The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails,
presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”its unit being a single
commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties
satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether,
for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.[2]
Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether
directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.
Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view
of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be
of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history.
[3] So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the
quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly
in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention.
The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air.
Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from
that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it
is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent
of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value,
we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen,
or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study,
that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or
consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form
of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition,
the material depositories of exchange value.
Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation,
as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of
another sort,[6] a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange
value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an
intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in
commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.[7] Let us consider the matter a little more closely.
A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold,
. – in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions.
Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk,
or z gold &c., each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk,
z gold,&c., must, as exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other.
Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something equal;
secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form,
of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it.
Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable,
whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given
quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron.
What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter
of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The
two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the
other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.
A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare
the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the
triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure,
namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the
exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something
common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.
This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural
property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect
the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is
evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is
just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says,
“one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference
or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is
of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”[8]
As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values
they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one
common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour
itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value,
we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make
the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other
useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it
any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner,
or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of
the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various
kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing
left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour,
human labour in the abstract.
Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial
reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power
expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell
us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is
embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all,
they are – Values.
We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as
something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value,
there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests
itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value.
The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which
the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however,
we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.
A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the
abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude
of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance,
the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its
duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity
of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would
his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however,
that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform
labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the
values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass
of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these
units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power
of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a
commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary.
The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal
conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at
the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the
labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as
a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that,
the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s
social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any
article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary
for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered
as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities
of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value.
The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary
for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other.
“As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]
The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required
for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation
in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances,
amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and
the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent
and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example,
the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn,
and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than
from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their
discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is
represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its
full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce
of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised
the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations
of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented
more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds,
and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting
carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the
greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for
the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in
that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of
labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and
the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity,
and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. [A]
A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility
to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful,
and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies
his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities.
In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others,
social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced
quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the
quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they
had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another,
whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.)[12] Lastly nothing can have value,
without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it;
the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.