Sincethedeterminationofexchange—valuebylabour—timehasbeenformulatedandexpoundedintheclearestmannerbyRicardo,whogavetoclassicalpoliticaleconomyitsfinalshape,itisquitenaturalthattheargumentsraisedbyeconomistsshouldbeprimarilydirectedagainsthim。Ifthispolemicisstrippedofitsmainlytrivial[19]formitcanbesummarisedasfollows:
One。Labouritselfhasexchange—valueanddifferenttypesoflabourhavedifferentexchange—values。Ifonemakesexchange—valuethemeasureofexchange—value,oneiscaughtupinaviciouscircle,fortheexchange—valueusedasameasurerequiresinturnameasure。Thisobjectionmergesintothefollowingproblem:givenlabour—timeastheintrinsicmeasureofvalue,howarewagestobedeterminedonthisbasis。
Thetheoryofwage—labourprovidestheanswertothis。
Two。Iftheexchange—valueofaproductequalsthelabour—timecontainedintheproduct,thentheexchange—valueofaworkingdayisequaltotheproductityields,inotherwords,wagesmustbeequaltotheproductoflabour。[20]Butinfacttheoppositeistrue。Ergo,thisobjectionamountstotheproblem,——howdoesproductiononthebasisofexchange—valuesolelydeterminedbylabour—timeleadtotheresultthattheexchange—valueoflabourislessthantheexchange—valueofitsproduct？Thisproblemissolvedinouranalysisofcapital。
Three。Inaccordancewiththechangingconditionsofdemandandsupply,themarket—priceofcommoditiesfallsbeloworrisesabovetheirexchange—value。Theexchange—valueofcommoditiesis,consequently,determinednotbythelabour—timecontainedinthem,butbytherelationofdemandandsupply。Infact,thisstrangeconclusiononlyraisesthequestionhowonthebasisofexchange—valueamarket—pricedifferingfromthisexchange—valuecomesintobeing,orrather,howthelawofexchange—valueassertsitselfonlyinitsantithesis。Thisproblemissolvedinthetheoryofcompetition。
Four。Thelastandapparentlythedecisiveobjection,unlessitisadvanced——ascommonlyhappens——intheformofcuriousexamples,isthis:ifexchange—valueisnothingbutthelabour—timecontainedinacommodity,howdoesitcomeaboutthatcommoditieswhichcontainnolabourpossessexchange—value,inotherwords,howdoestheexchange—valueofnaturalforcesarise？Theproblemissolvedinthetheoryofrent。
FOOTNOTES1。AcomparativestudyofPetty\'sandBoisguillebert\'swritingsandcharacters——apartfromilluminatingthesocialdivergencebetweenBritainandFranceatthecloseoftheseventeenthcenturyandthebeginningoftheeighteenth——wouldexplaintheoriginsofthosenationalcontraststhatexistbetweenBritishandFrenchpoliticaleconomy。ThesamecontrastreappearsinRicardoandSismondi。
2。Pettytreatsthedivisionoflabouralsoasaproductiveforce,andhedoessoonamuchgranderscalethanAdamSmith。SeeAnEssayConcerningtheMultiplicetionofMankind,ThirdEdition,1686,pp。35—36。Inthisessayheshowstheadvantageswhichdivisionoflabourhasforproductionnotonlywiththeexampleofthemanufactureofawatch——asAdamSmithdidlaterwiththeexampleofthemanufactureofapin——butconsidersalsoatownandawholecountryaslarge—scaleindustrialestablishments。
TheSpectatorofNovember26,1711,referstothis\"illustrationoftheadmirableSirWilliamPetty\"。McCulloch\'sconjecturethattheSpectetorconfusedPettywithawriterfortyyearshisjunioristhereforewrong。
（SeeMcCulloch,TheLiteratureofPoliticalEconomy,aClassifiedCatalogue,London,1845,p。102。）Pcttyregardshimselfasthefounderofanewscience。
Hesaysthathismethod\"isnotyetveryusual\",\"forinsteadofusingonlycomparativeandsuperlativeWords,andintellectualArguments\",heproposestospeak\"inTermsofNumber,WeightorMeasure;
touseonlyArgumentsofSense,andtoconsideronlysuchCauses,ashavevisibleFoundationsinNature;leavingthosethatdependuponthemutableMinds,Opinions,Appetites,andPassionsofparticularMen,totheConsiderationofothers\"（PoliticalArithmetick,etc。,London,1699,Preface）。
Hisaudaciousgeniusbecomesevidentforinstanceinhisproposaltotransport\"allthemovablesandPeopleofIreland,andoftheHighlandsofScotland……intotherestofGreatBritain\"。Thiswouldresultinthesavingoflabour—time,inincreasingproductivityoflabour,and\"theKingandhisSubjectswouldtherebybecomemoreRichandStrong\"（PoliticalAritlmetick,Chapter4[p。225]）。AlsointhechapterofhisPoliticalArithmetickinwhich——atatimewhenHollandwasstillthepredominanttradingnationandFranceseemedtobeonthewaytobecomingtheprincipaltradingpower——heprovesthatEnglandisdestinedtoconquertheworldmarket:\"ThattheKingofEngland\'sSubjects,haveStockcompetentandconvenient,todrivetheTradeofthewholeCommercialWorld\"（op。cit。,Chapter10[p。
272]）。\'ThattheImpedimentsofEngland\'sgreatness,arebutcontingentandremovable\"（p。247etseq。）。Ahighlyoriginalsenseofhumourpervadesallhiswritings。ThusheshowsforexamplethattheconquestoftheworldmarketbyHolland,whichwasthenregardedasthemodelcountrybyEnglisheconomistsjustasBritainisnowregardedasthemodelcountrybycontinentaleconomists,wasbroughtaboutbyperfectlynaturalcauses\"withoutsuchAngelicalWitsandJudgments,assomeattributetotheHollanders\"（op。
cit。,pp。175—16）。Hechampionsfreedomofconscienceasaconditionoftrade,becausethepoorarediligentand\"believethatLabourandIndustryistheirDutytowardsGod\"solongastheyarepermitted\"tothinktheyhavethemoreWitandUnderstanding,especiallyofthethingsofGod,whichtheythinkchieflybelongtothePoor\"。\"FromwhenceitfollowsthatTradeisnotfixttoanySpeciesofReligionassuch;butrather……totheHeterodoxpartofthewhole\"（op。cit。,pp。183—86）。Herecommendsspecialpubliccontributionforrogues,sinceitwouldbebetterforthegeneralpublictoimposeataxonthemselvesforthebenefitoftheroguesthantobetaxedbythem（op。cit。,p。199）。Ontheotherhand,herejectstaxeswhichtransferwealthfromindustriouspeopletothosewho\"donothingatall,butEatandDrink,Sing,Play,andDance:naysuchasStudytheMetaphysicks\"
[op。cit。,p。198]。Petty\'swritingshavealmostbecomebibliographicalcuriositiesandareonlyavailableinoldinferioreditions。\'ThisisthemoresurprisingsinceWilliamPettyisnotonlythefatherofEnglishpoliticaleconomybutalsoanancestorofHenryPetty,aliasMarquisofLansdowne,theNestoroftheEnglishWhigs。ButtheLansdownefamilycouldhardlyprepareacompleteeditionofPetty\'sworkswithoutprefacingitwithhisbiography,andwhatistruewithregardtotheoriginofmostofthebigWhigfamilies,appliesalsointhiscase——thelesssaidofitthebetter。
Thearmysurgeon,whowasaboldthinkerbutquiteunscrupulousandjustasapttoplunderinIrelandundertheaegisofCromwellastofawnuponCharlesIItoobtainthetitleofbaronettoembellishhistrash,isnotasuitablcimageofanancestorforpublicdisplay。Inmostofthewritingspublishedduringhislifetime,moreover,PettyseekstoprovethatEngland\'sgoldenagewasthereignofCharlesII,aratherheterodoxviewforhereditaryexploitersofthe\"gloriousrevolution\"。Return3。Asagainstthe\"blackartoffinance\"ofhistime,Boisguillebertsays:
\"Thescienceoffinanceconsistsofnothingbutathoroughknowledgeoftheinterestsofagricultureandcommerce\"（LedétaildelaFrance,1697。InEugeneDalre\'seditionofEconomistesfinanciersduXVIIIsiècle,Paris,1843,Vol。I,p。241）。
4。ButnotRomancepoliticaleconomy,sincethecontrastofEnglishandFrencheconomistsisrepeatedbytheItaliansintheirtwoschoolsoneatNaplesandtheotheratMilan;whereastheSpaniardsoftheearlierperiodareeithersimplyMercantilistsandmodifiedMercantilistslikeUstariz,orfollowAdamSmithinobservingthehappymeanlikeJovellanos（seehisObras,Barcelona,1839—40）
5。\"Truewealth……isthecompleteenjoymentnotonlyofthenecessariesoflifebutalsoofallthesuperfluitiesandofeverythingthatcangivepleasuretothesenses\"（Boisguillebert,Dissertationsurlanaturedelarichesse,etc。,p。403）。ButwhereasPettywasjustafrivolous,grasping,unprincipledadventurer,Boisguillebert,althoughhewasoneoftheintendantsofLouisXIV,stoodupfortheinterestsoftheoppressedclasseswithbothgreatintellectualforceandcourage。
6。FrenchsocialismasrepresentedbyProudhonsuffersfromthesamenationalfailing。
7。BenjaminFranklin,AModestInquiryintotheNatureandNecessityofaPaperCurrency,inTheWorksofBenjaminFranklin,edit。
byJ。Sparks,Vol。II,Boston,1836。
8。RemarksandFactsrelativetotheAmericanPaperMoney,1764
（l。c。）。
9。SeePapersonAmericanPolitics,andRemarksandFactsrelativetotheAmericanPaperMoney,1764（l。c。）。
10。SeeforinstanceGaliani,DellaMoneta,Vol。III,inScrittoriclassiciItalianidiEconomiaPolitica（publishedbyCustodi）,ParteModerna,Milano,1803。Hesays:\"Itisonlytoil\"（fatica）\"whichgivesvaluetothings\",p。74。Theterm\"fatica\"forlabourischaracteristicofthesoutherner。
11。Steuart\'sworkAnInquiryintothePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy,BeinganEssayontheScienceofDomesticPolicyinFreeNationswasfirstpublishedinLondonin1767,intwoquartovolumes,tenyearsearlierthanAdamSmith\'sWealthofNations。IquotefromtheDublineditionof1770。
12。Steuart,op。cit。,Vol。I,pp。181—83。
13。Ibid。,pp。361—62。
14。Steuartthereforedeclaresthatthepatriarchalformofagriculture,whosedirectaimistheproductionofuse—valuesfortheowneroftheland,isanabuse,althoughnotinSpartaorRomeoreveninAthens,butcertainlyintheindustrialcountriesoftheeighteenthcentury。This\"abusiveagriculture\"isnot\"trade\"butameremeansofsubsistence。Justasbourgeoisagricultureclearsthelandofsuperfluousmouths,sobourgeoismanufactureclearsthefactoryofsuperfluoushands。
15。AdamSmithwritesforinstance——\"Equalquantitiesoflabour,atalltimesandplaces,maybesaidtobeofequalvaluetothelabourer。Inhisordinarystateofhealth,strength,andspirits;intheordinarydegreeofhisskillanddexterity,hemustalwayslaydownthesameportionofhisease,hisliberty,andhishappiness。Thepricewhichhepaysmustalwaysbethesame,whatevermaybethequantityofgoodswhichhereceivesinreturnforit。Ofthese,indeed,itmaysometimespurchaseagreaterandsometimesasmallernuantity,butitistheirvaluewhichvaries,notthatofthelabourwhichpurchasesthem……Labouralone,therefore,nevervaryinginitsownvalue,isalonetheultimateandrealstandardbywhichthevalueofallcommoditiescan……beestimated……Itistheirrealprice……\"[WealthofNations。BookI,ChapterV。]
16。DavidRicardo,OnthePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy,andTaxation,ThirdEdition,London,1821,p。3。
17。Sismondi,Etudessurl\'économiepolitique,tomeII,Bruxelles,1838。\"Tradehasreducedthewholemattertotheantithesisofuse—valueandexchange—value。\"P。162。
18。Ibid。,pp。163—66etseq。
19。ItprobablyassumesthemosttrivialforminJ。B。Say\'sannotationstotheFrenchtranslation——preparedbyConstancio——ofRicardo\'swork,andthemostpedanticandpresumptuousinMr。Macleod\'srecentlypublishedTheoryofExchange,London,1858。
20。Thisobjection,whichwasadvancedagainstRicardobybourgeoiseconomists,waslatertakenupbysocialists。Assumingthattheformulawastheoreticallysound,theyallegedthatpracticestoodinconflictwiththetheoryanddemandedthatbourgeoissocietyshoulddrawthepracticalconclusionssupposedlyarisingfromitstheoreticalprinciples。InthiswayatleastEnglishsocialiststurnedRicardo\'sformulaofexchange—valueagainstpoliticaleconomy。Thefeatofdeclaringnotonlythatthebasicprincipleoftheoldsocietywastobetheprincipleofthenewsociety,butalsothathewastheinventoroftheformulausedbyRicardotosummarisethefinalresultofEnglishclassicaleconomics,wasreservedtoM。Proudhon。IthasbeenshownthattheutopianinterpretationofRicardo\'sformulawasalreadycompletelyforgotteninEngland,whenM。Proudhon\"discovered\"itontheothersideoftheChannel。（Cf。thesectiononlavaleurconstituée,inmyMiseredelaphilosophie……,Paris,1847。a）[SeeKarlMarx,ThePovertyofPhilosophy,Moscow,1962,pp。43—49——Ed。]
MoneyKarlMarx\'sACONTRIBUTIONTOTHECRITIQUEOFPOLITICALECONOMYPartII
MONEYORSIMPLECIRCULATION
Gladstone,speakinginaparliamentarydebateonSirRobertPeel\'sBankActof1844and1845,observedthatevenlovehasnotturnedmoremenintofoolsthanhasmeditationuponthenatureofmoney。HespokeofBritonstoBritons。TheDutch,ontheotherhand,whoinspiteofPetty\'sdoubtspossessedadivinesenseformoneyspeculationfromtimeimmemorial,haveneverlosttheirsensesinspeculationaboutmoney。
Theprincipaldifficultyintheanalysisofmoneyissurmountedassoonasitisunderstoodthatthecommodityistheoriginofmoney。Afterthatitisonlyaquestionofclearlycomprehendingthespecificformpeculiartoit。Thisisnotsoeasybecauseallbourgeoisrelationsappeartobegilded,i。e。,theyappeartobemoneyrelations,andthemoneyform,therefore,seemstopossessaninfinitelyvariedcontent,whichisquitealientothisform。
Duringthefollowinganalysisitisimportanttokeepinmindthatweareonlyconcernedwiththoseformsofmoneywhicharisedirectlyfromtheexchangeofcommodities,butnotwithformsofmoney,suchascreditmoney,whichbelongtoahigherstageofproduction。Forthesakeofsimplicitygoldisassumedthroughouttobethemoneycommodity。1。MEASUREOFVALUE
Thefirstphaseofcirculationis,asitwere,atheoreticalphasepreparatorytorealcirculation。Commodities,whichexistasuse—values,mustfirstofallassumeaforminwhichtheyappeartooneanothernominallyasexchange—values,asdefinitequantitiesofmaterialiseduniversallabour—time。Thefirstnecessarymoveinthisprocessis,aswehaveseen,thatthecommoditiessetapartaspecificcommodity,say,gold,whichbecomesthedirectreificationofuniversallabour—timeortheuniversalequivalent。Letusreturnforamomenttotheforminwhichgoldisconvertedintomoneybycommodities。
1tonofiron=2ouncesofgold1quarterofwheat=1ounceofgold1hundredweightofMochacoffee=1/4ounceofgold1hundredweightofpotash=1/2ounceofgold1tonofBrazil—timber=11/2ouncesofgoldYcommodities=XouncesofgoldInthisseriesofequationsiron,wheat,coffee,potash,etc。,appeartooneanotherasmaterialisationofuniformlabour,thatislabourmaterialisedingold,inwhichalldistinctivefeaturesoftheconcretelabourrepresentedinthedifferentuse—valuesareentirelyobliterated。Theyareasvaluesidentical,i。e。,materialisationsofthesamelabourorthesamematerialisationoflabour——gold。Sincetheyareuniformmaterialisationsofthesamelabour,theydifferonlyinoneway,quantitatively:
inotherwordstheyrepresentdifferentmagnitudesofvalue,becausetheiruse—valuescontainunequalamountsoflabour—time。Theseindividualcommoditiescanbecomparedwithoneanotherasembodimentsofuniversallabour—time,sincetheyhavebeencomparedwithuniversallabour—timeintheshapeoftheexcludedcommodity,i。e。,gold。Thesamedynamicrelation,asaresultofwhichcommoditiesbecomeexchange—valuesforoneanother,causesthelabour—timecontainedingoldtorepresentuniversallabour—time,agivenamountofwhichisexpressedindifferentquantitiesofiron,wheat,coffee,etc。,inshortintheuse—valuesofallcommodities,oritmaybedisplayeddirectlyintheinfiniteseriesofcommodityequivalents。
Sincetheexchange—valueofallcommoditiesisexpressedingold,theexchange—valueofgoldisdirectlyexpressedinallcommodities。Becausethecommoditiesthemselvesassumetheformofexchange—valueforoneanother,theyturngoldintotheuniversalequivalentorintomoney。
Goldbecomesthemeasureofvaluebecausetheexchange—valueofallcommoditiesismeasuredingold,isexpressedintherelationofadefinitequantityofgoldandadefinitequantityofcommoditycontainingequalamountsoflabour—time。Tobeginwith,goldbecomestheuniversalequivalent,ormoney,onlybecauseitthusfunctionsasthemeasureofvalueandassuchitsownvalueismeasureddirectlyinallcommodityequivalents。Theexchange—valueofallcommodities,ontheotherhand,isnowexpressedingold。Onehastodistinguishaqualitativeandaquantitativeaspectinthisexpression。Theexchange—valueofthecommodityexistsastheembodimentofequaluniformlabour—time,thevalueofthecommodityisthusfullyexpressed,fortotheextentthatcommoditiesareequatedwithgoldtheyareequatedwithoneanother。Theirgoldenequivalentreflectstheuniversalcharacterofthelabour—timecontainedinthemontheonehand,anditsquantityontheotherhand。Theexchange—valueofcommoditiesthusexpressedintheformofuniversalequivalenceandsimultaneouslyasthedegreeofthisequivalenceintermsofaspecificcommodity,thatisasingleequationinwhichcommoditiesarecomparedwithaspecificcommodity,constitutesprice。Priceistheconvertedforminwhichtheexchange—valueofcommoditiesappearswithinthecirculationprocess。
Thusasaresultofthesameprocessthroughwhichthevaluesofcommoditiesareexpressedingoldprices,goldistransformedintothemeasureofvalueandthenceintomoney。Ifthevaluesofallcommoditiesweremeasuredinsilverorwheatorcopper,andaccordinglyexpressedintermsofsilver,wheatorcopperprices,thensilver,wheatorcopperwouldbecomethemeasureofvalueandconsequentlyuniversalequivalents。Commoditiesasexchange—valuesmustbeantecedenttocirculationinordertoappearaspricesincirculation。
Goldbecomesthemeasureofvalueonlybecausetheexchange—valueofallcommoditiesisestimatedintermsofgold。Theuniversalityofthisdynamicrelation,fromwhichalonespringsthecapacityofgoldtoactasameasure,presupposeshoweverthateverysinglecommodityismeasuredintermsofgoldinaccordancewiththelabour—timecontainedinboth,sothattherealmeasureofcommodityandgoldislabouritself,thatiscommodityandgoldareasexchange—valuesequatedbydirectexchange。Howthisequatingiscarriedthroughinpracticecannotbediscussedinthecontextofsimplecirculation。Itisevident,however,thatincountrieswheregoldandsilverareproducedadefiniteamountoflabour—timeisdirectlyincorporatedinadefinitequantityofgoldandsilver,whereascountrieswhichproducenogoldandsilverarriveatthesameresultinaroundaboutway,bydirectorindirectexchangeoftheirhomeproducts,i。e。,ofadefiniteportionoftheiraveragenationallabour,foradefinitequantityoflabour—timeembodiedinthegoldandsilverofcountriesthatpossessmines。Goldmustbeinprincipleavariablevalue,ifitistoserveasameasureofvalue,becauseonlyasreificationoflabour—timecanitbecometheequivalentofothercommodities,butasaresultofchangesintheproductivityofconcretelabour,thesameamountoflabour—timeisembodiedinunequalvolumesofthesametypeofuse—values。Thevaluationofallcommoditiesintermsofgold——liketheexpressionoftheexchange—valueofanycommodityintermsoftheuse—valueofanothercommodity——merelypresupposesthatatagivenmomentgoldrepresentsadefinitequantityoflabour—time。Thelawofexchange—valuesetforthearlierappliestochangesoccurringinthevalueofgold。Iftheexchange—valueofcommoditiesremainsunchanged,thenageneralriseoftheirpricesintermsofgoldcanonlytakeplacewhentheexchange—valueofgoldfalls。Iftheexchange—valueofgoldremainsunchanged,thenageneralriseofpricesintermsofgoldisonlypossibleiftheexchange—valuesofallcommoditiesrise。Thereversetakesplaceinthecaseofageneraldeclineinthepricesofcommodities。Ifthevalueofanounceofgoldfallsorrisesinconsequenceofachangeinthelabour—timerequiredforitsproduction,thenitwillfallorriseequallyinrelationtoallothercommoditiesandwillthusforallofthemcontinuetorepresentadefinitevolumeoflabour—time。Thesameexchange—valueswillnowbeestimatedinquantitiesofgoldwhicharelargerorsmallerthanbefore,buttheywillbeestimatedinaccordancewiththeirvaluesandwillthereforemaintainthesamevaluerelativetooneanother。Theratio2:4:8remainsthesamewhetheritbecomes1:2:4or4:8:16。Thefactthat,becauseofthechangingvalueofgold,exchange—valuesarerepresentedbyvaryingquantitiesofgolddoesnotpreventgoldfromfunctioningasthemeasureofvalue,anymorethanthefactthatthevalueofsilverisone—fifteenthofthatofgoldpreventssilverfromtakingoverthisfunction。
Labour—timeisthemeasureofbothgoldandcommodities,andgoldbecomesthemeasureofvalueonlybecauseallcommoditiesaremeasuredintermsofgold;itisconsequentlymerelyanillusioncreatedbythecirculationprocesstosupposethatmoneymakescommoditiescommensurable。[1]Onthecontrary,itisonlythecommensurabilityofcommoditiesasmaterialisedlabour—timewhichconvertsgoldintomoney。
Theconcreteforminwhichcommoditiesentertheprocessofexchangeisasuse—values。Thecommoditieswillonlybecomeuniversalequivalentsasaresultoftheiralienation。Theestablishmentoftheirpriceismerelytheirnominalconversionintotheuniversalequivalent,anequationwithgoldwhichstillhastobeputintopractice。Butbecausepricesconvertcommoditiesonlynominallyintogoldoronlyintoimaginarygold——i。e。,theexistenceofcommoditiesasmoneyisindeednotyetseparatedfromtheirrealexistence——goldhasbeenmerelytransformedintoimaginarymoney,onlyintothemeasureofvalue,anddefinitequantitiesofgoldserveinfactsimplyasnamesfordefinitequantitiesoflabour—time。Thedistinctforminwhichgoldcrystallisesintomoneydependsineachcaseonthewayinwhichtheexchange—valuesofcommoditiesarerepresentedwithregardtooneanother。
Commoditiesnowconfrontoneanotherinadualform,reallyasuse—valuesandnominallyasexchange—values。Theyrepresentnowforoneanotherthedualformoflabourcontainedinthem,sincetheparticularconcretelabouractuallyexistsastheiruse—value,whileuniversalabstractlabour—timeassumesanimaginaryexistenceintheirprice,inwhichtheyareallalikeembodimentsofthesamesubstanceofvalue,differingonlyquantitatively。
Thedifferencebetweenexchange—valueandpriceis,ontheonehand,merelynominal;asAdamSmithsays,labouristherealpriceofcommoditiesandmoneytheirnominalprice。Insteadofsayingthatonequarterofwheatisworththirtydays\'labour,onenowsaysitisworthoneounceofgold,whenoneounceofgoldisproducedinthirtyworkingdays。Thedifferenceisontheotherhandsofarfrombeingsimplyanominaldifferencethatallthestormswhichthreatenthecommodityintheactualprocessofcirculationcentreuponit。Aquarterofwheatcontainsthirtydays\'labour,anditthereforedoesnothavetobeexpressedintermsoflabour—time。Butgoldisacommoditydistinct*fromwheat,andonlycirculationcanshowwhetherthequarterofwheatisactuallyturnedintoanounceofgoldashasbeenanticipatedinitsprice。Thisdependsonwhetherornotthewheatprovestobeause—value,whetherornotthequantityoflabour—timecontainedinitprovestobethequantityoflabour—timenecessarilyrequiredbysocietyfortheproductionofaquarterofwheat。Thecommodityassuchisanexchange—value,thecommodityhasaprice。Thisdifferencebetweenexchange—valueandpriceisareflectionofthefactthattheparticularindividuallabourcontainedinthecommoditycanonlythroughalienationberepresentedasitsopposite,impersonal,abstract,general——andonlyinthisformsocial——labour,i。e。,money。Whetheritcanbethusrepresentedornotseemsamatterofchance。Although,therefore,thepricegivesexchange—valueaformofexistencewhichisonlynominallydistinctfromthecommodity,andthetwoaspectsofthelabourcontainedinthecommodityappearasyetonlyasdifferentmodesofexpression;while,ontheotherhand,gold,theembodimentofuniversallabour—time,accordinglyconfrontsconcretecommoditiesmerelyasanimaginarymeasureofvalue;yettheexistenceofpriceasanexpressionofexchange—value,orofgoldasameasureofvalue,entailsthenecessityforalienationofcommoditiesinexchangeforglitteringgoldandthusthepossibilityoftheirnon—alienation。Inshort,thereisherecontainedinlatentformthewholecontradictionwhicharisesbecausetheproductisacommodity,orbecausetheparticularlabourofanisolatedindividualcanbecomesociallyeffectiveonlyifitisexpressedasitsdirectopposite,i。e。,\"abstractuniversallabour。
Theutopianswhowishtoretaincommoditiesbutnotmoney,productionbasedonprivateexchangewithouttheessentialconditionsforthistypeofproduction,arethereforequiteconsistentwhentheyseekto\"abolish\"moneynotonlyinitspalpablestatebuteveninthenebulous,chimericalstatethatitassumesasthemeasureofvalue。Forbeneaththeinvisiblemeasureofvaluelurkshardmoney。
Giventheprocessbywhichgoldhasbeenturnedintothemeasureofvalueandexchange—valueintoprice,allcommoditieswhenexpressedintheirpricesaremerelyimaginedquantitiesofgoldofvariousmagnitudes。
Sincetheyarethusvariousquantitiesofthesamething,namelygold,theyaresimilar,comparableandcommensurable,andthusarisesthetechnicalnecessityofrelatingthemtoadefinitequantityofgoldasaunitofmeasure。Thisunitofmeasurethendevelopsintoascaleofmeasurebybeingdividedintoaliquotpartswhichareinturnsubdividedintoaliquotparts。[2]Thequantitiesofgoldthemselves,however,aremeasuredbyweight。
Thestandardweightsgenerallyusedformetalsaccordinglyprovideready—madestandardmeasures,whichoriginallyalsoservedasstandardmeasuresofpricewherevermetalliccurrencywasinuse。Sincecommoditiesarenolongercomparedasexchange—valueswhicharemeasuredintermsoflabour—time,butasmagnitudesofthesamedenominationmeasuredintermsofgold,gold,themeasureofvalue,becomesthestandardofprice。Thecomparisonofcommodity—pricesintermsofdifferentquantitiesofgoldthusbecomescrystallisedinfiguresdenotingimaginaryquantitiesofgoldandrepresentinggoldasastandardmeasuredividedintoaliquotparts。