Thusthecontradictioninherentinthecommodityassuch,namelythatofbeingaparticularuse—valueandsimultaneouslyuniversalequivalent,andhenceause—valueforeverybodyorauniversaluse—value,hasbeensolvedinthecaseofthisonecommodity。Whereasnowtheexchange—valueofallothercommoditiesisinthefirstplacepresentedintheformofanidealequationwiththecommoditythathasbeensetapart,anequationwhichhasstilltoberealised;theuse—valueofthiscommodity,thoughreal,seemsintheexchangeprocesstohavemerelyaformalexistencewhichhasstilltoberealisedbyconversionintoactualuse—values。Thecommodityoriginallyappearedascommodityingeneral,asuniversallabour—timematerialisedinapartieularuse—value。Allcommoditiesarecomparedintheexchangeprocesswiththeoneexcludedcommoditywhichisregardedascommodityingeneral,thecommodity,theembodimentofuniversallabour—timeinaparticularuse—value。Theyarethereforeasparticularcommoditiesopposedtooneparticularcommodityconsideredasbeingtheuniversalcommodity。[ThesametermisusedbyGenovesi。（Noteinauthor\'scopy。）]Thefactthatcommodity—ownerstreatoneanother\'slabourasuniversalsociallabourappearsintheformoftheirtreatingtheirowncommoditiesasexchange—values;andtheinterrelationofcommoditiesasexchange—valuesintheexchangeprocessappearsastheiruniversalrelationtoaparticularcommodityastheadequateexpressionoftheirexchange—value;thisinturnappearsasthespecificrelationofthisparticularcommoditytoallothercommoditiesandhenceasthedistinctive,asitwerenaturallyevolved,socialcharacterofathing。Theparticularcommoditywhichthusrepresentstheexchange—valueofallcommodities,thatistosay,theexchange—valueofcommoditiesregardedasaparticular,exclusivecommodity,constitutesmoney。Itisacrystallizationoftheexchange—valueofcommoditiesandisformedintheexchangeprocess。Thus,whileintheexchangeprocesscommoditiesbecomeuse—valuesforoneanotherbydiscardingalldeterminateformsandconfrontingoneanotherintheirimmediatephysicalaspect,theymustassumeanewdeterminateformthey——mustevolvemoney,soastobeabletoconfrontoneanotherasexchange—values。
Moneyisnotasymbol,justastheexistenceofause—valueintheformofacommodityisnosymbol。Asocialrelationofproductionappearsassomethingexistingapartfromindividualhumanbeings,andthedistinctiverelationsintowhichtheyenterinthecourseofproductioninsocietyappearasthespecificpropertiesofathing——itisthispervertedappearance,thisprosaicallyreal,andbynomeansimaginary,mystificationthatischaracteristicofallsocialformsoflabourpositingexchange—value。Thispervertedappearancemanifestsitselfmerelyinamorestrikingmannerinmoneythanitdoesincommodities。
Thenecessaryphysicalpropertiesoftheparticularcommodity,inwhichthemoneyformofallothercommoditiesistobecrystallised——insofarastheydirect]yfollowfromthenatureofexchange—value——are:unlimiteddivisibility,homogeneityofitspartsanduniformqualityofallunitsofthecommodity。Asthematerialisationofuniversallabour—timeitmustbehomogeneousandcapableofexpressingonlyquantitativedifferences。
Anothernecessarypropertyisdurabilityofitsuse—valuesinceitmustendurethroughtheexchangeprocess。Preciousmetalspossessthesequalitiesinanexceptionallyhighdegree。Sincemoneyisnottheresultofdeliberationorofagreement,buthascomeintobeingspontaneouslyinthecourseofexchange,manydifferent,moreorlessunsuitable,commoditieswereatvarioustimesusedasmoney。Whenexchangereachesacertainstageofdevelopment,theneedarisestopolarisethefunctionsofexchange—valueanduse—valueamongvariouscommodities——sothatonecommodity,forexample,shallactasmeansofexchangewhileanotherisdisposedofasause—value。Theoutcomeisthatonecommodityorsometimesseveralcommoditiesrepresentingthemostcommonuse—valuecomeoccasionallytoserveasmoney。Evenwhennoimmediateneedfortheseuse—valuesexists,thedemandforthemisboundtobemoregeneralthanthatforotheruse—values,sincetheyconstitutethemostsubstantialphysicalelementinwealth。
Directbarter,thespontaneousformofexchange,signifiesthebeginningofthetransformationofuse—valuesintocommoditiesratherthanthetransformationofcommoditiesintomoney。Exchange—valuedoesnotacquireanindependentform,butisstilldirectlytiedtouse—value。Thisismanifestedintwoways。Use—value,notexchange—value,isthepurposeofthewholesystemofproduction,anduse—valuesaccordinglyceasetobeuse—valuesandbecomemeansofexchange,orcommodities,onlywhenalargeramountofthemhasbeenproducedthanisrequiredforconsumption。Ontheotherhand,theybecomecommoditiesonlywithinthelimitssetbytheirimmediateuse—value,evenwhenthisfunctionispolarisedsothatthecommoditiestobeexchangedbytheirownersmustbeuse—valuesforbothofthem,buteachcommoditymustbeause—valueforitsnon—owner。Infact,theexchangeofcommoditiesevolvesoriginallynotwithinprimitivecommunities,[11]butontheirmargins,ontheirborders,thefewpointswheretheycomeintocontactwithothercommunities。Thisiswherebarterbeginsandmovesthenceintotheinteriorofthecommunity,exertingadisintegratinginfluenceuponit。Theparticularuse—valueswhich,asaresultofbarterbetweendifferentcommunities,becomecommodities,e。g。,slaves,cattle,metals,usuallyservealsoasthefirstmoneywithinthesecommunities。Wehaveseenthatthedegreetowhichtheexchange—valueofacommodityfunctionsasexchange—valueisthehigher,thelongertheseriesofitsequivalentsorthelargerthesphereinwhichthecommodityisexchanged。Thegradualextensionofbarter,thegrowingnumberofexchangetransactions,andtheincreasingvarietyofcommoditiesbarteredlead,therefore,tothefurtherdevelopmentofthecommodityasexchange—value,stimulatestheformationofmoneyandconsequentlyhasadisintegratingeffectondirectbarter。Economistsusuallyreasonthattheemergenceofmoneyisduetoexternaldifficultieswhichtheexpansionofbarterencounters,buttheyforgetthatthesedifficultiesarisefromtheevolutionofexchange—valueandhencefromthatofsociallabourasuniversallabour。
Forexamplecommoditiesasuse—valuesarenotdivisibleatwill,apropertywhichasexchange—valuestheyshouldpossess。OritmayhappenthatthecommoditybelongingtoAmaybeuse—valuerequiredbyB;whereasB\'scommoditymaynothaveanyuse—valueforA。Orthecommodity—ownersmayneedeachother\'scommoditiesbutthesecannotbedividedandtheirrelativeexchange—valuesaredifferent。Inotherwords,onthepleaofexaminingsimplebarter,theseeconomistsdisplaycertainaspectsofthecontradictioninherentinthecommodityasbeingthedirectunityofuse—valueandexchange—value。
Ontheotherhand,theythenpersistentlyregardbarterasaformwelladaptedtocommodityexchange,sufferingmerelyfromcertaintechnicalinconveniences,toovercomewhichmoneyhasbeencunninglydevised。Proceedingfromthisquitesuperficialpointofview,aningeniousBritisheconomisthasrightlymaintainedthatmoneyismerelyamaterialinstrument,likeashiporasteamengine,andnotanexpressionofasocialrelationofproduction,andhenceisnotaneconomiccategory。Itisthereforesimplyamalpracticetodealwiththissubjectinpoliticaleconomy,whichinfacthasnothingincommonwithtechnology。[12]
Theworldofcommoditiespresupposesadevelopeddivisionoflabour,orratherthedivisionoflabourmanifestsitselfdirectlyinthediversityofuse—valueswhichconfrontoneanotherasparticularcommoditiesandwhichembodyjustasmanydiversekindsoflabour。Thedivisionoflabourastheaggregateofallthedifferenttypesofproductiveactivityconstitutesthetotalityofthephysicalaspectsofsociallabouraslabourproducinguse—values。Butitexistsassuch——asregardscommoditiesandtheexchangeprocess——onlyinitsresults,inthevarietyofthecommoditiesthem—
selves。
Theexchangeofcommoditiesistheprocessinwhichthesocialmetabolism,inotherwordstheexchangeofparticularproductsofprivateindividuals,simultaneouslygivesrisetodefinitesocialrelationsofproduction,intowhichindividualsenterinthecourseofthismetabolism。
Astheydevelop,theinterrelationsofcommoditiescrystalliseintodistinctaspectsoftheuniversalequivalent,andthustheexchangeprocessbecomesatthesametimetheprocessofformationofmoney。Thisprocessasawhole,whichcomprisesseveralprocesses,constitutescirculation。
FOOTNOTES1。Aristotle,DeRepublica,L。I,C。\"Ofeverthingwhichwepossesstherearetwouses:……oneistheproper,andtheothertheimproperorsecondaryuseofit。Forexample,ashoeisusedforwear,andisusedforexchange;bothareusesoftheshoe。Hewhogivesashoeinexchangeformoneyorfoodtohimwhowantsone,doesindeedusetheshoeasashoe,butthisisnotitsproperorprimarypurpose,forashoeisnotmadetobeanobjectofbarter。Thesamemaybesaidofallpossessions……\"
2。ThatiswhyGermancompilerswriteconamoreaboutuse—values,callingthem\"goods\"。Seeforexamplethesectionon\"goods\"inI。Stein,SystemderStaatswissenschaft,Bd。1。Usefulinformationon\"goods\"
maybefoundin\"manualsdealingwithmerchandise\"。
3。Atpresentanabsurdlybiasedviewiswidelyheld,namelythatprimitivecommunalpropertyisaspecificallySlavonic,orevenanexclusivelyRussian,phenomenon。ItisanearlyformwhicheanbefoundamongRomans,TeutonsandCelts,andofwhichawholecollectionofdiversepatterns（thoughsometimesonlyremnantssurvive）isstillinexistenceinIndia。
AcarefulstudyofAsiatic,particularlyIndian,formsofcommunalpropertywouldindicatethatthedisintegrationofdifferentformsofprimitivecommunalownershipgivesrisetodiverseformsofproperty。Forinstance,variousprototypesofRomanandGermanicprivatepropertycanbetracedbacktocertainformsofIndiancommunalproperty。
4。\"Laricchezzaeunaragionetraduepersone。\"Galiani,DellaMoneta,p。221。InVolumeIIIofCustodi\'scollectionofScrittoriclassiciItalianidiEconomiaPolitica。ParteModerna,Milano,1803。
5。\"Initsnaturalstate,matter……isalwaysdestituteofvalue。\"McCulloch,ADiscourseontheRise,Progress,PeculiarObjects,andImportanceofPoliticalEconomy,SecondEdition,Edinburgh,1825,p。48。ThisshowshowhighevenaMcCullochstandsabovethefetishismofGerman\"thinkers\"
whoassertthat\"material\"andhalfadozensimilarirrelevanciesareelementsofvalue。See,interalia,L。Stein,op。cit。,Bd。1,p。
170。
6。Berkeley,TheQuerist,London,1750
7。ThomasCooper,LecturesontheElementsofPoliticalEonomy,London,1831（Columbia,1826）,p。99。
8。FriedrichListhasneverbeenabletograspthedifferencebetweenlabourataproducerofsomethinguseful,ause—value,andlabourasaproducerofexchange—value,aspecificsocialformofwealth（sincehismindbeingoccupiedwithpracticalmatterswasnotconcernedwithunderstanding）;
hethereforeregardedthemodernEnglisheconomistsasmereplagiaristsofMosesofEgypt。
9。Itcaneasilybeseenwhat\"service\"thecategory\"service\"mustrendertoeconomistssuchasJ。B。SayandF。Bastiat,whosesagacity,asMalthushasaptlyremarked,alwaysabstractsfromthespecificformofeconomicconditions。
10。\"Itisanotherpeculiarityofmeasurestoenterintosucharelationwiththethingmeasured,thatinacertainwaythethingmeasuredbecomesthemeasureofthemeasuringunit。\"Montanari,DellaMoneta,p。
41inCustodi\'scollection,Vol。III,ParteAntica。
11。Aristotlemakesasimilarobservationwithregardtotheindividualfamilyconsideredastheprimitivecommunity。Buttheprimitiveformofthefamilyisthetribalfamily,fromthehistoricaldissolutionofwhichtheindividualfamilydevelops。\"Inthefirstcommunity,indeedwhichisthefamily,thisart\"（thatis,trade）\"isobviouslyofnouse\"（Aristotle,loc。cit。）。
12。\"Moneyis,infact,onlytheinstrumentforcarryingonbuyingandselling\"（butcouldyoupleaseexplainwhatyoumeanbybuyingandselling？）
\"andtheconsiderationofitnomoreformsapartofthescienceofpoliticaleconomythantheconsiderationofshipsorsteamengines,orofanyotherinstrumentsemployedtofacilitatetheproductionanddistributionofwealth\"
（ThomasHodgskin,PopularPoliticalEconomy,London,1827,pp。178,179）。
HistoricalNotesontheAnalysisofCommoditiesKarlMarx\'sACONTRIBUTIONTOTHECRITIQUEOFPOLITICALECONOMY
A。HistoricalNotesontheAnalysisofCommoditiesThedecisiveoutcomeoftheresearchcarriedonforoveracenturyandahalfbyclassicalpoliticaleconomy,beginningwithWilliamPettyinBritainandBoisguillebert[1]inFrance,andendingwithRicardoinBritainandSismondiinFrance,isananalysisoftheaspectsofthecommodityintotwoformsoflabour——
use—valueisreducedtoconcretelabourorpurposiveproductiveactivity,exchange—valuetolabour—timeorhomogeneoussociallabour。
Pettyreducesuse—valuetolabourwithoutdeceivinghimselfaboutthedependenceofitscreativepoweronnaturalfactors。Heimmediatelyperceivesconcretelabourinitsentiresocialaspectasdivisionoflabour。[2]ThisconceptionofthesourceofmaterialwealthdoesnotremainmoreorlesssterileaswithhiscontemporaryHobbes,butleadstothepoliticalarithmetic,thefirstforminwhichpoliticaleconomyistreatedasaseparatescience。Butheacceptsexchange—valueasitappearsintheexchangeofcommodities,i。e。,asmoney,andmoneyitselfasanexistingcommodity,asgoldandsilver。CaughtupintheideasoftheMonetarySystem,heassertsthatthelabourwhichdeterminesexchange—valueistheparticularkindofconcretelabourbywhichgoldandsilverisextracted。Whathereallyhasinmindisthatinbourgeoiseconomylabourdoesnotdirectlyproduceuse—valuesbutcommodities,use—valueswhich,inconsequenceoftheiralienationinexchange,arecapableofassumingtheformofgoldandsilver,i。e。,ofmoney,i。e。,ofexchange—value,i。e。,ofmaterialiseduniversallabour。Hiscaseisastrikingproofthatrecognitionoflabourasthesourceofmaterialwealthbynomeansprecludesmisapprehensionofthespecificsocialforminwhichlabourconstitutesthesourceofexchange—value。
Boisguillebertforhispart,infact,althoughhemaynotbeawareofit,reducestheexchange—valueofcommoditiestolabour—time,bydeterminingthe\"truevalue\"（lajustevaleur）accordingtothecorrectproportioninwhichthelabour—timeoftheindividualproducersisdividedbetweenthedifferentbranchesofindustry,anddeclaringthatfreecompetitionisthesocialprocessbywhichthiscorrectproportionisestablished。Butsimultaneously,andincontrastwithPetty,Boisguillebertwagesafanaticalstruggleagainstmoney,whoseintervention,healleges,disturbsthenaturalequilibriumortheharmonyoftheexchangeofcommoditiesand,likeafantasticMoloch,demandsallphysicalwealthasasacrifice。
Thispolemicagainstmoneyis,ontheonehand,connectedwithdefinitehistoricalconditions,forBoisguillebertfightsagainsttheblindlydestructivegreedforgoldwhichpossessedthecourtofLouisXIV,histax—farmersandthearistocracy;[3]whereasPettyacclaimsthegreedforgoldasavigorousforcewhichspursanationtoindustrialprogressandtotheconquestoftheworldmarket;atthesametimehoweveritthrowsintoboldreliefmoreprofoundfundamentaldifferenceswhichrecurasaperpetualcontrastbetweentypicallyEnglishandtypicallyFrench[4]politicaleconomy。Boisguillebert,indeed,seesonlythematerialsubstanceofwealth,itsuse—value,enjoymentofit,[5]andregardsthebourgeoisformoflabour,theproductionofuse—valuesascommoditiesandtheexchangeofcommodities,astheappropriatesocialforminwhichindividuallabouraccomplishesthisobject。Where,asinmoney,heencountersthespecificfeaturesofbourgeoiswealth,hethereforespeaksoftheintrusionofusurpingalienfactors,andinveighsagainstoneoftheformsoflabourinbourgeoissociety,whilesimultaneouslypronouncingutopianeulogiesonitinanotherform。[6]Boisguillebert\'sworkprovesthatitispossibletoregardlabour—timeasthemeasureofthevalueofcommodities,whileconfusingthelabourwhichismaterialisedintheexchange—valueofcommoditiesandmeasuredintimeunitswiththedirectphysicalactivityofindividuals。
ItisamanoftheNewWorld——wherebourgeoisrelationsofproductionimportedtogetherwiththeirrepresentativessproutedrapidlyinasoilinwhichthesuperabundanceofhumusmadeupforthelackofhistoricaltradition——whoforthefirsttimedeliberatelyandclearly（soclearlyastobealmosttrite）reducesexchange—valuetolabour—time。ThismanwasBenjaminFranklin,whoformulatedthebasiclawofmodernpoliticaleconomyinanearlywork,whichwaswrittenin1729andpublishedin1731。[7]Hedeclaresitnecessarytoseekanothermeasureofvaluethanthepreciousmetals,andthatthismeasureislabour。
\"Bylabourmaythevalueofsilverbemeasuredaswellasotherthings。
As,supposeonemanisemployedtoraisecorn,whileanotherisdiggingandrefiningsilver;attheyear\'send,oratanyotherperiodoftime,thecompleteproduceofcorn,andthatofsilver,arethenaturalpriceofeachother;andifonebetwentybushels,andtheothertwentyounces,thenanounceofthatsilverisworththelabourofraisingabushelofthatcorn。Nowifbythediscoveryofsomenearer,moreeasyorplentifulmines,amanmaygetfortyouncesofsilveraseasilyasformerlyhedidtwenty,andthesamelabourisstillrequiredtoraisetwentybushelsofcorn,thentwoouncesofsilverwillbeworthnomorethanthesamelabourofraisingonebushelofcorn,andthatbushelofcornwillbeascheapattwoounces,asitwasbeforeatone,caeterisparibus。Thustherichesofacountryaretobevaluedbythequantityoflabouritsinhabitantsareabletopurchase\"（op。cit。,p。265）。
FromtheoutsetFranklinregardslabour—timefromarestrictedeconomicstandpointasthemeasureofvalue。Thetransformationofactualproductsintoexchange—valuesistakenforgranted,anditisthereforeonlyaquestionofdiscoveringameasureoftheirvalue。
ToquoteFranklinagain:\"Tradeingeneralbeingnothingelsebuttheexchangeoflabourforlabour,thevalueofallthingsis,asIhavesaidbefore,mostjustlymeasuredbylabour\"（op。cit。,p。267）。
Ifinthissentencethetermlabourisreplacedbyconcretelabour,itisatonceobviousthatlabourinoneformisbeingconfusedwithlabourinanotherform。Becausetrademay,forexample,consistintheexchangeofthelabourofashoemaker,miner,spinner,painterandsoon,isthereforethelabourofthepainterthebestmeasureofthevalueofshoes？Franklin,onthecontrary,considersthatthevalueofshoes,minerals,yarn,paintings,etc。,isdeterminedbyabstractlabourwhichhasnoparticularqualityandcanthusbemeasuredonlyintermsofquantity。[8]Butsincehedoesnotexplainthatthelabourcontainedinexchangevalueisabstractuniversalsociallabour,whichisbroughtaboutbytheuniversalalienationofindividuallabour,heisboundtomistakemoneyforthedirectembodimentofthisalienatedlabour。Hethereforefailstoseetheintrinsicconnectionbetweenmoneyandlabourwhichpositsexchange—value,butonthecontraryregardsmoneyasaconvenienttechnicaldevicewhichhasbeenintroducedintothesphereofexchangefromoutside。[9]Franklin\'sanalysisofexchange—valuehadnodirectinfluenceonthegeneralcourseofthescience,becausehedealtonlywithspecialproblemsofpoliticaleconomyfordefinitepracticalpurposes。
Thedifferencebetweenconcreteusefullabourandlabourwhichcreatesexchange—valuearousedconsiderableinterestinEuropeduringtheeighteenthcenturyinthefollowingform:whatparticularkindofconcretelabouristhesourceofbourgeoiswealth？Itwasthusassumedthatnoteverykindoflabourwhichismaterialisedinuse—valuesoryieldsproductsmusttherebydirectlycreatewealth。ButforboththePhysiocratsandtheiropponentsthecrucialissuewasnotwhatkindoflabourcreatesvaluebutwhatkindoflabourcreatessurplusvalue。Theywerethusdiscussingacomplexformoftheproblembeforehavingsolveditselementaryform;
justasthehistoricalprogressofallsciencesleadsonlythroughamultitudeofcontradictorymovestotherealpointofdeparture。Science,unlikeotherarchitects,buildsnotonlycastlesintheair,butmayconstructseparatehabitablestoreysofthebuildingbeforelayingthefoundationstone。WeshallnowleavethePhysiocratsanddisregardawholeseriesofItalianeconomists,whosemoreorlesspertinentideascomeclosetoacorrectanalysisofthecommodity,[10]inordertoturnatoncetoSirJamesSteuart,[11]thefirstBritontoexpoundageneralsystemofbourgeoiseconomy。Theconceptofexchange—valueliketheotherabstractcategoriesofpoliticaleconomyareinhisworkstillinprocessofdifferentiationfromtheirmaterialcontentandthereforeappeartobeblurredandambiguous。
Inonepassagehedeterminesrealvaluebylabour—time（\"whataworkmancanperforminaday\"）,butbesideitheintroduceswagesandrawmaterialinaratherconfusingway。[12]Hisstrugglewiththematerialcontentisbroughtoutevenmorestrikinglyinanotherpassage。Hecallsthephysicalelementcontainedinacommodity,e。g。,thesilverinsilverfiligree,its\"intrinsicworth\",andthelabour—timecontainedinitits\"usefulvalue\"。
Thefirstisaccordingtohimsomething\"realinitself\",whereas\"thevalueofthesecondmustbeestimatedaccordingtothelabourithascosttoproduceit……Thelabouremployedinthemodificationrepresentsaportionofaman\'stime。\"[13]
Hiscleardifferentiationbetweenspecificallysociallabourwhichmanifestsitselfinexchange—valueandconcretelabourwhichyieldsuse—valuesdistinguishesSteuartfromhispredecessorsandhissuccessors。
\"Labour,\"hesays,\"whichthroughitsalienationcreatesauniversalequivalent,Icallindustry。\"
Hedistinguisheslabourasindustrynotonlyfromconcretelabourbutalsofromothersocialformsoflabour。Heseesinitthebourgeoisformoflabourasdistinctfromitsantiqueandmediaevalforms。Heisparticularlyinterestedinthedifferencebetweenbourgeoisandfeudallabour,havingobservedthelatterinthestageofitsdeclinebothinScotlandandduringhisextensivejourneysonthecontinent。Steuartknewverywellthatinpre—bourgeoiserasalsoproductsassumedtheformofcommoditiesandcommoditiesthatofmoney;butheshowsingreatdetailthatthecommodityastheelementaryandprimaryunitofwealthandalienationasthepredominantformofappropriationarecharacteristiconlyofthebourgeoisperiodofproduction,andthataccordinglylabourwhichcreatesexchange—valueisaspecificallybourgeoisfeature。[14]
Variouskindsofconcretelabour,suchasagriculture,manufacture,shippingandcommerce,hadeachinturnbeenclaimedtoconstitutetherealsourceofwealth,beforeAdamSmithdeclaredthatthesolesourceofmaterialwealthorofuse—valuesislabouringeneral,thatistheentiresocialaspectoflabourasitappearsinthedivisionoflabour。Whereasinthiscontexthecompletelyoverlooksthenaturalfactor,heispursuedbyitwhenheexaminesthesphereofpurelysocialwealth,exchange—value。AlthoughAdamSmithdeterminesthevalueofcommoditiesbythelabour—timecontainedinthem,hethenneverthelesstransfersthisdeterminationofvalueinactualfacttopre—Smithiantimes。Inotherwords,whatheregardsastruewhenconsideringsimplecommoditiesbecomesconfusedassoonasheexaminesthehigherandmorecomplexformsofcapital,wage—labour,rent,etc。Heexpressesthisinthefollowingway:thevalueofcommoditieswasmeasuredbylabour—timeintheparadiselostofthebourgeoisie,wherepeopledidnotconfrontoneanotherascapitalists,wage—labourers,landowners,tenantfarmers,usurers,andsoon,butsimplyaspersonswhoproducedcommoditiesandexchangedthem。AdamSmithconstantlyconfusesthedeterminationofthevalueofcommoditiesbythelabour—timecontainedinthemwiththedeterminationoftheirvaluebythevalueoflabour;heisofteninconsistentinthedetailsofhisexpositionandhemistakestheobjectiveequalisationofunequalquantitiesoflabourforciblybroughtaboutbythesocialprocessforthesubjectiveequalityofthelaboursofindividuals。[15]Hetriestoaccomplishthetransitionfromconcretelabourtolabourwhichproducesexchange—value,i。e。,thebasicformofbourgeoislabour,bymeansofthedivisionoflabour。Butthoughitiscorrecttosaythatindividualexchangepresupposesdivisionoflabour,itiswrongtomaintainthatdivisionoflabourpresupposesindividualexchange。Forexample,divisionoflabourhadreachedanexceptionallyhighdegreeofdevelopmentamongthePeruvians,althoughnoindividualexchange,noexchangeofproductsintheformofcommodities,tookplace。
DavidRicardo,unlikeAdamSmith,neatlysetsforththedeterminationofthevalueofcommoditiesbylabour—time,anddemonstratesthatthislawgovernseventhosebourgeoisrelationsofproductionwhichapparentlycontradictitmostdecisively。Ricardo\'sinvestigationsareconcernedexclusivelywiththemagnitudeofvalue,andregardingthisheisatleastawarethattheoperationofthelawdependsondefinitehistoricalpre—conditions。
Hesaysthatthedeterminationofvalue—bylabour—timeappliesto\"suchcommoditiesonlyascanbeincreasedinquantitybytheexertionofhumanindustry,andontheproductionofwhichcompetitionoperateswithoutrestraint\"。[16]
Thisinfactmeansthatthefulldevelopmentofthelawofvaluepresupposesasocietyinwhichlarge—scaleindustrialIproductionandfreecompetitionobtain,inotherwordsmodernbourgeoissociety。Fortherest,thebourgeoisformoflabourisregardedbyRicardoastheeternalnaturalformofsociallabour。Ricardo\'sprimitivefishermanandprimitivehunterarefromtheoutsetownersofcommoditieswhoexchangetheirfishandgameinproportiontothelabour—timewhichismaterialisedintheseexchange—values。OnthisoccasionheslipsintotheanachronismofallowingtheprimitivefishermanandhuntertocalculatethevalueoftheirimplementsinaccordancewiththeannuitytablesusedontheLondonStockExchangein1817。Apartfrombourgeoissociety,theonlysocialsystemwithwhichRicardowasacquaintedseemstohavebeenthe\"parallelogramsofMr。Owen\"。Althoughencompassedbythisbourgeoishorizon,Ricardoanalysesbourgeoiseconomy,whosedeeperlayersdifferessentiallyfromitssurfaceappearance,withsuchtheoreticalacumenthatLordBroughamcouldsayofhim:
\"Mr。Ricardoseemedasifhehaddroppedfromanotherplanet。\"
ArguingdirectlywithRicardo,Sismondinotonlyemphasisesthespecificallysocialcharacteroflabourwhichcreatesexchange—value,[17]butstatesalsothatitisa\"characteristicfeatureofoureconomicprogress\"
toreducevaluetonecessarylabour—time,to\"therelationbetweentheneedsofthewholesocietyandthequantity—
oflabourwhichissufficienttosatisfytheseneeds\"。[18]
SismondiisnolongerpreoccupiedwithBoisguillebert\'snotionthatlabourwhichcreatesexchange—valueisdistortedbymoney,butjustasBoisguillebertdenouncedmoneysodoesSismondidenouncelargeindustrialcapital。WhereasRicardo\'spoliticaleconomyruthlesslydrawsitsfinalconclusionandtherewithends,Sismondisupplementsthisendingbyexpressingdoubtinpoliticaleconomyitself。