly added
will continue to display itself in £40 just as before, since its quantum
would have remained unchanged. The total-price of the 4800 yards is
now thus = £360 and the price of the single yard = £360 / 4800 yards
= 1 yard for 1V i shillings. The price of the single yard would have
sunk from 2 shillings or 24d to 1Vi shillings or 18d (by a Va ) because the
constant capital contained in the yard would have sucked in Va less
additional living labour at its transformation into linen, or the same
quantum of weaving-labour apportioned itself upon a greater quan­
tum of product. For present purposes it is even better to take an
example where the total-capital advanced remains the same, but the
productive power of labour as a result of mere natural conditions
(e.g., seasonal climatic variations) displays itself in very differing
quanta of the same use-value (e.g., wheat). Assuming that the
labour-quantum spent upon an acre of land (e.g., in the production of
wheat) displays itself in £7 of which £4 are newly added labour, £3
display labour already objectified in constant capital. Of the £4, let £2
be wages and £2 surplus-labour, in accordance with the hypothesized
ratio of surplus-labour/labour = 100%. But the crop is to vary
in accordance with variation of the season.
Total of bushels
When he has 5
AVz
4
3fc
3
2 Yz
2
one bushel
Value or price
of the total product
he can sell fa 28s
about 31
35
40
46s 8d
56
70
£7
ditto
"
168
VALUE
The value or price of the total-product of the capital advanced for 1
acre of £5 remains always the same in this case (=£7) since the sum of
objectified and newly added living labour which has been advanced
remains constant. This same labour displays itself, however, in very
differing quanta of bushels, and the single bushel, the same aliquot
part of the total product has therefore very different prices. This
variation in the prices of the single commodities produced with the
same capital has no effect at all upon the rate of surplus-value, on the
ratio of the surplus-value to the variable capital, or on the ratio in
which the whole working-day divides itself into paid and unpaid
labour. The total-value in which the newly-added labour displays
itself remains the same because just as before the same quantum of
living labour is added to the constant capital, and the ratio of the
surplus-value to the wages or of the paid to the unpaid part of labour
remains the same whether the yard (under conditions of increasing
productivity of labour) costs 2s. or IVi. That which has changed
in respect to the single yard is the total quantum of weaving-labour
which has been added to it, but the ratio in which this total quantum
divides itself up into paid and unpaid labour remains the same for each
aliquot part of this total quantum which is contained in the single
yard, whether greater or smaller. Under the given assumption, the
rising of the price of the bushel in the second case (in accordance with
the decreasing productivity of labour), the circumstance that the
newly added labour apportions itself over fewer bushels (consequently a larger quantum of newly added labour falls to the single
bushel) make no difference to the ratio in which this greater or lesser
quantum of labour which the individual bushel absorbs and divides
into paid and unpaid labour, no difference either in the total surplusvalue which the capital has produced or in the aliquot part of the
surplus-value which is contained in the value of the single bushel
relatively to the value which has been added to it altogether. If more
living labour is added to a particular quantum of means of labour
under the given assumptions, then more paid and unpaid labour is
added to it in the same ratio; if less then less paid and unpaid labour is
added in the same ratio, but the ratio between these two constituent
parts of the newly added labour remains unchanged.
Apart from particular disruptive influences the consideration of
which is irrelevant for the present purpose, it is the tendency and the
result of the capitalist mode of production to increase progressively
the productivity of labour, and consequently to progressively multi-
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
169
ply the mass of the means of production which are metamorphosed
with the same additional labour into products, to apportion the newly
added labour progressively so to speak over a greater mass of products
and consequently to lower the price of the single commodity or to
cheapen the commodity-price at large. But this cheapening of the
commodity-prices doesn’t as such involve any change either in the
mass of the surplus-value produced by the same variable capital, or in
the proportional division contained in the single commodity of the
newly added labour into paid and unpaid, or of the rate of surplusvalue realized in the single commodity. If a particular quantum of
flax, spindles, etc., absorbs less weaving-labour for its metamorphosis
into a yard of linen, this changes nothing in the ratio in which this
greater or lesser amount of weaving-labour divides itself into paid and
unpaid. The absolute quantum of that living labour which is newly
added to a particular quantum of already objectified labour changes
nothing in the ratio in which this greater or lesser quantum as it varies
for the single commodity divides itself into paid and unpaid labour.
Despite the variation in the commodity-prices which arises in a varia­
tion in the productive power of labour, or respectively from a sinking
of these commodity-prices and cheapening of the commodity, the
ratio of paid and unpaid labour (and in general the rate of surplusvalue realized by capital) can in this way remain constant. If no varia­
tion in the productive power of that labour which is newly added to
the means of labour should make its appearance, but rather a variation
in the productive power of that labour which makes the means of
labour (whose price would consequently rise or fall) so it is similarly
evident that the variation in the commodity-prices which is effected in
this way would not alter the constant dividing of that living labour
contained in those means of labour into paid and unpaid.
To the reverse. If variation in commodity-prices does not exclude a
constant rate of surplus-value, a constant dividing of additional labour
into paid and unpaid, then constancy in the commodity-prices does not
exclude a variation in the rate of surplus-value, a change in the
proportional dividing of the newly added labour into paid and unpaid.
We assume for the sake of simplicity that in that branch of labour we
are speaking of, that there is no variation in the productive power of all
the labour contained in it (thus, e.g., in the above case, that no varia­
tions in the productivity of weaving-labour occur, or occur in that
labour which provides flax, spindles, etc.). Under the above assump­
tion, £80 are invested in constant capital, £20 in variable. These £20
170
VALUE
are to display 20 days (days of the week, for example) of 20 weavers.
Under the assumption, they produced £40, and thus worked half a
day for themselves, half a day for the capitalist. But, further, assume
that the working-day has been = 1 0 hours and is now lengthened to
twelve hours, so that the surplus-labour would now be increased by 2
hours per man. The total working-day would have grown by 1/5, from
10 hours to 12. Since 10:12 = 16%:20, only 16% weavers would
henceforth be necessary in order to put the same amount of constant
capital of £80 into motion, and consequently to produce 1200 yards of
linen. (For 20 men who work 10 hours work 200 hours altogether; and
16% who work 12 hours also work 200 altogether.) Or let us keep to
the 20 workers, then they now add 240 hours of labour instead of 200.
And since the value of200 hours daily expresses itself in £40 per week,
the value of 240 hours daily would express itself in £48 per week. But
since the productive power of labour, etc., has remained the same,
£80 of constant capital would be brought to the £40, and £96 of
constant capital would be brought to the £48. The employed capital
thus would amount to £116 and the commodity-value produced by it
= £148. But since £120 = 1200 yards, thus £128 = 1280 yards. The
yard would thus cost: £128/12$0 = 1/10£ = 2.shillings. The price of
the single yard would be unchanged because it would have costed just
as before the same total-quantum of weaving-labour objectified in the
means of labour and newly added. But the surplus-value contained in
each yard would have increased. Earlier, to 1200 yards there came £20
of surplus-value, thus to 1 yard £20/1200 = 2/120 = 1/160£ = Vish.
= 4d. Now, to 1280 yards there come £28, to 1 yard 5Vid, since 5%d x
1280 = £28, which is the actual sum of the surplus-value contained in
the 1280 yards. Similarly, the additional £8 of surplus-value = 80
yards (at 2 shillings per yard) and the number of yards has actually
grown from 1200 to 1280 yards.
The commodity-price remains here the same; the productive power
of labour remains the same. The capital invested in wages remains the
same. Nonetheless, the sum of surplus-value rises from 20 to 28, or by
8, which is by 40%. This is the percentage by which the total surplusvalue has increased. As far as concerns the rate of surplus-valuey
however, it was originally 100% and is now 140%.
These rounded-off numbers can be corrected later. It is sufficient
for the time being that surplus-value grows with constant commodityprices, because the same variable capital sets more labour in motion,
and consequently not only produces more commodities of the same
171
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
price but more commodities in which more unpaid labour is contained.
The correct calculation is revealed in the following table, to which we
add some preliminary remarks:
If 20v originally = 20 ten-hour days (which one can, as days of the
week, multiply by 6 without changing anything substantial in the
argument), and the working-day = 10 hours, so this total-labour =
200 hours.
If the day is lengthened from 10 to 12 hours (and surplus-labour
from 5 to 7), then the total-labour of the 20 = 240 hours.
If the 200 hours of labour displays itself in £40, then 240 hours in
£48.
If 200 hours set a constant capital of £80 into motion, then 240 set
one of £96.
If 200 hours produce 1200 yards, then 240 hours 1440 yards.
And now the following table:
amount
of
value
rate
amount
weaving
of
of
of
price labour
total surplus· surplusper
per surplus
product valuevalue yards yard
yard labour
a £80
CII £96
£20 £20
£20 £28
£120
£144
100%
140%
£20
£28
1200
1440
2s
2s
8d
8d
rate
of
surplus
value
4d 4:4-100%
4%d 4%:3%=
140%
7:S - the no. of hours
rises from 5 to 7
As a consequence of the raising of the absolute surplus-value (i.e., by
the lengthening of the working-day) the ratio within the totalquantum of applied labour has risen from 5:S to 7:5 (from 100% to
140%) and this ratio reveals itself ditto in the single yard. The
total-mass of surplus-value, however, is determined by the number of
workers who are applied at this increased rate. If they were decreased
as a consequence of the lengthened working-day, but only the same
quantum of labour as before (that is, a decreased number of workers
were applied because of the lengthened working-day), then the
increase in the rate of surplus-value would have remained the same,
but not that of its absolute sum.
If we now make the opposite assumption that the working-day
remains the same = 10 hours, but that as a consequence of an increase
in the productivity of labour (neither an increase in the constant capital
172
VALUE
which the weaving-labour applies nor in the weaving-labour itself, but
in other branches of industry whose products enter into the wages for
work) necessary labour is reduced from 5 to 4 hours, so that the
workers now work 6 hours for the capitalist instead of 5 and work 4
hours for themselves instead of 5. The ratio of surplus-labour to
necessary labour was 5:5 = 100/100,100%. Now it is 6:4 = 150:100 =
150%.
Just as before, 20 men are applied at 10 hours = 200 hours; they put
the same constant capital of £80 into motion as before. The value of
the total-product is £120 just as before; the number of yards =
1200,the price of the yard = 2 shillings. There has been no changewhatsoever in the prices of production. The total-product (in value) of
1was = £2 and of20 = 40. But if 5 hours per day the week = 20, then 4
= 16 with which he now buys the same mass of means of subsistence
as before. The 20 workers who only each perform 4 hours of necessary
labour will get £16 instead of the previous £20. The variable capital
has fallen from 20 to 16 but continues to set the same quantum of
absolute labour into motion as before. But this quantum apportions
itself differently. Earlier, Và was paid, % was unpaid. Now, out of 10
hours, 4 are paid and 6 not paid; that is, 2/5 paid and 3/5 unpaid; or in
place of the ratio 5:5 we have that of 6:4; thus, in place of a rate of
surplus-value of 100% we have one of 150%. The rate of surplus-value
has risen by 50%. What would be applied to a single yard would be 3
l/5d of paid and 4 4/5d of unpaid weaving labour; this is 24/5:16/5 or
24:16 as above. Consequently, we would have:
c
III
80
v
16
value
quantum
price
of the rate of sum of
of
rate of
total surplus- surplusof weaving- surplus- surplusproduct value
value yards yard labour labour labour
s
24
£120
150%
24
1200
2s.
8d
4 4/5d 44/5:3 1/5
- 24:16
- 150%
One notes here that the sum of surplus-value is only 24 instead of
28, as in II. If, however, in ΠΙ the same variable capital of 20 is
invested, then the total-quantum of the applied labour would have
risen, since it remains the same, if a variable capital of 16 is invested.
Thus, it would have risen by V4, since 20 is larger than 16 by Va. The
total-quantum of the applied labour would have risen, not only the ratio of
the surplus-labour to the paid labour. Since 16 at this new rate yields £40,
173
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
then 20 yields 50, of which 3d are surplus-value. If £40 = 200 hours,
then 50 would = 250 hours. And if 200 would set 80c into motion,
then 250 hours would set 100c into motion. Finally, if 200 hours
produce 1200 yards, then 250 hours produce 1500 yards. The calcula­
tion would thus be:
c
Ilia
100
v
quantum
price
of
rate of sum of
weaving- surplus
total surplus- surplusP«
value value
value yards yard labour labour rate
s
20
30
150
150%
30
1500
2s.
8d
4 4/5d 150%
One must in general remark that as a consequence of the sinking of
the wages — here, as a result of increased productive power — less
variable capital is necessary in order to apply the same quantum of
labour (i.e., one and the same quantity o f labour for a higher profit fax
capital), since the paid part diminishes in comparison to the unpaid
part. On the other hand, if the capitalist continues to spend the same
mass o f variable Capital, he gains doubly, because he not only derives a
higher rate of surplus-value from the same total-quantum, but then
exploits a greater quantum o f labour at this higher rate o f surplus-value,
although his variable capital has not increased in magnitude.
W hat has thus emerged is:
1) at changing commodity-prices the rate and mass of surplus-value
can remain constant', and
2) at constant commodity-prices, the rate and mass of surplus-value
can vary.
The commodity-prices in general as we have developed in our
consideration of the production of surplus-value only influence
surplus-value to the extent that they enter into the costs of reproduc­
tion of the labour-capacity and consequendy affect its own value; this
is the kind of influence which can be paralysed in shorter periods by
countervailing powers.
From 1) it follows that the sinking of the commodity-prices and
cheapening o f commodities which springs from the development of
the productive power of labour (apart from the part of commodities
which cheapen the very labour-capacity itself through their own
cheapening, as they raise its price through their own rise) to be sure
includes the fact that less labour is materialized in the single com­
modities or the same labour displays itself in a greater mass of com-
174
VALUE
modities, for which reason a smaller aliquot part of the labour falls to
the single commodity, but does not in and of itself include the fact that
the proportional division of the labour contained in each commodity
between paid and unpaid changes. The two laws we have developed
hold in general for all commodities, thus also for those which do not
enter directly or indirectly into the reproduction of the labourcapacity whose cheapening or rising in price is thus irrelevant to the
determination of the value of the labour-capacity itself.
From 2) follows — (compare the remarks to III and Ilia) — that
although the commodity-prices remain the same and the productive
power of living labour remains the same which is employed
immediately in the branch of production which produces these com­
modities, nevertheless, rate and mass of surplus-value can rise.
(We could alsç have developed the opponte, that they can sink
whenever either the total working-day is shortened or the necessary
labour-time grows through the rise in price of other commodities with
a working-day which remains the same.)
This is the case because a variable capital of given magnitude can
employ very unequal quanta of labour of given productive-power (and
the commodity-prices remain the same as long as the productivepower of labour does not change), or variable capital of varying mag­
nitude employs equal quanta of labour of given productive-power. In
brief, a variable capital of determined value-magnitude by no means
sets always the same quanta of living labour into motion, and insofar
therefore as it is regarded as a mere symbol for the quanta of labour
which it sets into motion, it is a symbol of variable magnitude.
This last remark — [to 2) and law 2)] — shows how the commodity
as product of capital, as aliquot constituent part of capital, as bearer of
capital which has valorized itself and consequently contains an aliquot
part of that surplus-value which had been created by capital within
itself, must be considered in a way which is different from the way we
did at the beginning of our development of the single self-sufficient
commodity.
(If we speak of commodity-prices, then it is at all points to be
understood that the total-price of the mass of commodities produced
by capital is equal to the total-value of this mass and consequently the
price of the aliquot part of that total-value. Price is here in general only
the monetary expression of value. Prices which are different from
their values have not yet made any appearance at all in our develop­
ment.)
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
175
The ùngle commodity — as product of capital, actually as elementary
part of reproduced and valorized capital — reveals its difference from
the single commodity, which was our point of departure as presuppos­
ition for the formation of capital, and its difference from the commod­
ity regarded as self-sufficienty also in fact (in addition to the one
hitherto considered, referring to the determination of price) that if the
commodity is sold at its price then the value of the capital which has
been advanced for its production is not therewith realized, still less the
value in the surplus-value created by this capital. As mere bearers of
capital (not only in a material sense, as of the part of use-value of
which the capital consists), commodities can be sold at the price
corresponding to their value and nevertheless be sold under their value
as product of capital and as constituent parts of the total-product in which
now that capital which has valorized itself exists.
In our above example, a capital of £100 was reproducing itself in
1200 yards of linen at a price of £120. In accordance with our earlier
discussion (c=80, v=20, s=20), we can represent matters in such a
way that the £80 of constant capital are displayed in 800 yards or % of
the total product; £20 of variable capital or wages in 200 yards or 1/6 of
the total product and £20 of surplus-value ditto in 200 yards or a
second 1/6 of the total product. Now if it isn’t just 1 yard but (e.g.) 800
which are sold at their price (=£80) and if the two other parts should
be unsellable, then only 4/5 of the original capital-value itself would be
reproduced. As bearer of the total capital (i.e., as unique actual
product of the total capital of 100), the 800 yards would be sold beneath
their value and, indeed, Vs beneath their value, since the value of the
total-product = 120 and 80 only = %of the total product, but the
lacking value-quantum 40 is equal, however, to the other third of their
product. These 800 yards could also be sold (considered in them­
selves) above their value and would as bearers of the total-capital,
however, be sold at their value (e.g., if they were themselves sold at
£90 but the other 400 yards were sold at only £30). But we intend to
entirely abstract from the sale of single portions of the mass of
commodities over or under their value, since in accordance with our
assumptions the commodities are only as such sold at their value.
What is at issue here is not only the fact that they as in the case of the
self-sufficient commodity are sold at their value but rather that it is as
bearers of the capital advanced for their own production and therefore
as aliquot part of the total-product of capital that they are sold at their
value (price). If out of this total product (1200 yards = £120), only 800
176
VALUE
yards are sold, then these 800 don’t represent % of the aliquot parts of
the total-value, but rather the entire total-value and thus represent a
value of 120 and not of 80, and the single commodity does not equal
80/800 = 8/80 = 4/40 = 2/20sh, but rather 120/800 = 12/80
3/20 = 3 sh. In accordance with that, the single commodity would be
sold at 50% too much if it were sold at 3 shillings instead of 2. As
aliquot part of the produced total-value the single commodity must be
sold at its price and therefore as aliquot part of the total-product sold,
and not as self-sufficient commodity; i.e., not only as the 1/1200 part
of the total-product but as supplement to the other 1199, or at its price
multiplied by its denominator as the aliquot part.
[The natural result is already at this point that, since with the
development of capitalist production and the cheapening of the com­
modity which corresponds to it the mass of commodities increases (the
number of commodities which have to be sold increases), a continuous
expamion of the market is therefore necessary which is a need of the
capitalist mode of production. But this point belongs better to the
subsequent book.*] (An additional yield is also just why, if the
capitalist could provide, for example, 1200 yards at 2 sh., he could not
provide 1300 at this price. Because the additional 100 would perhaps
require measures to be taken within the constant capital, etc., which
would toss off that price for an additional production of 1200 yards
but not for that of 100, and so forth.)
From this one sees how the commodity as product of capital differs
from the single commodity treated in self-sufficiency, and this difference
will reveal itself more and more and affect the real pricedetermination of the commodity more and more also, the farther we
prove to have followed up the capitalist process of production and
circulation.
The point, however, to which I wish now to draw special attention
is the following:
We have seen (Capital I , Section 3, Chapters 8,9. p. 199) in this first
Book how the different value-parts of the product of capital — value
of the constant capital, value of the variable capital and surplus-value
on the one hand, repeat themselves and are displayed in thtpropor­
tional parts in each single commodity as aliquot part of the produced
total use-value and as aliquot part of the produced total-value; how on
the other hand, the total-product can be divided into certain portions,
qualities of the produced use-value or article, of which one part
* M arx’s E n g lish in th e last sen tence. — Ed.
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
177
represents only the value of the constant capital, the other only that
of the variable and the third, finally, only that of the surplus-value.
These two circumstances, although they are identical in reality as we
have earlier shown, contradict each other in their mode of expres­
sion. For in the latter case, the single commodities, which belong for
example to lot number 1 which only reproduces the value of constant
capital, appear in this way as if they displayed objectified labour only
before the process of production. Thus, for example, the 800 yards =
£80 = the value of the constant capital advanced represent only the
value of the wool, oil, coal, machinery, etc., which has been con­
sumed, but no value-particle of the newly-added weaving-labour,
whereas on the other hand each yard of linen regarded as use-value
contains (in addition to the flax, etc., contained in it) a particular
quantum of weaving-labour which has precisely given it the form of
linen, and contains in its price of 2 shillings, 16d — as reproduction of
the constant capital used up in it — 4d for wages and 4d unpaid labour
materialized in it. This apparent contradiction (the lack of a solution
to which has caused fundamental blunders in analysis, as will be seen
later) is at first view for someone who has his eye only on the price of
the individual commodity just as utterly baffling as perhaps the thesis
established shortly before, that the single commodity or a particular
quotum of the total-product can be sold at its price while being under
its price, over its price while at its price and even over its price while
under it. Proudhon is an example of this confusion (infra, p. 179).
(The price of the yard in the above example is determined, not
isolated but as aliquot part of the total-product.)
(What we have just expounded concerning the determination of
price has been dealt with elsewhere [Theories of Surplus Value] and
some remarks from there could be inserted here.)
Originally, we grasped the single commodity in its self-sufficiency, as
result and direct product of a particular quantum of labour. Now
where it is result, product of capital the situation changes formally
(later, actually in the prices of production) to the intent that: The
produced mass of use-values represents a quantum of labour = the
value of the constant capital contained in the product and used up (of the
quantum of materialized labour transferred from it to the product) + the
value of the labour-quantum exchanged for the variable capital of
which one part replaces the value of the variable capital and the other
forms surplus-value. If the labour-time contained in capital is expres­
sed in money ( = £100, of which £40 are variable capital and the rate of
178
VALUE
surplus-value = 50%), then the total mass ofahe labour contained in
the product expresses itself in £120. Before the commodity can circu­
late, its exchange-value must previously have been metamorphosed
into price. If the total-product, therefore, is not a single continuous
thing so that the entire capital reproduces itself in one single commod­
ity (e.g., a house) then the capital has to calculate theprû* of the single
commodity, that is, it must display the exchange-value of the single
commodity in money of account. In accordance with the differing
productivity of labour, the total-value of £120 will be apportioned to
more or fewer products, thus the price of the single commodity will
display in inverse ratio to the total number of commodities a greater or
lesser aliquot part of the £120 per piece. If the total product is, for
example, = 60 tons of coal, then 60 tons = £120 = £2 per ton =
£120/60; if the product = 75 tons, then the ton = 120/75 = £1.12
shillings, if = 240 tons, then = 120/240 = 12/24 = £Yi etc. Theprice of
the single commodity thus = the total price of the product/total
number of products, the total-price divided by the total number of the
products which is measured in accordance with the use-value of the
product.
If the price of the single commodity is in this way equal to the total
price of the commodity-mass produced by a capital of £100 divided by
the total number of the commodities (in this case, of tons), then the
total-price of the total-product is on the other hand equal to the price of
the single commodity multiplied by the total-number of produced
commodities. If the mass of commodities has grown along with the
productivity, then the number has grown too, while the price of the
single commodity has fallen. Whenever the productivity has shrunk
where one factor (price) increases and the other factor (number)
decreases, the opposite takes place. As long as the quantum of labour
invested is the same, it displays itself in that very same total-price of
£120, however much of it falls to the single commodity with its mass
which varies in proportion to the productivity of labour.
If the part of the price which falls to the single product — the
aliquot part of the total-value — is smaller on account of the greater
number of products (i.e., on account of the greater productivity of
labour) then the surplus-value part, too, which falls to it is smaller,
the aliquot part of the total-price in which the surplus-value of £20
expresses itself, and which depends upon it. Th cratio of the price-part
of the single commodity, which expresses surplus-value, to the
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
179
price-part of the commodity which displays wages or paid labour is
not, however, thereby altered.
Admittedly, it has now emerged upon the consideration of the
capitalist process of production that (apart from the lengthening of the
working-day) along with the cheapening of the commodities which
determine the value of the labour-capacity and enter into the neces­
sary consumption of the workers, the tendency exists to cheapen the
labour-capacity itself and consequently to shorten the paid part of
labour at the same time and lengthen the unpaid part while the
magnitude of the working-day remains the same.
Thus while under the previous assumption, the price of the single
commodity participates in the surplus-value in the same ratio in which
it forms an aliquot part of the total-value, in the same ratio in which it
participates in the total-price, now the part of this price which dis­
plays surplus-value will rise despite the sinking price of the product.
But this is only the case because in the total-price of the product, as a
consequence of the increased productivity of labour, the surplusvalue occupies a greater proportional place. The same reason
decreases the value o f the labour-capacity; namely, the augmented
productivity of labour (the reverse would be the case with decreasing
productivity) which has the same quantum of labour, the same value
of £120, displays itself in a greater mass of products, consequently
sinks the price of the single commodity. So although the price of the
single commodity sinks, although the total-quantum of the labour con­
tained in it (hence, its value) decreases, the proportional constituent
part of this price which consists in surplus-value increases; or there
lurks in the lesser total-quantum of labour which lurks in the single
commodity (e.g., in the single ton) a greater quantum of unpaid labour
than earlier, where labour was more unproductive, the mass of the
product smaller, the price of the single commodity higher. In the
total-price £120 there now lurks more unpaid labour and also conse­
quently in each aliquot part of these £120.
The puzzles are similar which confuse Proudhon in his exclusive
attention to the price of the single, self-sufficient commodity and
ignoring of the commodity as product of the total-capital and hence
ignoring of the ratio in which the total product with its respective
prices is conceptually divided.
‘It is impossible, since the interest on capital’ (what this is, is
just a specially named part of the surplus-value) ‘added to the salary of
the worker as commerce proceeds constitutes the price of the commodity.
180
VALUE
that the worker would be able to buy back what he has himself
produced. Living by working is a principle which implies contradic­
tions, under the regime of interest*. (Free Credit, by Proudhon)
That is quite correct. To make matters clearer, let us assume that
the worker under discussion is the entire working class; the
weekly wage which it receives and with which it is now to buy means
of subsistence, etc., is spent on a mass of commodities whose
price (considering each individually and all together) contains in addi­
tion to a part equal to wages a part equal to surplus-value of which the
interest mentioned by Ptoudhon forms only one perhaps only rela­
tively small proportional part. Now how is it possible that the working
class, with its weekly wage which only equals salary, buy a mass of
commodities which equals salary + surplus-value? Since the weekly
wages of the whole class taken into account only equal the weekly sum
of the means of subsistence, it follows clear as day that the worker can
not buy the necessary means of subsistence with the sum of money he
has obtained. For the sum of money which he has obtained equals the
weekly wage (the weekly price of his labour which is paid him) while
the price of the weekly necessary means of subsistence equals the
weekly price of the labour contained in them + the price in which the
unpaid surplus-labour displays itself, therefore, 'it is impossible . . .
that the worker would be able to buy back what he has himself
produced.’ To live by working, therefore under these assumptions,
implies *contradictions'. Proudhon is completely correct as far as
appearance is concerned. But if he regards the commodity as product
of capital instead of in self-sufficiency, then he will find that the
week’s product breaks down into a part whose price (equal to the
weekly wage, equal to the variable capital spent during the week)
contains no surplus-value, etc.; and there is another part whose price is
only equal to the surplus-value, etc.; although the price of the com­
modity contains all those elements, etc., it is precisely only that first
part, however, which the worker buys back (whereby it is irrelevant
for the present purpose that he can be cheated as he buys back from
the grocer, etc.).
That is on average the way things stand with those apparently
profound and inscrutable economic paradoxes of Proudhon. They
consist in the fact that he expresses the confusion which economic
phenomena have created in his head as the Law of Phenomena.
[In actuality, his thesis is even worse because it implies the assump­
tion that the true price of the commodity is equal to the salary
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
181
contained in it (equal to the quantum of paid labour contained in it),
and surplus-value, interest, etc., is only a capricious mark-up over and
above this true price of the commodity.]
But still worse is his critique at the hands of vulgar Economics. For
example, M. Forcade not only draws his attention to the fact that his
thesis on the one hand proves too much insofar as the working class
couldn’t exist at all on its basis, but that on the other hand he doesn’t
go far enough in his expression of the paradox insofar as after all the
price of the commodities which the worker buys includes in addition
to salary+ interest, etc., also raw materials, etc. (in brief, the elements
of the price of constant capital). Quite correct, Forcade. But what
next? He shows that the problem is actually even more difficult than
Proudhon makes it out to be — and that is a reason for him not to solve
the problem (even posing it in the scope in which Proudhon does), but
to creep away with a meaningless phrase about it.
In actuality, what is good about Proudhon’s manner is the fact that
by his openly expressing with sophistical complacency the confusion
of economic phenomena as opposed to the vulgar economists who try
to conceal it (being incapable, however, of grasping it), his own
theoretical poverty is dragged into the light of day. So W. Thucydides
Roscher characterized Proudhon’s What is Property? as ‘confused and
confusing’. In the term ‘confusing’, the feeling of impotence of vulgar
Economics confronting this confusion is what is being expressed. It is
unable to solve the contradictions of capitalist production even in the
confused, superficial and sophistical form in which Proudhon picks
them up and throws them at the vulgar Economists’ heads. Nothing is
left it except to appeal to ‘common’ sense against this sophistry which
it lacks the theory to overcome, and take its stand on the fact that
things are actually continuing their course. What a charming consola­
tion for supposed ‘theoreticians’!
(NB: This whole passage about Proudhon would fit better in Chap­
ter 3 of Book II, or even later.)
The difficulty displayed in Chapter 1 has now been solved, too. If
the commodities which form the product of capital are sold at those
prices which are determined by their value (that is the entire capitalist
class sells the commodities at their value), then each one realizes a
surplus-value; i.e., he sells a value-part of the commodity, which has
cost him nothing, which he has not paid. The advantage which they
reciprocally derive is in this way not achieved by over-reaching on
both sides (the only meaning such over-reaching would have is that
182
VALUE
the one would snatch a part of the surplus-value which was due to the
other): not by their selling their commodities above their value, but
rather by their selling them at their value. This assumption, that the
commodities are sold at prices corresponding to their values, forms
the basis for the investigations contained in the following Book, too.
The next result of the immediate process of capitalist production
(its product) is commodities in whose price it isn’t only the value of the
capital advanced and consumed during their production but it is also
at the same time the surplus-labour consumed during their produc­
tion which is materialized, objectified as surplus-value. As commodity
the product of capital must enter into the process of exchange of
commodities, and thereby not only enter into the actual metabolism
but at the same time pass through those form-changes which we have
displayed as metamorphosis of commodities. To the extent that it is
only formal changes that are at issue (the metamorphosis of these
commodities into money and their return metamorphosis back into
commodities) the process is already displayed in what we termed
'simple circulation’, the circulation of commodities as such. But these
commodities are now at the same time bearers of capital; they are
valorized capital itself, pregnant with surplus-value. And in this
connection, their circulation (which is now at the same time
reproduction-process of capital) includes further determinations
which were alien to the abstract consideration of commoditycirculation. Therefore, we must now consider the circulation of com­
modities as the process of circulation of capital. That is for the next
Book.
[ The theme of the sixth chapter ends here, what follows are some
loose sheets which were evidently to be worked into the text. We omit
notes included in the published text of Capital, Volume I, and
extended quotations from other authors. — Ed.]
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
183
Disposition of labour-capacity and Trade Unions
As soon as his labour really begins, it has already ceased to belong to
him, and thus can no longer be sold by him.
The peculiar nature of this specific commodity, labour-capacity,
includes in itself that it is upon the conclusion of the contract between
buyer and seller that the sold commodity has really passed into the
hands of the buyer as a use-value. The exchange-value of this com­
modity, like that of every other commodity, is determined before it
enters into circulation, because it is as a capacity, a power, that it was
sold, and a particular amount of labour-time was required in order to
produce this capacity, this power. The exchange-value, therefore,
exists before its sale, but its use-value only consists in the subsequent
expression of power. The externalizing of power and its actual expres­
sion (i.e., its existence as use-value) thus diverge as far as time is
concerned. The situation is similar to that of a house whose use has
been sold to me for a month. The use-value is only provided me after I
have inhabited the house for a month. Thus is the use-value of
labour-capacity only provided me after I have used it, have actually
had it work for me. In the case of such use-values, however, where the
formal externalizing of the commodity by sale and the actual release of
its use-value to the buyer diverge in time, the money of the buyer has
the initial effect of means o f payment, as we have seen. The labourcapacity is sold for the day, for the week, etc., but it is only paid after it
has been consumed during a day, a week, etc. In all countries where
the capital-relationship has developed, the labour-capacity is only
paid after it has functioned. So everywhere the worker lends the
capitalist the use of his commodity, lets it be consumed by the buyer,
aedits it before he obtains its exchange-value in payment. In times of
crisis and even in single bankruptcies it becomes clear that this
continual crediting of the capitalist by the workers which is based on
the special nature of the sold use-value is no empty delusion.
It has no effect, however, on the nature of the commodity-exchange
itself whether money functions as a means of buying or as a means of
payment. The price of the labour-capacity is established contractually
in the buying, although it is only realized later. This form of payment
has just as little an effect on the fact that this price-determination
relates to the value of the labour-capacity, and not either to the value of
the product or to the value of the labour, which labour is not as such a
commodity at all.
The exchange-value of the labour-capacity, as has emerged, is paid
184
VALUE
whenever the price of the means of subsistence is paid which are in a
given condition of society necessary in order that the worker exercise
his labour-capacity at all with the necessary level of power, health,
vitality, and that he eternalize himself through the begetting of men to
replace him.
If man differs from all other animals through the boundlessness and
expandability of his needs, then there exists no animal on the other
hand which is able to contract its needs in the same unbelievable
degree, and limit itself to the same minimum of living condi­
tions: in a word, no animal which possesses the same talent
for Irelandization. It isn’t of such a physical minimum of existence that
we are talking when it is a question of the value of the labourcapacity. As in the case of every commodity so in the case of the
labour-capacity is its price able to rise over its value or fall under it,
and thus deviate from the price in the one or the other direction which
is only the monetary expression of the value itself. The level of vital
needs, whose total-value forms that value of the labour-capacity, can
rise or sink. The analysis of these swings, however, does not belong
here, but rather in the study of wages for labour. As this investigation
proceeds, we shall see that it is quite irrelevant to the analysis of
capital whether one hypothesizes a high or a low standard of living. As
in the theory, so in the practice, one starts with the value of the
labour-capacity as a given magnitude. A money-owner (e.g.) who
wishes to metamorphose his money into capital (e.g., into the indus­
trial capital of a textile-mill) above all inquires into the average level of
the wages in the place where he intends to build the factory. He knows
that the wages constantly deviate from the average just as the prices
for wool do, but he is simultaneously aware of the fact that these
swings cancel each other out. Wages enter into his preliminary calcu­
lations, therefore, as a given value-magnitude. On the other hand, the
value of the labour-capacity forms the conscious and proclaimed basis
of the Trades Unions whose importance for the English working class
can scarcely be overestimated. The Trades Unions have no other
purpose than to hinder the sinking of the level of wages beneath the
level traditionally given in various branches of business, the forcing of
the price of the labour-capacity down below its value. They are natur­
ally aware that a change in the relationship of supply and demand
produces a change in the market-price. On the one hand, however,
the occurrence of such a change is very different from the one-sided
assertion of the buyer (in this case, the capitalist) that such a change
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
185
has occurred. On the other hand, there exists ‘a great distinction
between the level of wages as determined by supply and demand, i.e.
by the level produced by the fair operation of exchange that exists
when buyer and seller negotiate on equal terms, and the level of wages
which the seller, the labourer, must put up with when the capitalist
negotiates with each man singly, and dictates a reduction by exploiting
the chance need of individual workers (which exists independently of
the general relations of supply and demand). The workers combine in
order to achieve equality of a sort with the capitalist in their contract
concerning the sale of their labour. This is the rationale (the logical
basis) of the trades unions What they seek to bring about is ‘that the
accidental immediate neediness of a labourer should not compel him
to make do with a smaller wage than supply and demand has already
established in a particular branch of labour’, and thereby depress the
value of the labour-capacity in a particular sphere generally beneath
its habitual level. This value of the labour-capacity is ‘regarded by the
workers themselves as the minimum wage and by the capitalist as the
uniform rate of wages for all workers in the same trade.’ So the Unions
never allow their members to work beneath this wage-minimum.
They are insurance societies created for this purpose by the workers
themselves. An example may clarify the purpose of these combina­
tions formed among the workers for the protection of th évalué of the
labour-capacity. In all businesses in London there are so-called
‘Sweaters’. ‘A Sweater is someone who undertakes to deliver a certain
quantity of work at normal prices to an entrepreneur, but who then
has it carried out for a lower price by others. The difference, which
goes to make up his profit, is sweated out of the workers who actually
perform the labour,’ and represents nothing other than the difference
between the value of the labour-capacity which is paid by the first
businessman and the price which stands beneath the value of the
labour-capacity, which the sweater pays to the real workers.
The form,piece-work salary, is employed in English potteries (e.g.)
in order to engage young apprentices (from their 13th year) at a low
piece-work salary so that they overwork themselves right in their
training period ‘to the great advantage of their master’. This is offi­
cially specified as one of the reasons for the degeneration of the
population in the pottery factories.*
* J.T. Dunning (Secretary to London Consolidated Society of Bookbinders), Trade
Unions and Strikes: their philosophy and intenhon, London I860.
186
VALUE
The increase of the total-wages (e.g., weekly) in those branches of
labour into which task work has recently been introduced (an increase,
say, in consequence of the heightened intensity of labour) becomes for
the masters as soon as it has reached a certain height itself a reason to
reduce wages, since they consider it too high to be good for the
worker. Task-work is directly denounced as a means for the lowering
of wages.
It has to be clear in and for itself that the way in which the wages are
paid out has no effect in and of itself upon their nature, although the
kind of payment (which in any case in accordance with the often
technical nature of labour, only permits one or another manner) may
have a more favourable effect on the development of the capitalist
process of production.
It is clear that the individual differences in the wages, which have
greater play under piece-work than under time-wages, are only devia­
tions from the level of the wages. But piece-work wages, where not
paralysed by other circumstances, has a tendency to depress this very
level itself.
Labour-wages as the total-price of daily average-labour contradicts
the concept of value. Each price must be reducible to zvalue since the
price in and for itself is only the monetary expression of value, and the
circumstance that present prices stand above or below the price
corresponding to their value does not affect the fact that they are a
quantitatively incongruent expression of the value of the commodity,
even if in the assumed case they are quantitatively too great or too
small. But here in the case of the price of labour there would be a
qualitative incongruence.
Since the value of a commodity is equal to the necessary labour
contained in it, then the value of a working-day (which is otherwise
performed under adequate conditions of production and with the
average, habitual, social measure of intensity and competence) is
equal to the day of labour contained in it, which is nonsense and yields
no determination at all. The value of labour (i.e., the price of labour
stripped of its monetary expression qualitatively) is thus an irrational
expression and actually only a metamorphosed and inverted form for
the value of the labour-capacity. 0Price which is not reducible to value
— whether immediately or through a row of intermediaries— expres­
ses a merely accidental exchange of something for money. And so
things which are not in the actual fact commodities at all, and therefore
in this sense outside the commerce of men, are metamorphosed into
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
187
commodities through their exchange for money. Hence, the connec­
tion between venality and corruption and money-relationship. Since
money is the metamorphosed shape of the commodity, one cannot
simply read off its appearance where it comes from, what has been
metamorphosed in it, whether conscience, virginity or potatoes.)
But piece-work wages if they are to serve immediately as expression
of a value-relationship are just as irrational as time-wages as most
immediate form of labour-wages. For example, in a piece of commod­
ity (apart from the constant capital contained in it) a working-hour (=
6d.) is objectified. The worker obtains 3d., or the value of this piece
with respect to the worker is not determined by the value contained in
it as measured by the labour-time. Actually, these piece-work wages
do not immediately express a value-relationship. The point is not to
measure the value of the piece by the labour-time contained in it, but
rather the opposite, to measure the necessary labour-time which the
worker has performed by the piece. The wages which he obtains is
thereby time-wages, insofar as the piece only has the vocation to meas­
ure the time for which he receives the wage and to serve as guarantee
that he has employed only necessary labour-time (thus has worked with
the appropriate intensity, as well as his labour as use-value having the
appropriate quality). The piece-work wage is thus nothing but a
particular form of the time-wage, which is on its own only the
metamorphosed form for the value of the labour-capacity with respect
to the prices for the labour-capacity which correspond quantitatively to
this value or diverge from it. If the piece-work wage has the tendency
to leave great play for the individuality of the worker (thus to elevate
the wage of individual workers more or less above the universal
level), then it also has a strong proclivity to sink the wages of other
workers beneath the level and to reduce this level itself by the
spurred competition of the workers which is strained to the uttermost.
Insofar as the intensity of labour is measured, other things being
equal, by the mass of product which the worker provides within a
definite time, one must compare, if one is comparing the time-wages
(e.g., the wage of a working-day of given length) in different coun­
tries, at the same time how these wages behave if they are expressed as
piece-work wages. Only thereby does one obtain the true ratio bet­
ween necessary labour and surplus-labour or between labour-wages
and surplus-value. It will then often be found that although the
apparent time-wage is higher in rich countries, piece-work wages are
higher in poor countries, so the worker here actually claims a greater
188
VALUE
part of the working-day for the reproduction of his salary than there,
thus the rate of surplus-value is smaller in the latter countries than in
the former and the relative labour-wage consequently greater. Thus
the real price of labour is actually higher in the latter than in the
former. Considering various nations, abstracting from the productiv­
ity due to each of the workers, the intensity makes just as great a
difference as the length of the working-day. The more intensive
national working-day counts as equal to the less intensive + x. If one
takes the working-day of the gold- and silver-producing countries as
the measure of the international working-day, then the more intensive
English working-day of 12 hours (e.g.) will express itself in more gold
than the less intensive Spanish; i.e., it will stand higher in relationship
to the middle working-day realized in gold and silver. A higher
national labour-wage, considering the entire day of a given length
(higher not only in use-value but in exchange-value, and hence also in
monetary expression: hypothesizing a given value of gold and silver, a
higher monetary expression must always express more value, and a
lower always less value; if one considers the money-wages of workers
in the case of different countries simultaneously, then the value of gold
and Hiver is constantly presupposed as given, since even a change in
this value if it is Hmultaneous for the various nations results in no
change so far as their reciprocal relationship is concerned), thus
presupposes in actuality no higher price of labour as price for a definite
labour-quantum. In the case of a longer duration of labour as in the
case of greater intensity of labour (which amounts to the same thing
internationally), the labour-wage can be higher in one land than in
another and yet in the first place constitute nevertheless a smaller part
of the total-day, thus being smaller, and in the second place itself
represent a smaller price of labour. For example, if the worker obtains
daily 3 shillings for 12 hours, then that is less than if his daily wage
amounts to 2Vi shillings for 11 hours. For the one hour of surpluslabour includes a much greater attrition, hence quicker reproduction
of the labour-capacity. The difference would be even greater if the 2Vi
shillings were for 10 hours.
Differing Centralization o f Means o f Production in Different Peoples
There is much more machinery for work and mechanical power in
the English factory for the single worker, and thus also much more
raw-material which is worked by him in the same timeli compared to
the Frenchmen. The productive power of his labour is, therefore,
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
189
much greater, as is the capital that employs him. The number of
establishments much smaller in England than in France. The number
of workingmen employed on the average, in one single establishment,
much greater in England than in France, although the total number
employed in France greater than in England, although in a small
proportion only, compared to the number of establishments. [ From H
in English.]
What is revealed here is that in consequence of historic, etc., condi­
tions which have had a differing effect upon the relative magnitude of
the concentration of the means o f production, there is a correspondent
relatively greater or smaller expropriation of the mass of the immediate
producers, a very different level of development of the forces of
production and of the capitalist mode o f production at large. This is,
however, in precisely inverse ratio to the ‘saving’ and ‘hoarding* of the
immediate producer himself, which is very large in France compared
with England. The scale upon which the 1 surplus-labour of the
producers can be ‘saved’ and ‘hoarded* and ‘accumulated’ and
brought together in great masses, i.e., concentrated, can be used as
capital, corresponds exactly to the degree in which their surpluslabour is hoarded etc. by their employers instead of by themselves;
corresponds, therefore, to the degree in which die great mass of the
real producers is precluded from the capacity and the conditions of
‘saving’, ‘hoarding’, ‘accumulating’, is in one word precluded from all
power of appropriating its own surplus labour to any important
degree, because of their more or less complete expropriationfrom their
means o f production. Capitalistic Accumulation and concentration are
based upon, and correspond to, the facility of appropriating other
people’s surplus-labour in great masses, and the corresponding inability
of these people themselves to lay any claim to their own surpluslabour. It is, therefore, the most ludicrous delusion, fallacy, or
imposture, to explain, and account for, this capitalistic Accumula­
tion, by confounding it with, and, as far as phraseology goes, convert­
ing it into, a process quite its opposite, exclusive of it, and correspond­
ing to a mode of production upon whose ruins capitalistic production
can alone be reared. It is thus one of the delusions carefully enter­
tained by the Political Economy. The truth is this, that in this
Bourgeois society, every workman if he is an exceedingly clever and
shrewd fellow, and gifted with bourgeois instincts, and favoured by
an exceptional fortune, can possibly be converted himself into an
exploiter o f the labour o f others. But where there was no labour to be
190
VALUE
exploited 5there would be no capitalist nor capitalistic production. [In
English from H except for the last italics which are in French in the
original. — Ed.]
Ricardo actually consoles the workers with the fact that as a conse­
quence of the rising productivity of labour, there is an increase of
total-capital compared to its variable part, the part of the surplusvalue which is consumed as revenue increases, and hence there is an
‘increased demand for menial servants*. (Ricardo,Principles, p. 473.)
Ireland. Emigration. Only England could be a model for the way in
which the actual increase or decrease in labouring population in the
ten-year cycle of industry can exert any perceptible influence upon the
labour-market because here is where the capitalistic mode of produc­
tion is developed, and this capitalistic mode does not as mostly upon
the European continent move still on the basis of an agricultural
economy which doesn’t correspond to it. In brief, it is in England,
that one can best grasp the effects produced by the needs of valoriza­
tion of capital upon the expansion and contraction of emigration.
One must observe at the start that the emigration of capital (i.e., the
part of annual revenue placed abroad as capital, and especially in the
colonies and the United States of America) is much higher in compari­
son with the annual accumulation-fund than the number of migrants
in comparison with the annual increase in population. Further,
English migrants are for the most part (insofar as we take its chief
component, the agricultural, into account) not workers but sons of
share-croppers, etc. They have, hitherto, been more than replaced by
the immigration out of Ireland.
In periods of stagnation and crisis, emigration tends to rise; it is
then also that the part of excess-capital sent abroad is largest. In
periods when human emigration decreases, the emigration of addi­
tional capital decreases also. The absolute relationship between capi­
tal used in the country and labour-power is thus little affected by the
swings in emigration. If emigration began to assume serious propor­
tions in England in comparison to the yearly increase in the popula­
tion, then its position of eminence within the world market would be
over.
The Irish emigration since 1848 has cheated all the expectations and
prophesies of the Malthusians. First, they had declared that an exodus
which surpassed the measure of the excess population was impossible.
The Irish have solved the problem despite their poverty. The part
which has emigrated sends each year a large part of the means for
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
191
emigration to those who have been left behind. Second, these gentle­
men had also prophesied that the famine which killed a million and
the exodus which followed would have precisely the same effect in
Ireland that the Black Death had in England in the middle of the 14th
century. Precisely the opposite took place. Production decreased
faster than the population and just similarly the means of livelihood of
the agricultural workers, although their wages is not higher today
than in 1847, if one takes the different price of the means of subsis­
tence into account. The population, however, has decreased in 15
years from 8 to about 4Vi millions. Admittedly, cattle production has
grown somewhat and Lord Dufferin who wants to metamorphose
Ireland into a sheep pasture is quite correct in saying that it is still
much too numerous. Meanwhile, the Irish don’t only carry their own
bones to America, but also themselves and the phrase, ‘There will
arise an avenger’ will verify itself in terrifying fashion beyond the
Transatlantic.
Although the formation of capital and the capitalist mode of pro­
duction rest essentially upon the sublation not only of the feudal mode
of production, but upon expropriation of peasants, artisans, in general
upon sublation of the mode of production which rests upon th t private
ownership by the immediate producer of his conditions of production;
although once the capitalist mode of production is introduced, it
develops to the same measure as that in which private property and
the mode of production based upon it is sublated, that is, those
immediate producers are expropriated in the name of concentration of
capital (centralization); although that process of expropriation as it later
repeats itself in the ‘clearing of estates’ in a systematic way introduces
the capitalist mode of production partly as an act of violence, it isn’t
only the theory of the capitalist mode o f production (Political Economy,
Philosophy of Right, etc.) but it is the capitalist himself for whose
view of things his own kind of property and appropriation which rests
upon the appropriation of the labour of others in its process and upon
the expropriation of the immediate producer as its basis who likes to
take such a mode for that mode of production which to the contrary
presupposes the private ownership by the immediate producer of his own
conditions ofproduction — a presupposition under which the capitalist
mode of production would be impossible in agriculture and
manufacture, etc. — and consequently likes to represent every
attack, too, upon this form of appropriation as an attack upon that
property which he has laboured over, indeed, as an attack upon all
192
VALUE
property. There is naturally great difficulty involved in the attempt to
represent the expropriation of the labouring masses from their prop­
erty as the vital precondition of the property which rests upon labour.
(In any case, along with private property, in that form there is always
included the enslavement of family members at least, who are purely
used and exploited by the head of the family.) The universal juridical
conception from Locke to Ricardo is consequently that of pettybourgeois propertyy while the relationships of production which are
portrayed by them belong to the capitalist mode of production. What
makes this possible is the relationship of buyer and seller who remain
formally the same in both forms. In all these writers one finds the
doublet:
1) proceeding in economic terms against private property which rests
upon labour, they show the advantages of the expropriation of the masses
and of the capitalist mode of production;
2) in ideological and juridical terms, the ideology of that private
property which rests upon labour is simply transferred to that property
which rests upon the expropriation of the immediate producers.
Thus, e.g., the talk about handing present burdens on to coming
generations through state-debts. A can giveB (who is really or appar­
ently lending him commodities) an IOU for products o f the future, just
as there are even poets and musicians of the future. But A and B
together never consume an atom of the product of the future. Every
generation pays its own costs of war. On the other hand, a worker can
expend in this year the labour of the three following years in advance.
Ίη pretending to stave off the expenses of the present hour to a
future day, in pretending that you can burthen posterity to supply the
wants of the existing generation,’ one is propounding the absurdity,
‘that you can consume what does not yet exist, that you can feed on
provisions before their seeds have been sown in the earth . . . All the
wisdom of our statesmen will have ended in a great transfer of prop­
erty from one class of persons to another, in creating an enormous
fund for the rewards of jobs and peculation.’ (Percy Ravens tone,
Thoughts on the Funding System, 1824.)
The colliers
How this dependency of the colliers upon their exploiters for their
homes works is shown in every strike. For example, the strike in
Durham in November 1863. The people were thrown in the street
with wife and child during stormy weather, and their furniture, etc..
RESULTS OF THE IMMEDIATE PROCESS
193
was thrown out the doors . . . so the main problem was to find a roof
during the cold nights. A large part slept in the open air; part broke
into their evacuated dwellings and occupied them during the night.
The exploiters of the mines had doors and windows nailed shut next
day and prevented those who had been thrown out from enjoying the
luxury of sleeping during an icy night on the bare floor of the empty
cottages. People resorted to throwing up wooden cabins, wig-wams of
turf, but these were torn down by the owners of the fields. A mass of
children died and withered during this campaign of labour against
capital.
IV
Marginal notes to A. Wagner’s
‘Textbook on Political Economy’ (1879-80)
195
IV. Introduction
The notes to Adolf Wagner were written in the latter part of 1879 and
finished at the end of the following year. They represent Marx’s last
comments on the criticism of political economy before his death in
1883. They consist of a series of marginal notes commenting upon
Adolf Wagner’s General or Theoretical Political Economy (1879). The
notes were first published in a Russian translation edited by David
Ryazanov in the Marx-Engels Arkiv for 1930 and the German text first
appeared in the Marx-Engels Werke, XIX (1962).
In these notes Marx deals with many of the themes first worked
over in Grundrisse. Here, however, he is writing after the publication
of Volume I of Capital, in which he had presented a detailed critique
of political economy, its method and philosophical presuppositions.
Marx explores many issues in his comments on Wagner’s book
including a discussion of the relationship between his own work and
that of Classical Political Economy. The most important feature of
them however is Marx’s systematic defence of philosophical
materialism as the only standpoint from which a correct critique of
political economy and a scientific analysis of capitalism could pro­
ceed. Marx from the outset rejected Wagner’s ‘point of view’ the
‘socio-legal point of view’, one which he shared with other writers
such as Rodbertus and Karl Heinrich Rau, Wagner’s late mentor.
As Marx notes, Wagner consistently inverted the real relationship
between economic relations and legal relations. For Wagner,
economic relations were treated as the outcome of legal relations
whereas Marx from the time he wrote The German Ideology (1845-46)
had argued from exactly the opposite and materialist standpoint. For
Wagner, there was ‘first the law and then commerce’: in reality, Marx
197
198
VALUE
insists, it is exactly the other way round — at first there is commerce
then a legal order emerges out of it in which these commercial rela­
tionships find their expression.
This point is of especial importance in connection with Marx’s
method in Capital. Capital does not exploit wage labour because of
legal coercion. Capitalist economy has to be explained from the sup­
position of the exchange of equivalents in which surplus value does
not accrue to the owners of capital as a result of narrow cheating.
This line of attack was in turn a part of Marx’s critique of Wagner’s
idealist conception of man. For Wagner, ‘man’ was an abstract being,
divorced from any particular society. Marx, however, insisted that
man was a social animal, necessarily engaged in active, productive
relations with nature, to which he remained inseparably bound. This
view is clearly demonstrated not only in these Notes, but in his ‘early
writings’ of almost forty years before.
From this general attack on Wagner’s idealist starting point, Marx
goes on to subject the professor’s work to detailed criticism. He shows
for example how Wagner completely misses the crucial distinction
between labour in its concrete form and abstract labour, a distinction
which Marx shows in Capital is the pivot on which a correct and
scientific understanding of capitalist economy rests. (See in this con­
nection Marx’s important letter to Engels, August 24, 1867, in
Marx-Engels Selected Correspondence, FLPH Edition).
The centre however of Marx’s criticisms of Wagner was the latter’s
misunderstanding and distortion of Marx’s theory of value. Wagner
wanted to start from ‘concepts’ from which in turn further concepts
were to be derived. Marx once more exposes his method as idealist.
He insists that in Capital he does not start from any concepts, and
therefore not from any concept of value. He begins, as the opening
paragraph of Capital tells us, from the predominant form taken by
wealth in capitalist society, that is the commodity. He then proceeds
to subject the commodity to a detailed analysis in which he shows how
money and capital develop dialectically and from the internal con­
tradictions of the commodity itself. It is from the commodity (‘the cell
form’ of bourgeois economy [Lenin] ) that the concepts of value and
exchange value are derived. Marx shows that all his concepts are a
reflection of the real historical process of capitalist development of the
productive forces. Only at a definite stage do the products of labour
assume value-form and only under capitalism does this form pre­
dominate. For Marx value was asocial and not a natural category. That
NOTES ON WAGNER
199
is, it reflected the particular historical conditions (commodity produc­
tion) in which the products of labour (use-values) were produced for
exchange. Wagner continually confused use-value and exchange val­
ue, an expression of his more basic confusion between the natural and
the social which, in turn, finds its expression in his failure to disting­
uish between concrete labour, which produces use-values and
abstract labour which produces value.
Some revisionists have claimed to see in these Notes a qualitative
break with all Marx’s earlier writings including even Capital itself.
Amongst these the most prominent is the French Stalinist, Louis
Althusser. Such a view has no foundation whatsoever. Marx, in
refuting Wagner, draws continually upon Capital and particularly
from the early chapters of Volume I, to which Althusser so violently
objects because of their ‘Hegelian’ character. The essence of Marx’s
refutation of Wagner’s socio-legal standpoint is to be found in all his
writings from the rejection of Young Hegelianism (The German Ideol­
ogy) and his attack upon Proudhon {The Poverty of Philosophy, 1847)
onwards. Far from demonstrating any ‘epistemological break’ as
Althusser and his followers claim, Marx’s Notes on Wagner are a
testimony to Marx’s consistent defence of the dialectical materialist
world outlook in all his work from the mid-1840s right up to the end of
his life.
Marginal N otes on Wagner
1.
Mr. Wagner’s interpretation is the ‘social-legal interpretation’ (p
2). He finds himself thereby in ‘agreement with Rodbertus, Lange and
Schaffte1 (p 2). He refers to Rodbertus and Schaffte for the ‘main points
in the foundation’. Mr. Wagner says even about piracy, as ‘non-legal
gain’ in the càse of whole peoples, that it is only robbery if‘a true law o f
nations is assumed as obtaining’ (p 18).
He is above all concerned to investigate the ‘conditions for economic
common life’ and ‘determines in accordance with them the sphere of
economic freedom o f the individual’ (p 2).
‘The “drive for satisfaction” .. .does not act and is not supposed to
act as pure natural-force, but rather stands, just as every human drive
does, under the direction of reason and conscience. Each act which
results from it is therewith a responsible one and is constantly subjected
to unethical judgment, which is, nevertheless, I grant you (!), exposed
to historical change.' (p 9)
Within ‘labour* (p 9) Mr. Wagner does not distinguish between the
concrete character of each labour and the expenditure o f labour power
common to all these species of labour.(p 9,10).
‘Even the mere administration o f the estate for the purpose of drawing
in rent constandy necessitates activities which belong under the concept
of labour, and similiarly the use of the income aimed at, for the sake of
satisfying needs.’ (p 10)
For Wagner, the historical-legal categories are the ‘social’ ones (p
13).
‘Namely, natural-monopolies o f location, thus especially in munici­
pal' (!The location in the City of London is a natural-monopoly!)
‘relationships, and then under the influence of climate for the agricul201
202
NOTES ON WAGNER
turalproduction of whole countries, and, further, natural-monopolies of
specific soil-yield (e.g., in the case of especially good vineyards), and
even between different peoples (e.g., in the case of the marketing of
tropical products in countries of the temperate zone’ [T h e export taxes
on products of some natural-monopoly make a contribution, which
are imposed in many countries (Southern Europe, tropical countries)
in the secure presupposition that they will be able to be passed on to
the foreign consumers.’ (p 15). If Mr. Wagner derives the exporttaxes in the southern countries of Europe from this, that only proves
he knows nothing of th e‘history’ of these taxes.] — ‘these all bring it
about that goods which are at leastparria/Zyfree in nature are turned into
purely economic goods which are devoted to maximum gain.’ (p 15)
The area of the regular exchange (;marketing ) of goods is their market
(p 21).
Under economic goods : ‘Relationships to persons and things (ires
incorporales) whose object-like completeness rests upon an abstrac­
tion: a)out o f totally free traffic: the cases of customers,* company, etc.,
where advantageous relationships to other people, which are
developed by human activity, can be yielded and gained apart from
monetary compensation; b) on t l b a s i s of certain legal limitations of
commerce: exclusive trade-rights, landed privileges, privileges,
monopolies, patents, etc.’ (p 22)
Mr. Wagner subsumes ‘services’ under ‘economic goods’ (p 23). His
real motivating impulse is his craving to represent Privy Councillor
Wagner as a ‘productive worker’, for, he says:
‘The query is prejudicial for the judging of all those classes which
exercise personal services in aprofessorial way, consequently of domes­
tics of those who belong to liberalprofessons and hence also of the state.
Only if services are also reckoned amongst economic goods, are the
mentioned classes productive in the economic sense.’ (p 24)
The following is very characteristic for the intellectual tic of
Wagper and his friends:
Rau had remarked: it would depend upon the ‘definition of estate
and similarly of economic goods’ whether ‘services belong there or
not’. Wagner rejoins: one must ‘propose just such a definition of estate
which includes services among economic goods.’ (p 28)
But the ‘decisive reason’ for it is ‘that the means of satisfaction
precisely cannot consist only in material objects, because needs do not
only relate to such, but also to personal services (namely, also those of
the state like administration of justice, etc.)’ (p 28).
203
NOTES ON WAGNER
Estate:
1) ‘purely economically . . . the provirion present at a point of time of
economic goods as real funds for the satisfaction of needs’ is ‘an estate in
itself, ‘parts of the total, or people’s — or national — estate.’
2) ‘As historical-legal concept . . . the provision o f economic goods
which lies in the possession or property of a person’, ‘estatepossession’ (p 32). The latter is a ‘historical-legal relative concept of
property. Property only provides certain rights of disposition and certain
rights o f exclusion with respect to other. The measure of these rights
changes9(i.e., historically) (p 34). ‘Each estate in the second sense is an
individual estate, estate of a physical or juridical person.’
Public estate:
‘Especially the estate of compulsorily common economic entities, thus
state- regional- community-estate. This estate is specified for universal
use (as roads, rivers, etc.) and property in it is assigned to the state,
etc., as the legal representative oithe totality (people, regional popula­
tion, etc.) or it is genuine state- and community-property, namely
an administrative estate which assists the performance of state tasks,
and afinancial-estate which is used by the state for the acquisition of
income sources as means for the accomplishment of its tasks.’ (p 35)
Capital, capitals y translation of kephaliony with which the demand
for a sum of money as opposed to interest (tokos) was labelled. In the
Middle Ages, it became capitate, caput pecuniae as chief thing, essen­
tial, original thing(p 37). In German, one used the word, Hauptgeld (p
37).
‘Capital, profit-stem, provision of goods for gain: aprovision of moveable means of gain/ As opposed to: ‘Provision for use: a heap of
moveable means of enjoyment collected in some connection or
other.’ (p 38)
y
y
y
Circulating and standing Capital (p 38)
Value. According to Mr. Wagner, the theory of value is ‘the corner­
stone of his [i.e. Marx’s — Ed.] socialist system.’ Since I have never
presented a ‘socialist system’, this is a fantasy of the Wagners, Schäffles and all such. Further, Marx ‘finds the common social substance of
the tennexchange-valuey which is the only one he has in mind here, in
laboury the measure of quantity of exchange-value in socially necessary
labour-time, etc.’
Nowhere do I refer to ‘the common social substance of exchangevalue’, but say rather that exchange-values (the exchange-value with-
204
VALUE
out at least two of them does not exist) represent something common to
them which ‘is completely independent of their use-values (i.e. here,
their natural form)’, namely, the ‘value’, as I have written: T he
common element which represents itself in the exchange-relationship
or exchange-value of commodities is thus their value. The progress of
the inquiry will lead us back to the exchange-value as to the necessary
mode of expression or appearance-form of value, which nevertheless
is first of all to be considered in independence of this form.'
So I do not say that the ‘common social substance of exchangevalue’ ‘is labour’; and since I treat of the form of value, i.e. the
development of exchange-value, at length in a special section, for that
reason it would be peculiar to reduce this ‘form’ to ‘common social
substance’, labour. Another thing Mr Wagner forgets is that neither
‘value’ nor ‘exchange-value’ are subjects in my work, but rather the
commodity.
Furthermore, ‘This theory (of Marx) is not only a general valuetheory but a theory ofcosts joined to Ricardo.’ Mr. Wagner could have
acquainted himself with the difference between Ricardo and me as
well from Capital as out of the article by Sieber (if he knew Russian):
Ricardo in fact only concerned himself with labour as measure of
value-magnitude and therefore found no connection between his
value-theory and the essence of money.
If Mr. Wagner says this is ‘no general value-theory’; he is com­
pletely correct in his sense, since by general value-theory he under­
stands that subtle fantasizing around the word ‘value’, a thing which
also enables him to remain with that traditionally Germanic confusion
which is proper to professors between ‘use-value’ and ‘value* since
both have the word ‘value’ in common. As far as what he goes on to
say, that this is **theory of costs9, that either turns out to be a tautology:
* commodities, in so far as they represent
values (i.e.) only something social (human) labour, and in so far
namely, as the value-magnitude of a commodity is (by my account),
determined by the magnitude of the labour-time contained in it (hence,
by the normal mass of labour which the production of an object costs,
etc.) and Mr. Wagner proves the opposite by assuring us that this
(etc.) theory of value is not ‘the general one’ because this is not Mr.
Wagner’s view of ‘the general theory of value’.
Or he says something false : Ricardo (according to Smith) confuses
value and costs of production; I have already expressly referred (in
* Words crossed out in the original.
NOTES ON WAGNER
205
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and also in notes to
Capital) to the fact that values and prices of production (which only
express the costs of production) do not coincide. Why not? That I have
not said to Mr. Wagner.
Moreover, I ‘proceed in an arbitrary way’ (according to Wagner)
because I reduce these costs to the accomplishment of work as it is
called, only in the narrowest sense of the term. That presupposes
always a proof which has hitherto been lacking, namely that ‘the
process of production is possible altogether without mediation of that
activity which forms and applies capital.’
Instead of loading me with such deductions of the future, Mr.
Wagner should on the contrary first have shown that a social process o f
production (not to speak of the process of production as such) does not
exist in those very numerous communities which existed before the
appearance ofprivate capitalists (communes of ancient India, southern
Slavic family-communes, etc.). Moreover Wagner could only say: the
exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class (in brief, the
character of capitalist production as Marx presents it) is correct, but
he errs in considering this economy as a transitory one, while Aristotle
on the other hand erred in considering slave-economy as not transitory.
‘As long as such a proof has not been carried out’ (in other words, as
long as capitalist economy exists), ‘the winnings from capital are reaUy
also’ (here the club-foot or the donkey’s ear show themselves) ‘a
constitutive element of value, not only a deduction or “robbery” per­
petrated on the worker, as in accordance with a socialist interpreta­
tion.’ Just what is meant by ‘deduction perpetrated on the worker*
(deduction of his skin, etc.) does not emerge. To be sure, in my
presentation ‘the winnings from capital are really also “not” only a
deduction or “robbery” perpetrated on the worker.’ On the contrary,
I present the capitalist as a necessary functionary of capitalist produc­
tion, and present at great length the fact that he does not only ‘deduct’
or ‘rob’, but forces the production of surplus-value, thus helps create
what is to be deducted in the first place. I furthermore show in detail
that even in the exchange of commodities, only equivalents are
exchanged, the capitalist — as soon as he paid the worker the actual
value of his labour-power — proceeded to acquire the surplus-value
with all the right in the world; that is, with the right that corresponds
to this mode of production. But all of this is insufficient to make
‘capital winnings’ into the ‘constitutive’ element of value, but only
proves that there lurks in the value which is not ‘constituted9 by the
206
VALUE
labour of the capitalist, a part which he can appropriate 'rightly’; that
is, without injuring the right which corresponds to the exchange of
commodities.
‘That theory only takes this one moment which determines value
into account and in a one-sided way’ [ 1. tautology. The theory is false,
because Wagner has a ‘general value-theory’ which does not agree
with it, and hence his ‘value’ is determined by ‘use-value’ as is proved,
you see, by his professor’s wages. 2. Mr. Wagner insinuates into
value the ‘market price’ — whatever it happens to be — or
commodity-price which dérivâtes from it, which is something very
different from the value] ‘the costs not the other moment, the utility,
the use, the moment consisting o f need.* [That is, it does not confuse
‘value’ and use-value, which is something so desirable for a man born a
Confusius like Wagner.] ‘This not only does not correspond to the
formation of exchange-value within modern transactions’ [he means
the formation of price, which alters nothing in value-determination : in
any case, within contemporary transactions there certainly does take
place a formation of exchange-value, as every founder of a business,*
commodity-falsifier, etc., etc. knows, which has nothing in common
with formation of value, but keeps a sharp eye on ‘formed’ values; in
any case, in determining the value of labour power, I proceed on the
basis that its value is actually paid, a thing which is not factually the
case. Mr. Schäffle, in his book Capitalism, thinks that would be
‘generous’ or something of the sort. All he means is a procedure which
is scientifically necessary] ‘but like Schäffle in his work Quintessence
and especially in Social Bodies demonstrates in so exemplary and
probably final a manner (!) also do not correspond to the relationships
as they would necessarily have to structure themselves in Marx’s
hypothetical social state.* [That is, the social-state which Mr. Schäffle
condescended to ‘structure’ for me metamorphoses into ‘Marx’s’ (not
the one insinuated into Marx under Schäffle’s hypothesis) ‘socialstate’.] ‘That can be concludvely shown, namely, by the example of
grain and suchlike, whose exchange-value would have to be regulated
in some other way than merely in accordance with the costs, on account of
the influence of changing harvests while need remains roughly the
same, necessarily in a system of “social-taxes” .’
So many words, so much nonsense. First, I have never spoken of
‘social-taxes’ and have been concerned in the investigation o f value
* Maix refers by the term grinder to the so-called grinderjahre, the 1870s, when
businesses made immense increases in their capital gains as fictitious value. — Ed.
NOTES ON WAGNER
207
with bourgeois relationships and not with the application of this
value-ihtory to the ‘social-state* which was not even constructed by
me but by Mr. Schâfûe for me. Second, if the price of grain rises on
the occasion of a harvest failure, then, first, the (harvest’s) value rises,
because a given mass of labour is realized in less product; second, its
selling price rises even more. What does that have to do with my theory
of value? Precisely to the extent that the grain is sold above its value to
just that extent are other commodities (whether in natural-form or in
money form) sold beneath their value, and that happens even when
their own money price does not fall. The value-sum remains the same
even if the expression of this whole value-sum in money should have
grown, hence, the sum of the ‘exchange-value’ should have risen, by
Mr. Wagner’s account. This is the case if we assume that the decline in
price in the sum of the other commodities does not cover the super­
value price (over-price) of the grain. But in this case, the exchangevalue of money has fallen pro tanto (in accordance with just such an
amount) beneath its value; the value-sum of all commodities not only
remains the same but even remains the same in its money-expresrion if
money is reckoned along with the commodities. Further, the increase
in its value given by the crop-failure will in any case be smaller in the
‘social-state’ than is the case with the grain usurers of today. For in
that case, the ‘social-state’ will draw up production from the very
beginning in such a way that the annual provision of grain depends to
only the minimal extent upon the accidents of weather. The scope of
production — the prevision and use-aspect — is subject in such a
state to rational regulation. Finally, what is the ‘social-tax’ (if we
assume that Schäffle’s fantasies on the subject are realized) supposed
to prove either for or against my theory of value? Just as little as the
compulsory regulations enacted on a ship or in a fortress or during the
French Revolution, during scarcity of food, which do not concern
themselves with value at all. And what is so atrocious about the
‘social-state’, that it wounds the laws o f value of the ‘bourgeois
capitalist state* and consequently also the theory of value! — is
nothing but childish nonsense!
The very same Wagner complacently cites Rau: ‘In order to avoid
misunderstandings, it is necessary to establish what is meant by value
as such and it is suitable to German usage to choose use-value to this
end.’
Derivation of the concept of value (p. 46 et seq.).
According to Mr. Wagner, use-value and exchange-value are to be
208
VALUE
derived at once from the concept of value, not as with me, from a
concretum, the commodity, and it is interesting to pursue this scholasti­
cism in its latest ‘Foundations' .
It is a n a tu ra l drive o f m an to bring the relation in w hich internal and
external goo d s stand to his n e e d s , in to clear consciousness and u n derstan d­
in g .T h is h a p p en s through th e assessm en t (th e assessm en t o f v a lu e ) , w hereby
v a lu e is a scrib ed to g ood s, respectively to things o f th e external w orld , and
is m easured (p 4 6 ),
and this signifies, p 12 :
All means for the satisfaction of needs are called goods.
If in the first sentence we replace the word ‘goods’ with its Wag­
nerian conceptual content, then the first sentence of the quoted passage
reads:
‘It is a natural drive of “man" to bring the relation, in which the
internal and external’ means for the satisfaction of his needs ‘stand to
his needs, into clear consciousness and understanding'. We could simplify
this sentence somewhat by dropping ‘the internal means’ etc. as Mr.
Wagner does ‘respectively to’ in the sentence which immediately
follows.
‘M an'} If the category ‘man’ is meant here, then he has, in general,
‘no’ needs; if it is man who confronts nature as an isolated individual,
then he is to be understood as a non-herd animal; if it is man already
found in any form of society — and Mr. Wagner implies this, since,
for him, ‘man’, even if he does not have a university education, has
language at any rate — then the determinate character of this social
man is to be brought forward as the starting point, i.e. the determinate
character of the existing community in which he lives, since produc­
tion here, hence his process o f securing life, already has some kind of
social character.
But with a professor-schoolmaster the relations of man to nature are
not practical from the outset, thus relations established by action;
rather they are theoretical, and two relations of that sort are already in
the first sentence boxed into each other.
First : since in the following sentence the 'external means for the
satisfaction o f his needs' or 'external goods' are transformed into ‘things
o f the external world', then the first boxed-in relation takes the follow­
ing shape: man stands in relation to the things o f the external world as
means for the satisfaction of his needs. But on no account do men
begin by 'standing in that theoretical relation to the things of the
NOTES ON WAGNER
209
external world’. They begin, like every animal, by eating, drinking etc.,
hence not by ‘standing’ in a relation, but by relating themselves
actively, taking hold of certain things in the external world through
action, and thus satisfying their need. (Thus they begin with produc­
tion.) Through the repetition of this process, the property of those
things, their property ‘to satisfy needs’, is impressed upon their
brains; men, like animals, also learn to distinguish ‘theoretically’ from
all other things the external things which serve for the satisfaction of
their needs. At a certain stage of this evolution, after their needs, and
the activities by which they are satisfied, have, in the meantime,
increased and developed further, they will christen these things ling­
uistically as a whole class, distinguished by experience from the rest of
the external world. This happens necessarily, since they stand con­
tinually in the production process— i.e. the process of appropriating
these things — in active association among themselves and with these
things, and soon have to engage in a battle with others over these
things. But this linguistic designation only expresses as a representa­
tion what repeated confirmation in experience has accomplished,
namely, that certain external things serve men already living in a
certain social connection (this is a necessary presupposition on
account of language) for the satisfaction of their needs. Men assign to
these things only a particular (generic) name, because they already
know that they serve for the satisfaction of their needs,because they
get hold of them through activity which is repeated more or less often,
and they also try to keep them in their possession; perhaps they call
them ‘goods’, or something else which expresses die fact that they
need these things practically, that these things are useful fen: them,
and they ascribe this useful-character as if it is possessed by the thing,
although it would scarcely appear to a sheep as one of its *useful’
properties that it is edible by man.
Thus: men begin, as a matter of fact, by appropriating certain
things of the external world as the means for satisfying their own
needs etc., etc.; later they also come to designating them linguistically
as what they are for them in practical experience, namely, as meansfor
satisfying their needs, as things which ‘satisfy’ them. If one calls this
circumstance, that men do not only deal with such things practically
as the means of satisfying their needs, but also that they designate
them in ideas, and moreover, in language, as things ‘satisfying’ their
needs, hence things ‘satisfying’ them themselves (so long as the need of
man is not satisfied, he is dissatisfied with his needs, hence with
210
VALUE
himself); if one calls this ‘ascribing’ a ‘value’ to them ‘according to
German usage’, then one has proved that the general concept ‘value’
arises from the behaviour of men towards the things found in the
external world which satisfy their needs, and consequently that this is
the species-concept of 'value9and that all other sorts of value, as e.g. the
chemical value of the elements are only a subspecies.
It is ‘the natural drive’ of a German Professor of Political Economy
to derive the economic category ‘value’ from a ‘concept, and he ac­
hieves this by re-christening what in Political Economy is commonly
called ‘use-value’ as 'value* pure and simple, ‘according to German
usage’. And as soon as ‘value’ pure and simple has been found, it
serves in turn for deriving ‘use-value? again from ‘value pure and
simple’. For that, one has only to place the fragment ‘use’, which has
been dropped, once again, in front of ‘value’ pure and simple.
In fact it is Rau (see p 88), who says plainly that it ‘is necessary’ (for
German Professor-schoolmasters) ‘to establish what is meant under
value pure and simple’, and who naively asserts: ‘and for this it is in
accordance with German usage - to choose use-value\ (In chemistry, the
chemical value of an element means the number in which one of its
atoms can be combined with the atoms of other elements. But the
compound weight of the atoms also signified equivalence, the equi­
valent value of different elements, etc., etc. Hence one must first
define the concept ‘value pure and simple’ etc., etc.)
If man relates himself to things as ‘meansfor satisfying his needs?, then
he relates himself to them as ‘goods*, witness Wagner. He ascribes to
them the attribute ‘good’; the content of this operation is in no way
altered by Mr. Wagner re-christening this ‘ascribing value'. His own
lazÿ consciousness comes forthwith ‘to understanding’ in the next
sentence:
T h is h ap pens th rou gh th e assessment (th e a ssessm en t o f value), b y w h ich
value is ascribed to the goods, in relation to th e things of the external world , and
is its e lf measured.
We do not want to waste words on Mr. Wagner’s derivation o{value
from the assessment of value (he himself adds to the word assessment
the ‘assessment of value9 in parenthesis, in order ‘to bring to clear
consciousness and understanding’). ‘Man9has the ‘natural drive’ to do
this, to ‘assess’ goods as ‘values', and this permits Mr. Wagner to
derive the result, promised by him, of the ‘concept ofvalue in general’.
Wagner does not smuggle in ‘in relation to' the ‘things o f the external
NOTES ON WAGNER
211
world9y under the word ‘goods’ for nothing. He starts from this: Man
‘relates’ himself to ‘things of the external world’, which are the means
for satisfying his needs, as 'goods9. He assesses these things just by
relating himself to them as ‘goods’. And we have already had the
earlier ‘paraphrase’ for this ‘assessment’, reading, for example:
Alan stands as a needy b ein g in con tin u ou s contact w ith the external world
around h im , and discovers that in that external w orld lie many conditions of
his life and well-being, (p. 8)
This means nothing more than that he 'assesses the things of the
external world’ so far as they satisfy his ‘needy being’, so far as they are
the means for satisfying his needs, and for that reason, as we heard
earlier, he relates himself to them as ‘goods’.
Now, one can, particularly if one feels the ‘natural’ professorial
‘drive’ to derive the concept of value in general, ascribe to ‘the things
of the external world’ the attribute ‘goods’, even to name, to ‘ascribe
value9to them. One could also have said: Since man relates himself to
the things of the external world, which satisfy his needs, as ‘goods’, he
‘prizes’ them, hence he ascribes 'Price* to them, and then the deriva­
tion of the concept 'price pure and simple’ would be offered 'ready cut9
to the German Professor through the mode of procedure of 'man9.
Everything that the professor cannot do for himself, he lets 'man9do,
but he is in fact nothing but professorial man y who thinks to have
conceived the world, when he arranges it under abstract rubrics. But
so far as ‘to ascribe value9to the things of the external world is here
only another way of stating the expression to ascribe to them the
attribute 'goods*, then as Wagner wants to insinuate, 'value* is cer­
tainly not ascribed to the *goods9themselves as a determination differ­
ent from their ‘good-ness’. It is only the word ‘value’ substituted for
the word ‘good’. (As we see, the word 'price9 could also be substi­
tuted. The word 'treasure9 could also be substituted; since 'man9
stamps certain ‘things of the external world’ as 'goods9y he ‘treasures’
them and relates himself to them as a 'treasure*. ) Hence we see how the
three economic categories valueyprice, treasure can be conjured up at a
stroke by Mr. Wagner from ‘the natural drive of man’ to offer the
Professor his blockhead conceptual (imaginary) world. But Mr.
Wagner has the hidden urge to escape from his labyrinth of
tautologies and to obtain a ‘further something’ or ‘something further’
by false pretences. Hence the phrase: ‘by which value is ascribed to the
goods, respectively to the things of the external world etc.’ Since the
212
VALUE
stamping of ‘things of the external world’ as goods, i.e. ditto the
labelling andfixing of them (in ideas) as the meansfor satisfying human
needs, has been named by Mr. Wagner: to 'ascribe value to things’,
then he has just as litde excuse to call this ascribing »α/iMto ‘thegoods’
themselves, as he would have to speak of ascribing value to the ‘value’
of the things of the external world. But the somersault is made in the
expression 'to ascribe value to the goods, respectively to the things of the
external world'. Wagner would have been obliged to say: the stamp­
ing of certain things of the external world as 'goods' can also be called:
‘to ascribe value’ to these things, and this is the Wagnerianderivation of
the 'concept o f value' pure and simple, or in general. The content is not
altered through thisalteration of linguistic expression. It is always only
the labelling orfixing in ideas of the things of the external world which
are the means for satisfying human needs; in fact, it is only the
perception and recognition of certain things of the external world as means
for satisfying the needs o f'mari (who as such still suffers in fact from the
‘conceptual need’).
But Mr. Wagner wants to make us or himself believe that he,
instead of giving two names to the same content, has rather advanced
from the determination ‘good’ to a determination ‘value’, developed
and distinguished from it, and this happens simply by substitutingthe
word ‘goods’ for ‘things of the external world’, 'respectively to’, a
process which is ‘obscured’ again by substituting for ‘the goods’,
'respectively to', the ‘things of the external world’. His own confusion
achieves the certain effect of making his reader confused. He could
have reversed this pretty ‘derivation’ as follows: Since man differen­
tiates the things of the external world which are the means for satisfy­
ing his needs, the means of satisfaction as such, from the rest of the
things of the external world, and distinguishes them, appreciates them,
he ascribes value to them or gives them the attribute 'value' ; this can also
be expressed by saying that he ascribes to them the attribute 'good' as a
mark of character or considers or assesses them as ‘good’. In that way
the concept 'good' is ascribed to 'values', ‘respectively to' the things of
the external world. And thus the concept 'good' in general is ‘derived’
from the concept ‘value’. With all such derivations, it is simply a case
of bring diverted from the matter, whose resolution is beyond us.
But Mr. Wagner proceeds in the same breath from the ‘value’ of
goods to the 'measure' of this value.
The content remains absolutely the same, were the term value in
general not smuggled in. It could have been said: Since man stamps
NOTES ON WAGNER
213
certain things of the external world, which etc., a s‘goods', he comes
by and by to compare these ‘goods’ with one another and, correspond­
ing to the hierarchy of his needs, to bring them into a certain rank­
ordering, i.e. if we want to call it something, ‘to measure9 them.
Wagner may not speak at all of the development of the real measure of
these goods here, i.e. of the development of their measure of quantity,
since this would remind the reader too easily how little is in question
here, what is normally understood under ‘measure of value9.
(Like Rau, Wagner could not only demonstrate from ‘German
usage’ that distinguishing (pointing to) things of the external world,
which are the means for satisfying human needs, as ‘goods’, can also be
named: ‘to ascribe value’ to these things, but: since the Latin word
dignitas = worth, merit, rank etc., which ascribed to things, also means
'value9; dignitas is derived from dignus, and this from die,point out,
show, indicate; therefore dignus means pointed out;hence also digitus,
finger, with which one indiates a thing, points to it; in Greek: detknumiy dak-tylos (finger); in Gothic: ga-tecta (dico); in German: indicate
(zeigen); and we could take many more ‘derivations’ into considera­
tion, that deiknumi or deiknuo (make certain, bring to view9point out)
has the fundamental stem dek (hold out, take) in common with
dekhomai.
Wagner accomplishes all this banality, tautological muddle,
quibbling over words, surreptitious manoeuvres in fewer than seven
lines.
After this trick, it is no wonder that this obscurantist (vir obscurus)
proceeds with great confidence:
T h e m u ch d isp u ted con cept o f v a lu e y still obscured b y m any o n ly a p p a re n tly
p ro fo u n d in q u iries , is easily un tangled [indeed] [rather ‘is com plicated*] if
o n e , as was don e hitherto [nam ely b y W agner] starts out from n eed and the
econom ic n atu re o f m an , and reaches th e con cept o f goody and to th a t con cep t
— connects th e concept o f v a lu e . (p 4 6 ) .
We have here the conceptual economy, whose alleged elucidation by
the obscurantist runs to the ‘connecting’ and, so to speak, to the
'disconnecting9.
Further deduction of the value-concept:
Subjective and objective value. Subjective: and in the most universal
sense the value of the good =meaning which is attributed ‘to the good on
account o f its utility.. .not a characteristic of things in themselves, even
214
VALUE
if value has the utility of a thing as its presupposition . . .’ In the
objective sense, one understands by ‘value*, ‘values* the valuepossessing goods too at the point where (!) good and value, goods and
values become essentially identical concepts.
After Wagner has altered the name of that which is customarily
named ‘use value9 to‘value in general9, to ‘value-concept as such, he can
not fail to recall that ‘the value derived (!) in this way [so! so! ] is the
“use-value”t After he went ahead and altered the name of ‘use-value*
to ‘value-concept* in general, to ‘value as such’, he then latterly
discovers that he is only babbling about ‘use-value*, and hence has
‘derived* it, since nowadays babbling and deriving are ‘essentially*
identical thought-operations. But upon this occasion we experience
just how subjective this previously ‘objective* conceptual confusion of
Professor Wagner really is. Namely, he reveals a mystery to us.
Rodbertus has written a letter to him (to be found in Tübinger
Magazine 1878) where he expounds just why ‘there is only one kind of
value’, use-value. Ί* (Wagner) ‘have adopted this interpretation
whose significance I once emphasized in the first edition.* Concerning
what Rodbertus says, Wagner says: ‘That is completely correct and
necessary for the alteration of the usual, illogical “division” of “value99
into use-value and exchange-value, as I had projected in the first
edition.’ And this same Wagner ranks me among the people according
to whom ‘use-value’ should be completely ‘eliminated from science*.
That is all babbling. In the first place, I do not proceed on the basis
of ‘concepts* hence also not from the ‘value-concept*, and I do not
have the task of ‘dividing* it up in any way, for that reason. What I
proceed from is the simplest social form in which the product of
labour in contemporary society manifests itself, and this is as ‘com­
modity*. That is what I analyse, and first of all to be sure in the/orm in
which it appears. Now I find at this point that it is, on the one hand, in
its natural form a thing of use-value, alias use-value, and on the other
hand that it is bearer of exchange-value, and is itself an exchange-value
from this point of view. Through further analysis of the latter I
discovered that exchange-value is only an ‘appearance-/orm’, an inde­
pendent mode of manifestation of the value which is contained in the
commodity, and then I approach the analysis of this value. Hence, I
explicitly write: ‘If it says at the beginning of this chapter in the
routine manner: the commodity is use-value and exchange-value,
this is strictly speaking false. The commodity is use-value or useobject and “value” . It manifests itself as the duality that it is as soon as
NOTES ON WAGNER
215
its value possesses a proper appearance-form different from its natural
form, that o f“exchange-value” etc.’ So I do not divide it into use-value
and exchange-value as opposites into which the abstract, ‘val­
ue* splits, but rather the concrete social shape of the labour-product, the
‘commodity’, is on the one hand use-value and on the other hand
value’, not exchange-value, since this is merely appearance/orm, not
its own content.
Second: Only an obscurantist who has understood not a word of
Capital can conclude: Because Marx repudiates all Germanic profes­
sorial nonsense about ‘use-value* in general in a note to the first
edition of Capital, and refers readers who wish to know something
about actual use-values to ‘Introduction to Commodity Theory*— for
that reason, use-value plays no role in his work. Naturally* it does not
play the role of its contrary, ‘value*, which has nothing in common
with it apart from the fact that ‘value’ occurs in the name ‘use-value*.
He could just as well have said that ‘exchange-value’ is ignored in
my work because it is only appearance-form of value, but it is not
‘value’, since for me the ‘value* of a commodity is neither its use-value
nor its exchange-value.
If one has the task of analysing the ‘commodity* — the simplest
economic concretum — then one must keep all relationships distant
which have nothing to do with the proposed object of analysis. What is
to be said of the commodity insofar as it is a use-value, I have said in
a few lines, therefore, but on the other hand have emphasized the
characteristicform in which the use-value (the labour-product) appears
at this point, namely: ‘A thing can be useful and a product of human
labour without being a commodity. Whoever satisfies his own need by
his product creates a use-value, admittedly, but not a commodity. In
order to produce a commodity, he not only has to produce a use-value,
but a use-value for others, social use-value.’ (This is the root of Rodbertus’ ‘social use-value’.) Thereby use-value (as use-value of the ‘com­
modity*) itself possesses a history-specific character. In primitive
communities in which (e.g.) food is produced and distributed in
common among the members of the commune, the common product
satisfies the needs of life of each member of the commune, of each
producer; the social character of the product (the use-value) resides in
this case in its communal character. (Mr. Rodbertus on the contrary
metamorphoses the ‘social use-value’ of the commodity into ‘social
use-value’ as such, and hence babbles away.)
Thus it would be pure babbling (as emerges from the preceding) in
216
VALUE
the analysis of the commodity — since it manifests itself on the one
hand as use-value or good and on the other hand as ‘value’ — just to
'tie on’ upon this occasion all sorts of banal reflections concerning
use-values or goods which do not fall within the realm of the world of
commodities, like 'state-goods’, ‘communal-goods’, etc., as Wagner
and the German professor does in general, or concerning the good
‘health’, etc. Where the state is itself a capitalistic producer (as in the
case of the exploitation of mines, forests, etc.) its product is a 'com­
modity’ and hence possesses the specific character of every commodi­
ty.
On the other hand, this obscurantist has overlooked the fact that
even in the analysis of the commodity my work does not simply stop
with the dual modality in which it manifests itself, but rather there is
an immediate progress on to the fact that within this duality of the
commodity what is manifested is a double character o f labour, the
product of which the commodity is: of useful labour, i.e., of the
concrete modes of labours which create use-values, and of abstract
labour, of labour as expenditure o f labour-power, irrespective of what
‘useful’ manner it is expended in (which is the basis for the presenta­
tion of the process of production, later on); the fact that in the
development of the value-form of the commodity (in the last instance
of its money-form, hence of money) the value of a commodity presents
itself in the use-value of the other commodity (i.e., in the natural form
of the other commodity); the fact that surplus-value itself is derived
from a use-value o f labour-power which is ‘specific’ and applies exclu­
sively to it, etc., etc., thus the fact that in my work use-value plays a
very important role different from in previous Economics, but that it
precisely only comes under consideration always where such consid­
eration comes from the analysis of a given economic structuring, not
from intellectualizing hither and yon about the concepts or words
‘use-value’ and ‘value’.
On the other hand, even if it is not on occasion of the commodity’s
‘use-value’ that during an analysis definitions o f‘capital’ are straight­
away tied on which must obviously be utter nonsense as long as we
are still standing right at the point of analysing the elements of the
commodity.
What bores (shocks) Mr. Wagner in my presentation is the fact that
I do not do him the favour of following the German-chauvinist
Professor-like ‘striving’, and confound use-value and value with one
another. Although German society is very late in formation, it has
NOTES ON WAGNER
217
nevertheless arrived at capitalist economy after struggling gradually
upwards from the feudal natural-economy or at least out of a situation
in which that was the economy which dominated, but the professors
still stand with one foot in the old muck, which is natural. They have
metamorphosed themselves out of serfs of land-owners into serfs of
the state, commonly known as the government. Consequently, our
obscurantist too, who has not even noted that my analytical method,
which does not proceed from Man but rather from the period of
society given by economics, has nothing in common with the
concept-trying method of German professors (‘It’s nice to fight with
words)with words you can make a system*), and that is why he says: 'I
give priority to the use-value-character of all value, in agreement with
Rodbertus* interpretation and also that of Schäffie, and emphasize the
use-value estimation all the more because the exchange-value estima­
tion simply is utterly inapplicable to many of the most important
economic goods’ [What forces him to make an application? So as
civil-servant he feels obliged to confound use-value and value!], ‘for
instance, not to the state and its performance, nor to other common
economic relationships.* [This reminds one of the old-time chemists
before the science of chemistry: because cow-butter, which in ordi­
nary life is simply called butter after northern custom, has a soft
consistency, for that reason they named Chloride, zinc-butter,
antimony-butter, etc., butter-elixirs, and thus kept firm hold on the
Jufter-character (to use our obscurantist’s terminology) of all chloride,
zinc, antimony-compounds.] This drivel amounts to the following:
Because certain goods, namely the state (a good!) and its ‘perfor­
mances’ (especially the performances of its professors of Political
Economy) aie not ‘commodities’, for that reason the contrary charac­
ters which are contained in the ‘commodities’ themselves (which also
appear explicitly in the commodity-form of the labour-product) have to
be confounded with one another! With regard to Wagner and his
consorts it is in any case difficult to claim that they win more when
their ‘performances’ are ‘assessed’ by their ‘use-value’, their objective
‘content’, than when they are ‘assessed’ by their ‘contenf (determined
by ‘social-tax’, as Wagner puts it); i.e., by their pay.
[The only clear thing that lies at the basis of German stupidity is the
fact that linguistically the words: value or assessment were first applied
to the useful things themselves which existed for a long time even as
‘labour-products’ before they turned into commodities. That, how­
ever, has just exactly as much to do with the scientific determination
218
VALUE
of ‘commodity-value* as the circumstance that the wordsa/ί was first
applied by the ancients to cooking-salt and consequently even sugar,
etc., count as species of salt since Pliny’s time (indeed, all colourless,
solid bodies which are soluble in water and have a particular taste),
and for that reason the chemical category ‘salt’ contains sugar, etc.,
within itself.]
(Since the commodity is purchased by the buyer, not because it has
value, but because it is ‘use-value’ and is used for determinate pur­
poses, it is completely self-evident, 1. that use-values are ‘assessed’,
i.e. their quality is examined (just as their quantity is measured,
weighed etc.; 2. that if different sorts of commodities can be substi­
tuted for one another in the same useful employment, this or that is
given preference etc. etc.).
In Gothic there is ‘only one word for value (Wert) and worth
(Würde): vairths, time (tima-o — to assess, which is to estimate; to
determine the price or value ; to rate, to value (würdigen) metaphysical­
ly, to assess the value, to hold in esteem, to mark. Timé —assessment,
hence: the determination of value or price, an estimate, make an
assessment. Then: estimation of value, also value, price itself
(Herodotus, Plato), ai tintai — expenses in Demosthenes. Then: assess­
ment of value, honour, regard, honorary post, honorary office etc.,
Greek-German Lexicon by Rost.)
Valuey price {Schulze, Glossary)Gothic: vairths, adj., axios, ikanos\
Old Norse: verdhr, worthy {würdig), verdh, value, price; AngloSaxon: verordh, vurdh; English: worth, adj. and subst. value (Wert)
and worth (Würde).
Middle High German : wert, gen. werdes, adj. dignus and in the same way,
pfenninewert.
-wert, gen. werdes, value {Werth), worth [Würde), excellence ( Herrlichkeit),
aestimatio, commodity of determinate value, e.g. pfenwert, pennyworth.
-werde: meritum, aestimatio, dignitas, valuable quality. (Ziemann, Middle
High German Dictionary)
Hence value and worth are completely inter-related, in etymology and
meaning. What conceals the matter is the inorganic (false) mode of
inflection of value (Wert) which became current in New High German:
Werth, Werthes, instead of Werdes, for the High German d corres­
ponds to the Gothic th, not th = t , and this is also the case in Middle
High German (wert, gen. werdes, the same). According to the Middle
High German rule the d at the end of the word would have to become
t, hence wert instead of werd, but genitive werdes.
NOTES ON WAGNER
219
But this has just as much, and just as little, to do with the economic
category ‘value’ as with the chemical value of the chemical elements
(atomicity) or with the chemical equivalents or equivalent values
(compound weights of the chemical elements).
Further, even in the linguistic relationship — if from the original
identity of worth (Würde) and value (Wert) it follows, as from the
nature of the thing, that this word is applied to things, labourproducts in their natural form — it was later directly transferred,
unaltered to prices, i.e. to value in its developed value-form — i.e.
exchange-value, which has as little to do with the matter as that the
word was employed extensively for worth in general, for honorary
office etc. Hence there is no linguistic distinction here between usevalue and value.
We now approach the sponsor of our obscurantist, Rodbertus.
What our obscurantist quotes from Rodbertus is the following: In the
text on page 48: ‘There is only one kind of value and that is use-value.
This is either individual use-value or social use-value. The former
confronts the individual and his needs without any regard for social
organization.’ [This is already idiocy. Compare Capital, Vol. I, p. 184
where it is written that the labour-process as purposeful activity
directed towards the making of use-values, etc. ‘is equally common to
all the social forms' (of human life) and ‘is independent of each of
same’.] [First, it is not the word ‘use-value’ which confronts the
individual but concrete use-values and ]ust which out of such use-values
are the ones to ‘confront’ him depends completely upon the level of
the social process of production, and thus in addition never corres­
ponds to ‘a social organization’. If Rodbertus, however, only means
the triviality that the use-value, which really confronts an individual
as an object of use, confronts him as individual use-value, then that is
a trivial tautology, or even false since (not to speak of such things as
rice, corn, or wheat, or meat, — which doesn’t confront a Hindu as
food) the need to have the title of professor or Privy Councillor, or of
some order is only possible for an individual in utterly specific ‘social
organization*.] ‘The second is the use-value which asocial organism
consisting of many individual organisms (or individuals) has.’ What
beautiful German! Is he talking here about ‘use-value’ of the ‘social
organism’, or about a use-value (like land in primitive communes,
e.g.) which is situated in the possession of a ‘social organism’, or about
the particular ‘social’ form of the use-value in a social organism, as in a
220
VALUE
place, e.g., where commodity-production is what prevails, so the
use-value which a producer provides has to be ‘use-value for others*
and in this sense ‘social use-value’? There is nothing even to begin to
do with such flaccid droolings.
Thus we pass to another sentence of our Wagner’s Faust*: ‘The
exchange-value is only the historical drapery and supplement of the
social use-value from a particular historical period. By confronting
use-value with one exchange-value as logical contrary, one puts an
historical concept into logical contrariety to a logical concept, a thing
which won’t do in logic.’ (Rodbertus) ‘That is,’ rejoices Wagnerus on
the occasion, ‘that is completely correct*! Who is it that does this
‘confronting’? It is certain that Rodbertus means me with that
remark, since he has written a ‘big, thick manuscript against Capital'
according to his slavey, R. Meyer. Who puts into logical contrariety?
Mr. Rodbertus for whom ‘use-value’ and ‘exchange-value* are both
mere ‘concepts’ in their very nature. In actuality, every single kind of
commodity in every monetary price passes through this illogical
process of distinguishing itself as good, use-value, as cotton, yarn,
iron, grain, etc., from the others, but at the same time its price, as
qualitatively the same, but quantitatively different though of ihe same
essence. It presents itself in its natural form for the one who needs it,
and in the value-form which is completely different from it but which
is common to it along with all other commodities, just as it presents
itself as exchange-value. What is at issue here is a ‘logical’ contrariety
only in the work of Rodbertus and those German professorial
school-masters who are related to him, who proceed on the basis of the
‘concept* value, no ton the basis of the ‘social thing’, ‘the commodity’;
and have this concept doubled into itself split itself, and then argue
about which of the two phantoms is the real Jacob!
What lies in the dreary background of the pompous phrases is
simply the immortal discovery that man in all circumstances has to
eat, drink, etc. (one cannot even proceed: dress, use knife and fork or
beds or houses, since this is not the case in all circumstances); in brief,
that he has to find external things for the satisfaction of his needs
ready in nature in all circumstances, and must get control of them or
prepare them out of things that are found in nature; in this actual
procedure of his he relates himself, thus, factually to certain external
things continuously as ‘use-values’, i.e., he continuously treats them
* A referen ce to G o eth e’s F au st, w here W agner is th e nam e o f F a u s t’s serv an t. So
‘W ag n er’s Faust* is R o d b e rtu s.
NOTES ON WAGNER
221
as objects for his use. Consequently, use-value is for Rodbertus a
logical’ concept: thus, since man must also breathe, for that reason
‘breathing’ is a ‘logical’ concept, but above all not a ‘physiological’
one. The entire shallowness of Rodbertus stands revealed, however,
in his setting of ‘logical’ and ‘historical’ concepts into contrariety! He
only grasps ‘value’ (the economic one as opposed to the use-value of
the commodity) in its appearance-form, exchange-value, and since this
only appears where at least some part or other of labour-products (of
use-objects) functions as ‘commodities’, but this doesn’t happen from
the beginning, but only within a particular level of historical
development, for that reason the exchange-value is an ‘historical’
concept. Now if Rodbertus had gone on to analyse the exchange-value
of commodities (I shall say below why he has not seen this)— for this
only exists where commodities occur in the plural, different sorts of
commodities — then he would find ‘value’ behind this appearanceform. If he had gone on to investigate value, he would have gone on to
find that in it the thing, the ‘use-value’, counts as mere objectification
of human labour, as expenditure of equal human labour-power, and
consequently this content is manifested as objective character of the
entity, as character which inheres in it itself in an entitative way,
although this objectivity (of abstractly human labour) does not appear
in the commodity’s natural form (which is precisely what makes a
particular value-form necessary). Thus he would have found that the
‘value’ of the commodity only expresses in a historically developed
form a thing that exists just as much in all other historical social forms,
even if it is manotherfom, namely social character o f labour insofar as it
exists as expenditure o f social labour-power. If ‘the value’ of the com­
modity is thus only a particular historical form, something which
exists in all social forms, then also the ‘social use-value’ as it charac­
terizes the ‘use-value’ of the commodity. Mr. Rodbertus has the
measure of value-magnitude from Ricardo: but he just as little as
Ricardo has investigated or grasped the substance of value itself: e.g.,
the ‘common’ character of the labour-process in the primitive com­
mune as total-organism of the labour-powers which belong together
and consequently the ‘common’ character of their labour, i.e. of the
expenditures of these powers.
Any more nonsense of Wagner would be superfluous at this time.
Measure oîvalue-magmtude. Mr. Wagner incorporates me here, but
finds to his regret, that I have ‘eliminated’ the ‘labour o f forming
capital.’ (p 58)
222
VALUE
Ίη a commerce regulated by organs of society, the determination of
tax-values (or tax-prices) under appropriate consideration of this costcomponent' [that is what he calls the quantum of labour expended in
production] 'must occur just as it also took place in the earlier gov­
ernmental and commercial taxes in principle, and in any kind of new
tax-system9[socialist! is what is meant] 'would have to happen again.
The costs are not, however in free trade the exclusive cause of the
determination of the exchange values and prices, and cannot be such
in any thinkable social condition. For independently of costs, there
must constantly be alterations occurring in use-values and needs,
whose influence on exchange-value and prices (contractual and tax
prices) proceeds to modify the influence o fcosts and must modify them*
etc. (p 58,59). ‘The’ [namely this one of his!] ‘acute correction of the
socialist theory of value . . . is to attribute to Schäffle’ (!) who says:
‘In no kind of social influencing of needs and productions can it bç
avoided that all needs remain qualitatively and quantitatively in each
case in equilibrium with productions.9 But if that is the case, then
4social cost-value-quotients cannot count at the same time proportionally
as social use-value quotients\ (p 59).
To the fact that this reduces to the triviality of the rising and falling
of the market-prices above or below value, and to the presupposition
that in ‘Marx’s social-state’ his own value theory developed for
bourgeois society is determinant — the following phrase of Wagner
bears witness:
‘They’ [the prices] ‘will depart at times more or less’ [from costs],
‘rise in the case of goods whose use-value has become smaller. Only in
the long run will the costs always be able to assert themselves again as
decisive regulator,’ etc. (p 59).
Law. For the fantasy of our obscurantist concerning the creative
economic influence of law, one phrase suffices, although he keeps
getting in a fix over and over on account of the absurd viewpoint
contained in it:
‘The economic unit has at its head, as organ of its technical and
economic activity . . . a person as legal and economic subject. This is
again no mere economic phenomenon, but at the same time depen­
dent upon the structuring of the law. For this disposes over the
question of who counts as person, and thereby who can stand at the
head of an economic unit,’ etc. (p 65).
NOTES ON WAGNER
223
Means of communication and transportation. (p 80)
From p 82: where the ‘change in the (natural) constituent parts of
the mass of commodities’ [of an economy, elsewhere christened by
Wagner ‘exchange of goods’, is explained as Schäffle’s ‘social
metabolism’ — at least one case of same; I have employed the word,
however, even in the case of the ‘natural’ process of production as
metabolism between man and nature] is borrowed from me, where this
metabolism first turns up in an analysis of C-M-C and is called
interruptions of the form-exchange, and later also as interruptions of
the metabolism (matter-exchange).
As for what Mr. Wagner says about the ‘inner exchange’ of those
goods which are situate*! in one branch of production (in his work
called an ‘economic unit’) partly with reference to their ‘use-value’,
partly with reference to their ‘value’, that is also discussed in my work
in the analysis of the first phase of C-M-C, namely, C-M, the example
of the linen-weaver (<Capital, Vol. I, p 107f) where we read: O u r
commodity-owners discover as a consequence that the same division
of labour that turns them into independent private producers, also
frees the social process of production and their own relationships
within the process from any dependence upon themselves, and that
the independence of persons from one another completes itself in a
system of all-sided material dependence.’
The contracts for the commercial acquüition of goods. Here our obs­
curantist turns mine and thine upside down. For him law comes first
and then commerce; in reality, it is the other way around: first
commerce and then a legal structure develops out of it. On occasion of
the analysis of commodity circulation, I have shown that in developed
commercial exchange, the exchangers tacitly recognize each other as
equal persons and owners of the commodities to be exchanged by
them, respectively; they do that even as they are offering each other
their goods and combine for the purpose of transaction. This factual
relationship which arises through and within exchange itself later
obtains/ega/form in the contract, etc.; but this form created neither its
content, exchange, nor the relationship in presence o f the persons amongst
one another but rather the other way around. Wagner writes:
y
y
‘This acquisition’ [of goods through commerce] ‘necessarily pre­
supposes a determinate legal structure on whose basis’ (!) ‘commerce
proceeds’ etc. (p 84).
224
VALUE
Credit. Instead of providing the development of money as means of
payment y Wagner turns the process of circulation, insofar as it pro­
ceeds in the form that both equivalents do not confront each other at
the same time in C-M, directly into a ‘credit-transaction’ (p 85),
whereby it is ‘added on’ that this is often connected with ‘interest*payment; it serves in addition to ‘give confidence* and thereby repres­
ent ‘confidence’ as a basis of ‘credit*.
Credit is 'consumers’ credit’ or ‘productive credit* (p 86). The former
is predominant at a low cultural level, and the latter at a ‘higher’.*
Concerning the causes o f indebtedness [causes of pauperism: crop
fluctuations, military service, competition from slaves] in ancient
Rome.
For Mr. Wagner, on the ‘lower level’ ‘consumers’ credit’ prevails
amongst ‘lower, constrained’ classes and ‘higher profligate’ classes. In
fact, in England, America, ‘consumers’ aedif is universally prevalent
with the development o f the system o f deposit banks!
Namely, productive-credit shows itself as an economic factor of that
national economy which is based upon private property of the land
and moveable capital and allows free competition. It ties itself to the
possesnon of the estate not to the estate as purely economic category’,
and is consequently a merely ‘historic legal category’ (!) (p 87).
Dependence o f the economic unit and of the estate upon the effects o f the
outside world, especially the influence o f the conjuncture in the national
economy.
1. Changes in use-value : they improve in some cases throughpos&zgi
of time, as condition of certain natural processes (wine, cigars, violins,
etc.)
‘They get worse in the large majority of cases . . . dissolve into their
material components as a result of “ accidents of all kinds” .’ Change in
exchange-value in the same direction corresponds to 'increase in value’
or *decrease in value’ (p 96f). Look into the homing leases in Berlin (p 97).
2. Altered human awareness o f the qualities o f the goods; the ‘estate is
increased’ thereby in the potitroe case. {Application o fcoal to the smelting
of iron in England about 1620, when the diminution of forests was
already threatening the continuation of the iron works; chemical
discoveries like that of iodine (usage of iodine salts). Phosphorite as
fertilizer. Anthracite as heating material. Materials for gas illumina­
tion, picture projection. Discovery of colour and pharmacological
* M a rx 's text in v erts former a n d latter; h ere w e have altered th em back. — E d.
NOTES ON WAGNER
225
materials. Guttapercha, rubber, vegetable ivory (from Phytelephas
Macrocarpa). Creosote. Paraffin candles. Usage of asphalt, of fir­
needles (forest-wool), of gases in the blast-furnace, coal-tar for prep­
aration of aniline, wool rags, saw-blades, etc., etc.). In the negative
case y decrease in the utility and therefore of the value (as after the
discovery of the trichinae in pork, poisons in colours, plants, etc.) (p
97,98). Discoveries of mining-products in the soil, new useful proper­
ties of his products, discovery of new applicability of same increases
the estate of the land-owner (p 98).
3. Conjuncture
Influence of all the external ‘conditions’, which contribute essen­
tially to the ‘provision of goods for commerce, the desire for them and
their safe’ . . . consequently to the determination of their ^exchangevalue'^ even that ‘of the single already prepared good’ . . . ‘wholly or
predominandy independently' o f‘the economic subject’ or ‘possessor’
(p 98). Conjuncture is the ‘decisive factor9in the esystem offree competi­
tion9. The one — (‘by means of the principle o f private property9) —
gains thereby ‘what he hasn*teamed’, and so the other suffers ‘losses’,
‘decreases not economically deserved’.
Concerning speculation (p 101). Prices of dwellings. Coal and Iron
industry. Countless changes in technique decrease the values of the
products of industry as well as of the instruments of production (p
102).
In the case of ‘a national economy which is progressing in popula­
tion and well-being, favourable chances predominate, even if there are
occasional temporal and local reverses and fluctuations, in the case of
landed property and especially in the case of city (metropolitan).’ (p
102)
‘Thus the conjuncture hands the land-owner, especially, earnings’
(p 103). ‘These just as most other earnings in value from the conjunc­
ture are . .. only pure gambling earnings’ to which ‘gambling losses’
correspond (p 103).
Ditto concerning commerce in grain.
So it must ‘be openly acknowledged:. . . the economic situation of
the individual or family’ is ‘essentially a product o f the conjuncture’ and
this ‘necessarily decreases the significance ofpersonal economic respon­
sibility.9 (p 104)
So if ‘the contemporary organisation of the national economy’ and the
‘legal basis’ for it (!) is why (‘and hence private property . . . in land
and capital’) there is ‘an unalterable dispotition of things for the most
226
VALUE
part’, then, after much mealy-mouthedness, there proves to be no
means ‘for the struggle against the causes9(of the misery which arises
out of it, as for example constriction of the market, crises, unemploy­
ment, reduction in wages, etc.) and ‘consequently against this evil
itself, while Mr. Wagner believes he is struggling with the ‘symp­
toms’, the ‘consequences of the evil’, by getting at the ‘conjunctural
earnings’ by taxation, and at the ‘losses which were not economically
deserved*, the product of the conjuncture, by a ‘rational. . . system of
insurance9 (p 105).
This, says Obscurantist, is the result if one considers the contem­
porary mode of production with its ‘legal basis’ as ‘unchangeable’; his
investigations which go deeper than socialism will attack the ‘matter
itself directly. We shall see how.
Single chief components which form the conjuncture.
1. Fluctuations in the yields of the chief means of nourishment through
the influence of weather and political relationships, such as disruptions
in agriculture through war. Producers and consumers are influenced
thereby (p 106). [Increased rate of mortality of the lower layers of the
population at present with each little rise in price, 'certainly a proof of
how little the average wage in the mass of the labouring class rises above
the amount absolutely necessary for life’ (p 106).] Improvements in the
means o f communication (‘at once the most important presupposition
for a speculative commerce in grain which evens out the prices’),
altered methods of tilling soil (*economy o f alternating foods9 by means of
‘the cultivation of different products, which are variously favoured or
disfavoured by differing climatic conditions’); consequently, smaller
fluctuations in grain prices within brief periods compared ‘with Middle
Ages and Antiquity’. But even modern fluctuations are still very
large.
2. Changes in technique. New methods of production. Bessemer steel
instead of iron, etc. (p 107). Introduction of machines in place of manual
labour.
3. Changes in the means of communication and transportation,
which influence the spatial movement of men and goods: The value of
land and soil and the article of low specific value is thereby affected;
entire branches of production are forced to a difficult transition to
other business methods (p 107). [Increase in the value of land in the
vicinity of good communications, on account of better marketing of the
products gained on the spot; alleviation of the over-population in cities,
hence enormous increase in the value of area in cities and in the value of
NOTES ON WAGNER
227
the vicinity to such places. Alleviated transportation away from regions
with hitherto cheap prices for grain, and of other raw materials for
employment in the economics of farm and forest, mining products
into regions with higher prices; the economic condition of all elements
of the population with rather stable income is thereby threatened in
the former regions, whereas there is a favouring of the producers and
especially of the landowners there. The alleviated importation of grain
and other materials of low specific value has the opposite effect. It
favours consumers, disfavours producers in the land importing; there
is a compulsion to transfer to other productions, as in England from
grain growing to animal husbandry in the 1840s as a result of the
competition from the cheap East European grain in Germany. A
difficult situation now obtains for the German inn-keepers on account
of the climate y then, because of the recent important wage-increases
which they could not pass off to the products as easily as the indus­
trialists could.
4. Changes in taste! Modes y etc., often vanishing completely after a
brief time.
5. Political changes in the national and international areas of com­
merce (war, revolution, etc.); insofar as confidence and distrust are
thereby rendered ever more important in the case of an increasing
division of labour, development of international commerce, effect of
the credit factor, huge dimensions of modern warfare, etc. (p 108).
6. Changes in agrarian, business and commercial politics. (Example:
British corn-law reforms.).
7. Changes in the spatial distribution and economic total situation of
the entire population y like immigration from the countryside into the
cities (p 108,109).
8. Changes in the social and economic situation o f the individual layers
o f the population y as through granting the right to unionize, etc. [The
French 5 billion fr. of reparations.]
Costs in the economic unit. Under ‘value’-producing ‘labour’ in
which all costs resolve, the ‘labour’ in the correct broad sense must be
taken up, in which it ‘embraceseverything that is necessary in human,
purposeful activities for the gaining of benefits,’ thus also in fact, ‘the
intellectual labour of the director and the activity whereby capital is
formed and used’, and ‘consequently’ the ‘capital winning’ which
pays for this activity also belongs to the ‘constitutive elements of the
228
VALUE
costs’. ‘This interpretation contradicts the socialist value- and costtheory and its critique of capital.’ ( p i l l )
Obscurantist attributes to me the view that ‘the surplus value
produced only by workers remains in unconscionable fashion in the
hands of the capitalist entrepreneurs’ (p 114). Now I say the direct
opposite: namely, that commodity production necessarily turns into
‘capitalist’ commodity production at a certain point, and that in
accordance with the law o f value which rules it, the surplus-value
belongs to the capitalist and not to the worker. Instead of involving
himself in such Sophistic, the professorial-socialist character of Obs­
curantist maintains its distance by the following banality, that the
‘unconditional opponents of socialists . . . overlook the admittedly
numerous instances of exploitative relationships in which the gross
yield is not correctly (!) distributed, the production costs o f the economic
units are lowered too much to the disfavour of workers (including the
loaning capitalists) and to the favour of the businessman.’
National income in England and France.
The yearly gross product of a nation:
1. Totality of the goods newly produced in the year. Add the
internal raw materials completely in accordance with their value; the
objects made out of such and out o f imported materials [in order to avoid
tabulating the raw products twice] for the amount of the increase in
value achieved by the industrial labour ; the raw materials and partially
manufactured items which are turned over and transported in commerce
for the amount of the increase in value accomplished thereby.
2. Import of money and commodities from foreign countries under the
title of rents for rights of demand of the native business from aedittransactions or from capital-investments of native citizens in foreign
countries.
3. Freight profit as result of import of foreign goods of native
haulage in foreign commerce and traffic between countries.
4. Ready money or commodities brought in from abroad as remittances
for foreigners resident inland.
5. Import composed of unrecompensed gifts, as in the case of lasting
tributes of foreign countries to the native country, of continuous immig­
ration and consequently a regular immigration-estate.
6. Value excess o f the commodity- and money-import resulting from
international commerce, [but then one must subtract the exportation to
foreign countries].
NOTES ON WAGNER
229
For the net proceeds, among other things subtract the ‘export of
commodities in payment for the freight earnings o f foreign haulage
companies’ (p 113). [The matter is not that simple: Price o fproduction
(inland) + freight = price of sale. If the native country exports its own
commodities on its own vessels, then foreign countries pay the
freight costs at whatever the market price is that prevails there, etc.]
Along with perpetual tributes there are regular payments to foreign
subjects in foreign countries (bribery, as from Persia to Greeks, salaries
offoreign scholars under Louis XIV, tithes to the Catholic Church in
Rome) which must be reckoned in.
Compare the naive kinds of income divisions ofprivate citizens which
consist in ‘State and Church obligations*.
Why not the subsidies which German Princes regularly drew from
France and England?
Single and national economic value assessment.
The destruction of a part of a provirion of commodities, in order to sell
the rest at a higher price, is called by Cournot ‘a veritable creation of
wealth in the commercial sense of the word.*
Comparison concerning the decrease in the provisions of private
persons for consumption or,as Wagner calls «, of their ‘use-capital* in
our period of culture, namely in Berlin; there is too little money or
personal business-capital in the business o f production itself.
Relatively greater significance of foreign trade at present, p. 131.