Man’sreflectionsontheformsofsociallife，andconsequently，also，hisscientificanalysisofthoseforms，takeacoursedirectlyoppositetothatoftheiractualhistoricaldevelopment。Hebegins，postfestum，withtheresultsoftheprocessofdevelopmentreadytohandbeforehim。
Thecharactersthatstampproductsascommodities，andwhoseestablishmentisanecessarypreliminarytothecirculationofcommodities，havealreadyacquiredthestabilityofnatural，self—understoodformsofsociallife，beforemanseekstodecipher，nottheirhistoricalcharacter，forinhiseyestheyareimmutable，buttheirmeaning。Consequentlyitwastheanalysisofthepricesofcommoditiesthataloneledtothedeterminationofthemagnitudeofvalue，anditwasthecommonexpressionofallcommoditiesinmoneythataloneledtotheestablishmentoftheircharactersasvalues。
Itis，however，justthisultimatemoney—formoftheworldofcommoditiesthatactuallyconceals，insteadofdisclosing，thesocialcharacterofprivatelabour，andthesocialrelationsbetweentheindividualproducers。
WhenIstatethatcoatsorbootsstandinarelationtolinen，becauseitistheuniversalincarnationofabstracthumanlabour，theabsurdityofthestatementisself—evident。Nevertheless，whentheproducersofcoatsandbootscomparethosearticleswithlinen，or，whatisthesamething，withgoldorsilver，astheuniversalequivalent，theyexpresstherelationbetweentheirownprivatelabourandthecollectivelabourofsocietyinthesameabsurdform。
Thecategoriesofbourgeoiseconomyconsistofsuchlikeforms。Theyareformsofthoughtexpressingwithsocialvaliditytheconditionsandrelationsofadefinite，historicallydeterminedmodeofproduction，viz。，theproductionofcommodities。Thewholemysteryofcommodities，allthemagicandnecromancythatsurroundstheproductsoflabouraslongastheytaketheformofcommodities，vanishestherefore，sosoonaswecometootherformsofproduction。
SinceRobinsonCrusoe’sexperiencesareafavouritethemewithpoliticaleconomists，[30]letustakealookathimonhisisland。Moderatethoughhebe，yetsomefewwantshehastosatisfy，andmustthereforedoalittleusefulworkofvarioussorts，suchasmakingtoolsandfurniture，taminggoats，fishingandhunting。
Ofhisprayersandthelikewetakenoaccount，sincetheyareasourceofpleasuretohim，andhelooksuponthemassomuchrecreation。Inspiteofthevarietyofhiswork，heknowsthathislabour，whateveritsform，isbuttheactivityofoneandthesameRobinson，andconsequently，thatitconsistsofnothingbutdifferentmodesofhumanlabour。Necessityitselfcompelshimtoapportionhistimeaccuratelybetweenhisdifferentkindsofwork。Whetheronekindoccupiesagreaterspaceinhisgeneralactivitythananother，dependsonthedifficulties，greaterorlessasthecasemaybe，tobeovercomeinattainingtheusefuleffectaimedat。ThisourfriendRobinsonsoonlearnsbyexperience，andhavingrescuedawatch，ledger，andpenandinkfromthewreck，commences，likeatrue—bornBriton，tokeepasetofbooks。Hisstock—bookcontainsalistoftheobjectsofutilitythatbelongtohim，oftheoperationsnecessaryfortheirproduction;
andlastly，ofthelabour—timethatdefinitequantitiesofthoseobjectshave，onanaverage，costhim。AlltherelationsbetweenRobinsonandtheobjectsthatformthiswealthofhisowncreation，areheresosimpleandclearastobeintelligiblewithoutexertion，eventoMr。SedleyTaylor。
Andyetthoserelationscontainallthatisessentialtothedeterminationofvalue。
LetusnowtransportourselvesfromRobinson’sislandbathedinlighttotheEuropeanmiddleagesshroudedindarkness。Here，insteadoftheindependentman，wefindeveryonedependent，serfsandlords，vassalsandsuzerains，laymenandclergy。Personaldependenceherecharacterisesthesocialrelationsofproductionjustasmuchasitdoestheotherspheresoflifeorganisedonthebasisofthatproduction。Butfortheveryreasonthatpersonaldependenceformstheground—workofsociety，thereisnonecessityforlabouranditsproductstoassumeafantasticformdifferentfromtheirreality。Theytaketheshape，inthetransactionsofsociety，ofservicesinkindandpaymentsinkind。Heretheparticularandnaturalformoflabour，andnot，asinasocietybasedonproductionofcommodities，itsgeneralabstractformistheimmediatesocialformoflabour。Compulsorylabourisjustasproperlymeasuredbytime，ascommodity—producinglabour;
buteveryserfknowsthatwhatheexpendsintheserviceofhislord，isadefinitequantityofhisownpersonallabour—power。Thetithetoberenderedtothepriestismorematteroffactthanhisblessing。Nomatter，then，whatwemaythinkofthepartsplayedbythedifferentclassesofpeoplethemselvesinthissociety，thesocialrelationsbetweenindividualsintheperformanceoftheirlabour，appearatalleventsastheirownmutualpersonalrelations，andarenotdisguisedundertheshapeofsocialrelationsbetweentheproductsoflabour。
Foranexampleoflabourincommonordirectlyassociatedlabour，wehavenooccasiontogobacktothatspontaneouslydevelopedformwhichwefindonthethresholdofthehistoryofallcivilisedraces。[31]Wehaveonecloseathandinthepatriarchalindustriesofapeasantfamily，thatproducescorn，cattle，yarn，linen，andclothingforhomeuse。Thesedifferentarticlesare，asregardsthefamily，somanyproductsofitslabour，butasbetweenthemselves，theyarenotcommodities。Thedifferentkindsoflabour，suchastillage，cattletending，spinning，weavingandmakingclothes，whichresultinthevariousproducts，areinthemselves，andsuchastheyare，directsocialfunctions，becausefunctionsofthefamily，which，justasmuchasasocietybasedontheproductionofcommodities，possessesaspontaneouslydevelopedsystemofdivisionoflabour。Thedistributionoftheworkwithinthefamily，andtheregulationofthelabour—timeoftheseveralmembers，dependaswellupondifferencesofageandsexasuponnaturalconditionsvaryingwiththeseasons。Thelabour—powerofeachindividual，byitsverynature，operatesinthiscasemerelyasadefiniteportionofthewholelabour—powerofthefamily，andtherefore，themeasureoftheexpenditureofindividuallabour—powerbyitsduration，appearsherebyitsverynatureasasocialcharacteroftheirlabour。
Letusnowpicturetoourselves，bywayofchange，acommunityoffreeindividuals，carryingontheirworkwiththemeansofproductionincommon，inwhichthelabour—powerofallthedifferentindividualsisconsciouslyappliedasthecombinedlabour—powerofthecommunity。AllthecharacteristicsofRobinson’slabourarehererepeated，butwiththisdifference，thattheyaresocial，insteadofindividual。Everythingproducedbyhimwasexclusivelytheresultofhisownpersonallabour，andthereforesimplyanobjectofuseforhimself。Thetotalproductofourcommunityisasocialproduct。Oneportionservesasfreshmeansofproductionandremainssocial。
Butanotherportionisconsumedbythemembersasmeansofsubsistence。
Adistributionofthisportionamongstthemisconsequentlynecessary。
Themodeofthisdistributionwillvarywiththeproductiveorganisationofthecommunity，andthedegreeofhistoricaldevelopmentattainedbytheproducers。Wewillassume，butmerelyforthesakeofaparallelwiththeproductionofcommodities，thattheshareofeachindividualproducerinthemeansofsubsistenceisdeterminedbyhislabour—time。Labour—timewould，inthatcase，playadoublepart。Itsapportionmentinaccordancewithadefinitesocialplanmaintainstheproperproportionbetweenthedifferentkindsofworktobedoneandthevariouswantsofthecommunity。
Ontheotherhand，italsoservesasameasureoftheportionofthecommonlabourbornebyeachindividual，andofhisshareinthepartofthetotalproductdestinedforindividualconsumption。Thesocialrelationsoftheindividualproducers，withregardbothtotheirlabourandtoitsproducts，areinthiscaseperfectlysimpleandintelligible，andthatwithregardnotonlytoproductionbutalsotodistribution。
Thereligiousworldisbutthereflexoftherealworld。Andforasocietybasedupontheproductionofcommodities，inwhichtheproducersingeneralenterintosocialrelationswithoneanotherbytreatingtheirproductsascommoditiesandvalues，wherebytheyreducetheirindividualprivatelabourtothestandardofhomogeneoushumanlabour—forsuchasociety，Christianitywithitscultusofabstractman，moreespeciallyinitsbourgeoisdevelopments，Protestantism，Deism，&c。，isthemostfittingformofreligion。IntheancientAsiaticandotherancientmodesofproduction，wefindthattheconversionofproductsintocommodities，andthereforetheconversionofmenintoproducersofcommodities，holdsasubordinateplace，which，however，increasesinimportanceastheprimitivecommunitiesapproachnearerandnearertotheirdissolution。Tradingnations，properlysocalled，existintheancientworldonlyinitsinterstices，likethegodsofEpicurusintheIntermundia，orlikeJewsintheporesofPolishsociety。Thoseancientsocialorganismsofproductionare，ascomparedwithbourgeoissociety，extremelysimpleandtransparent。Buttheyarefoundedeitherontheimmaturedevelopmentofmanindividually，whohasnotyetseveredtheumbilicalcordthatuniteshimwithhisfellowmeninaprimitivetribalcommunity，orupondirectrelationsofsubjection。Theycanariseandexistonlywhenthedevelopmentoftheproductivepoweroflabourhasnotrisenbeyondalowstage，andwhen，therefore，thesocialrelationswithinthesphereofmateriallife，betweenmanandman，andbetweenmanandNature，arecorrespondinglynarrow。ThisnarrownessisreflectedintheancientworshipofNature，andintheotherelementsofthepopularreligions。Thereligiousreflexoftherealworldcan，inanycase，onlythenfinallyvanish，whenthepracticalrelationsofevery—daylifeoffertomannonebutperfectlyintelligibleandreasonablerelationswithregardtohisfellowmenandtoNature。
Thelife—processofsociety，whichisbasedontheprocessofmaterialproduction，doesnotstripoffitsmysticalveiluntilitistreatedasproductionbyfreelyassociatedmen，andisconsciouslyregulatedbytheminaccordancewithasettledplan。This，however，demandsforsocietyacertainmaterialground—workorsetofconditionsofexistencewhichintheirturnarethespontaneousproductofalongandpainfulprocessofdevelopment。
PoliticalEconomyhasindeedanalysed，howeverincompletely，[32]valueanditsmagnitude，andhasdiscoveredwhatliesbeneaththeseforms。
Butithasneveronceaskedthequestionwhylabourisrepresentedbythevalueofitsproductandlabour—timebythemagnitudeofthatvalue。[33]Theseformulae，whichbearitstampedupontheminunmistakablelettersthattheybelongtoastateofsociety，inwhichtheprocessofproductionhasthemasteryoverman，insteadofbeingcontrolledbyhim，suchformulaeappeartothebourgeoisintellecttobeasmuchaself—evidentnecessityimposedbyNatureasproductivelabouritself。Henceformsofsocialproductionthatprecededthebourgeoisform，aretreatedbythebourgeoisieinmuchthesamewayastheFathersoftheChurchtreatedpre—Christianreligions。[34]
TowhatextentsomeeconomistsaremisledbytheFetishisminherentincommodities，orbytheobjectiveappearanceofthesocialcharacteristicsoflabour，isshown，amongstotherways，bythedullandtediousquarreloverthepartplayedbyNatureintheformationofexchange—value。Sinceexchange—valueisadefinitesocialmannerofexpressingtheamountoflabourbestoweduponanobject，Naturehasnomoretodowithit，thanithasinfixingthecourseofexchange。
Themodeofproductioninwhichtheproducttakestheformofacommodity，orisproduceddirectlyforexchange，isthemostgeneralandmostembryonicformofbourgeoisproduction。Itthereforemakesitsappearanceatanearlydateinhistory，thoughnotinthesamepredominatingandcharacteristicmannerasnow—a—days。HenceitsFetishcharacteriscomparativelyeasytobeseenthrough。Butwhenwecometomoreconcreteforms，eventhisappearanceofsimplicityvanishes。Whencearosetheillusionsofthemonetarysystem？Toitgoldandsilver，whenservingasmoney，didnotrepresentasocialrelationbetweenproducers，butwerenaturalobjectswithstrangesocialproperties。Andmoderneconomy，whichlooksdownwithsuchdisdainonthemonetarysystem，doesnotitssuperstitioncomeoutasclearasnoon—day，wheneverittreatsofcapital？Howlongisitsinceeconomydiscardedthephysiocraticillusion，thatrentsgrowoutofthesoilandnotoutofsociety？
Butnottoanticipate，wewillcontentourselveswithyetanotherexamplerelatingtothecommodity—form。Couldcommoditiesthemselvesspeak，theywouldsay:Ouruse—valuemaybeathingthatinterestsmen。Itisnopartofusasobjects。What，however，doesbelongtousasobjects，isourvalue。
Ournaturalintercourseascommoditiesprovesit。Intheeyesofeachotherwearenothingbutexchange—values。Nowlistenhowthosecommoditiesspeakthroughthemouthoftheeconomist。\"Value\"？（i。e。，exchange—value）
\"isapropertyofthings，riches\"？（i。e。，use—value）\"ofman。Value，inthissense，necessarilyimpliesexchanges，richesdonot。\"[35]\"Riches\"（use—value）\"aretheattributeofmen，valueistheattributeofcommodities。Amanoracommunityisrich，apearloradiamondisvaluable……
Apearloradiamondisvaluable\"asapearloradiamond。[36]Sofarnochemisthaseverdiscoveredexchange—valueeitherinapearloradiamond。Theeconomicdiscoverersofthischemicalelement，whoby—the—bylayspecialclaimtocriticalacumen，findhoweverthattheuse—valueofobjectsbelongstothemindependentlyoftheirmaterialproperties，whiletheirvalue，ontheotherhand，formsapartofthemasobjects。Whatconfirmstheminthisview，isthepeculiarcircumstancethattheuse—valueofobjectsisrealisedwithoutexchange，bymeansofadirectrelationbetweentheobjectsandman，while，ontheotherhand，theirvalueisrealisedonlybyexchange，thatis，bymeansofasocialprocess。Whofailsheretocalltomindourgoodfriend，Dogberry，whoinformsneighbourSeacoal，that，\"Tobeawell—favouredmanisthegiftoffortune;butreadingandwritingcomesbyNature。\"[37]
Footnotes[1]KarlMarx，\"ZurKritikderPolitischenOekonomie。\"Berlin，1859，p。3。
[2]\"Desireimplieswant，itistheappetiteofthemind，andasnaturalashungertothebody……Thegreatestnumber（ofthings）havetheirvaluefromsupplyingthewantsofthemind。\"NicholasBarbon:\"ADiscourseConcerningCoiningtheNewMoneyLighter。InAnswertoMr。Locke’sConsiderations，\"
&c。，London，1696，pp。2，3。
[3]\"Thingshaveanintrinsickvertue\"（thisisBarbon’sspecialtermforvalueinuse）\"whichinallplaceshavethesamevertue;astheloadstonetoattractiron\"（l。c。，p。6）。Thepropertywhichthemagnetpossessesofattractingiron，becameofuseonlyafterbymeansofthatpropertythepolarityofthemagnethadbeendiscovered。
[4]\"Thenaturalworthofanythingconsistsinitsfitnesstosupplythenecessities，orservetheconvenienciesofhumanlife。\"（JohnLocke，\"SomeConsiderationsontheConsequencesoftheLoweringofInterest，1691，\"inWorksEdit。
Lond。，1777，Vol。II。，p。28。）InEnglishwritersofthe17thcenturywefrequentlyfind\"worth\"inthesenseofvalueinuse，and\"value\"inthesenseofexchange—value。ThisisquiteinaccordancewiththespiritofalanguagethatlikestouseaTeutonicwordfortheactualthing，andaRomancewordforitsreflexion。
[5]Inbourgeoissocietiestheeconomicfictiojurisprevails，thateveryone，asabuyer，possessesanencyclopedicknowledgeofcommodities。
[6]\"Lavaleurconsistedanslerapportd’echangequisetrouveentretellechoseettelleautreentretellemesured’uneproductionettellemesured’uneautre。\"（LeTrosne:\"Del’InteretSocial。\"Physiocrates，Ed。Daire。
Paris，1846。P。889。）
[7]\"Nothingcanhaveanintrinsickvalue。\"（N。Barbon，t。c。，p。6）;orasButlersays？\"ThevalueofathingIsjustasmuchasitwillbring。\"
[8]N。Barbon，l。c。，p。53and7。
[9]\"Thevalueofthem（thenecessariesoflife），whentheyareexchangedtheoneforanother，isregulatedbythequantityoflabournecessarilyrequired，andcommonlytakeninproducingthem。\"（\"SomeThoughtsontheInterestofMoneyinGeneral，andParticularlyinthePublickFunds，&。\"Lond。，p。36）Thisremarkableanonymousworkwritteninthelastcentury，bearsnodate。Itisclear，however，frominternalevidencethatitappearedinthereignofGeorgeII，about1739or1740。
[10]\"Touteslesproductionsd’unmemegenreneformentproprementqu’unemasse，dontleprixsedetermineengeneraletsansegardauxcirconstancesparticulieres。\"
（LeTrosne，l。c。，p。893。）
[11]K。Marx。l。c。，p。6。
[12]IaminsertingtheparenthesisbecauseitsomissionhasoftengivenrisetothemisunderstandingthateveryproductthatisconsumedbysomeoneotherthanitsproducerisconsideredinMarxacommodity。[Engels，4thGermanEdition]
[13]Tuttiifenomenidell’universo，sienoessiprodottidellamanodell’uomo，ovverodelleuniversalileggidellafisica，noncidannoideadiattualecreazione，maunicamentediunamodificazionedellamateria。Accostareesepararesonogliunicielementichel’ingegnoumanoritrovaanalizzandol’ideadellariproduzione:etantoeriproduzionedivalore（valueinuse，althoughVerriinthispassageofhiscontroversywiththePhysiocratsisnothimselfquitecertainofthekindofvalueheisspeakingof）ediricchezzeselaterra，I’ariaeI’acquane’campisitrasmutinoingrano，comesecollamanodell’uomoilglutinediuninsettositrasmutiinvellutoovveroalcunipezzettidimetaliosiorganizzinoaformareunaripetizione。\"—PietroVerri，\"MeditazionisullaEconomiaPolitica\"[firstprintedin1773]inCustodi’seditionoftheItalianEconomists，ParteModerna，t。XV。，p。
22。
[14]Comp。Hegel，\"PhilosophiedesRechts。\"Berlin，1840。P。250
[15]Thereadermustnotethatwearenotspeakinghereofthewagesorvaluethatthelabourergetsforagivenlabour—time，butofthevalueofthecommodityinwhichthatlabour—timeismaterialised。Wagesisacategorythat，asyet，hasnoexistenceatthepresentstageofourinvestigation。
[16]Inordertoprovethatlabouraloneisthatall—sufficientandrealmeasure，bywhichatalltimesthevalueofallcommoditiescanbeestimatedandcompared，AdamSmithsays，\"Equalquantitiesoflabourmustatalltimesandinallplaceshavethesamevalueforthelabourer。Inhisnormalstateofhealth，strength，andactivity，andwiththeaveragedegreeofskillthathemaypossess，hemustalwaysgiveupthesameportionofhisresthisfreedom，andhishappiness。\"（\"WealthofNations，\"b。I。ch。V。）OntheonehandAdamSmithhere（butnoteverywhere）confusesthedeterminationofvaluebymeansofthequantityoflabourexpendedintheproductionofcommodities，withthedeterminationofthevaluesofcommoditiesbymeansofthevalueoflabour，andseeksinconsequencetoprovethatequalquantitiesoflabourhavealwaysthesamevalue。Ontheotherhandhehasapresentiment，thatlabour，sofarasitmanifestsitselfinthevalueofcommodities，countsonlyasexpenditureoflabour—power，buthetreatsthisexpenditureasthemeresacrificeofrest，freedom，andhappiness，notasatthesametimethenormalactivityoflivingbeings。Butthen，hehasthemodernwage—labourerinhiseye。Muchmoreaptly，theanonymouspredecessorofAdamSmith，quotedaboveinNote1，p。39[note9etext]。
says\"onemanhasemployedhimselfaweekinprovidingthisnecessaryoflife……andhethatgiveshimsomeotherinexchangecannotmakeabetterestimateofwhatisaproperequivalent，thanbycomputingwhatcosthimjustasmuchlabourandtimewhichineffectisnomorethanexchangingoneman’slabourinonethingforatimecertain，foranotherman’slabourinanotherthingforthesametime。\"（l。c。，p。39。）[TheEnglishlanguagehastheadvantageofpossessingdifferentwordsforthetwoaspectsoflabourhereconsidered。ThelabourwhichcreatesUse—Value，andcountsqualitatively，isWork，asdistinguishedfromLabour，thatwhichcreatesValueandcountsquantitatively，isLabourasdistinguishedfromWork—
Engels]
[17]Thefeweconomists，amongstwhomisS。Bailey，whohaveoccupiedthemselveswiththeanalysisoftheformofvalue，havebeenunabletoarriveatanyresult，first，becausetheyconfusetheformofvaluewithvalueitself;
andsecond，because，underthecoarseinfluenceofthepracticalbourgeois，theyexclusivelygivetheirattentiontothequantitativeaspectofthequestion。\"Thecommandofquantity……constitutesvalue。\"（\"MoneyanditsVicissitudes。\"London，1837，p。11。ByS。Bailey。）
[18]ThecelebratedFranklin，oneofthefirsteconomists，afterWm。Petty，whosawthroughthenatureofvalue，says:\"Tradeingeneralbeingnothingelsebuttheexchangeoflabourforlabour，thevalueofallthingsis……mostjustlymeasuredbylabour。\"（\"TheworksofB。Franklin，&c。，\"
editedbySparks。Boston，1836，Vol。II。，p。267。）Franklinisunconsciousthatbyestimatingthevalueofeverythinginlabour，hemakesabstractionfromanydifferenceinthesortsoflabourexchanged，andthusreducesthemalltoequalhumanlabour。Butalthoughignorantofthis，yethesaysit。Hespeaksfirstof\"theonelabour，\"thenof\"theotherlabour，\"andfinallyof\"labour，\"withoutfurtherqualification，asthesubstanceofthevalueofeverything。
[19]Inasortofway，itiswithmanaswithcommodities。Sincehecomesintotheworldneitherwithalookingglassinhishand，norasaFichtianphilosopher，towhom\"IamI\"issufficient，manfirstseesandrecogniseshimselfinothermen。PeteronlyestablisheshisownidentityasamanbyfirstcomparinghimselfwithPaulasbeingoflikekind。AndtherebyPaul，justashestandsinhisPaulinepersonality，becomestoPeterthetypeofthegenushomo。
[20]Valueishere，asoccasionallyintheprecedingpages，usedinsenseofvaluedeterminedastoquantity，orofmagnitudeofvalue。
[21]Thisincongruitybetweenthemagnitudeofvalueanditsrelativeexpressionhas，withcustomaryingenuity，beenexploitedbyvulgareconomists。Forexample—\"OnceadmitthatAfalls，becauseB，withwhichitisexchanged，rises，whilenolesslabourisbestowedinthemeantimeonA，andyourgeneralprincipleofvaluefallstotheground……Ifhe[Ricardo]allowedthatwhenArisesinvaluerelativelytoB，BfallsinvaluerelativelytoA，hecutawaythegroundonwhichherestedhisgrandproposition，thatthevalueofacommodityiseverdeterminedbythelabourembodiedinit，forifachangeinthecostofAaltersnotonlyitsownvalueinrelationtoB，forwhichitisexchanged，butalsothevalueofBrelativelytothatofA，thoughnochangehastakenplaceinthequantityoflabourtoproduceB，thennotonlythedoctrinefallstothegroundwhichassertsthatthequantityoflabourbestowedonanarticleregulatesitsvalue，butalsothatwhichaffirmsthecostofanarticletoregulateitsvalue’
（J。Broadhurst:\"PoliticalEconomy，\"London，1842，pp。11and14。）Mr。
Broadhurstmightjustaswellsay:considerthefractions10/20，10/50，10/100，&c。，thenumber10remainsunchanged，andyetitsproportionalmagnitude，itsmagnituderelativelytothenumbers20，50，100&c。，continuallydiminishes。Thereforethegreatprinciplethatthemagnitudeofawholenumber，suchas10，is\"regulated\"bythenumberoftimesunityiscontainedinit，fallstotheground。[Theauthorexplainsinsection4ofthischapter，pp。80—81，note2（note33etext），whatheunderstandsby\"VulgarEconomy。\"—Engels]
[22]Suchexpressionsofrelationsingeneral，calledbyHegelreflex—categories，formaverycuriousclass。Forinstance，onemaniskingonlybecauseothermenstandintherelationofsubjectstohim。They，onthecontrary，imaginethattheyaresubjectsbecauseheisking。
[23]F。L。A。Ferrier，sous—inspecteurdesdouanes，\"Dugouvernementconsideredanssesrapportsaveclecommerce，\"Paris，1805;andCharlesGanilh，\"DesSystemesd’EconomiePolitique，？2nded。，Paris，1821。
[24]InHomer，forinstance，thevalueofanarticleisexpressedinaseriesofdifferentthingsII。Vll。472—475。
[25]Forthisreason，wecanspeakofthecoat—valueofthelinenwhenitsvalueisexpressedincoats，orofitscorn—valuewhenexpressedincorn，andsoon。Everysuchexpressiontellsus，thatwhatappearsintheuse—values，cost，corn，&c。，isthevalueofthelinen。\"Thevalueofanycommoditydenotingitsrelationinexchange，wemayspeakofitas……corn—value，cloth—value，accordingtothecommoditywithwhichitiscompared;andhencethereareathousanddifferentkindsofvalue，asmanykindsofvalueastherearecommoditiesinexistence，andallareequallyrealandequallynominal。\"（\"ACriticalDissertationontheNature，MeasuresandCausesofValue:chieflyinreferencetothewritingsofMr。Ricardoandhisfollowers。\"
Bytheauthorof\"EssaysontheFormation，&c。，ofOpinions。’London，1825，p。39。）S。Bailey，theauthorofthisanonymouswork，aworkwhichinitsdaycreatedmuchstirinEngland，fanciedthat，bythuspointingoutthevariousrelativeexpressionsofoneandthesamevalue，hehadprovedtheimpossibilityofanydeterminationoftheconceptofvalue。
Howevernarrowhisownviewsmayhavebeen，yet，thathelaidhisfingeronsomeseriousdefectsintheRicardianTheory，isprovedbytheanimositywithwhichhewasattackedbyRicardo’sfollowers。SeetheWestminsterReviewforexample。
[26]Itisbynomeansself—evidentthatthischaracterofdirectanduniversalexchangeabilityis，sotospeak，apolarone，andasintimatelyconnectedwithitsoppositepole，theabsenceofdirectexchangeability，asthepositivepoleofthemagnetiswithitsnegativecounterpart。Itmaythereforebeimaginedthatallcommoditiescansimultaneouslyhavethischaracterimpresseduponthem，justasitcanbeimaginedthatallCatholicscanbepopestogether。
Itis，ofcourse，highlydesirableintheeyesofthepetitbourgeois，forwhomtheproductionofcommoditiesisthenecplusultraofhumanfreedomandindividualindependence，thattheinconveniencesresultingfromthischaracterofcommoditiesnotbeingdirectlyexchangeable，shouldberemoved。
Proudhon’ssocialismisaworkingoutofthisPhilistineUtopia，aformofsocialismwhich，asIhaveelsewhereshown，doesnotpossesseventhemeritoforiginality。Longbeforehistime，thetaskwasattemptedwithmuchbettersuccessbyGray，Bray，andothers。But，forallthat，wisdomofthiskindflourishesevennowincertaincirclesunderthenameof\"science。\"
Neverhasanyschoolplayedmoretrickswiththewordscience，thanthatofProudhon，for\"woBegriffefehlen，DastelltzurrechtenZeiteinWortsichein。\"
[27]AmongtheancientGermanstheunitforrneasuringlandwaswhatcouldbeharvestedinaday，andwascalledTagwerk，Tagwanne（jurnale，orterrajurnalis，ordiornalis），Mannsmaad，&c。（SeeG。L。vonMaurer，\"EinleitungzurGeschichtederMark—，&c。Verfassung，\"Munchen，1854，p。129sq。）
[28]When，therefore，Galianisays:Valueisarelationbetweenpersons？\"LaRicchezzaeunaragionetraduepersone，\"？heoughttohaveadded:arelationbetweenpersonsexpressedasarelationbetweenthings。（Galiani:DellaMoneta，p。221，V。III。ofCustodi’scollectionof\"ScrittoriClassiciItalianidiEconomiaPolitica。\"ParteModerna，Milano1803。）
[29]Whatarewetothinkofalawthatassertsitselfonlybyperiodicalrevolutions？
ItisjustnothingbutalawofNature，foundedonthewantofknowledgeofthosewhoseactionisthesubjectofit。\"（FriedrichEngels:\"UmrissezueinerKritikderNationalokonomie，\"inthe\"Deutsch—FranzosischeJahrbucher，\"
editedbyArnoldRugeandKarlMarx。Paris。1844。）
[30]EvenRicardohashisstoriesalaRobinson。\"Hemakestheprimitivehunterandtheprimitivefisherstraightway，asownersofcommodities，exchangefishandgameintheproportioninwhichlabour—timeisincorporatedintheseexchange—values。Onthisoccasionhecommitstheanachronismofmakingthesemenapplytothecalculation，sofarastheirimplementshavetobetakenintoaccount，theannuitytablesincurrentuseontheLondonExchangeintheyear1817。TheparallelogramsofMr。Owen’appeartobetheonlyformofsociety，besidesthebourgeoisform，withwhichhewasacquainted。\"（KarlMarx:\"ZurKritik，&c……\"pp。38，39）
[31]’AridiculouspresumptionhaslatterlygotabroadthatcommonpropertyinitsprimitiveformisspecificallyaSlavonian，orevenexclusivelyRussianform。ItistheprimitiveformthatwecanprovetohaveexistedamongstRomans，Teutons，andCelts，andeventothisdaywefindnumerousexamples，ruinsthoughtheybe，inIndia。AmoreexhaustivestudyofAsiatic，andespeciallyofIndianformsofcommonproperty，wouldshowhowfromthedifferentformsofprimitivecommonproperty，differentformsofitsdissolutionhavebeendeveloped。Thus，forinstance，thevariousoriginaltypesofRomanandTeutonicprivatepropertyarededuciblefromdifferentformsofIndiancommonproperty。\"（KarlMarx，\"ZurKritik，&c。，\"p。
10。）
[32]TheinsufficiencyofRicardo’sanalysisofthemagnitudeofvalue，andhisanalysisisbyfarthebest，willappearfromthe3rdand4thbooksofthiswork。Asregardsvalueingeneral，itistheweakpointoftheclassicalschoolofPoliticalEconomythatitnowhereexpresslyandwithfullconsciousness，distinguishesbetweenlabour，asitappearsinthevalueofaproduct，andthesamelabour，asitappearsintheuse—valueofthatproduct。Ofcoursethedistinctionispracticallymade，sincethisschooltreatslabour，atonetimeunderitsquantitativeaspect，atanotherunderitsqualitativeaspect。Butithasnottheleastidea，thatwhenthedifferencebetweenvariouskindsoflabouristreatedaspurelyquantitative，theirqualitativeunityorequality，andthereforetheirreductiontoabstracthumanlabour，isimplied。Forinstance，RicardodeclaresthatheagreeswithDestuttdeTracyinthisproposition:\"Asitiscertainthatourphysicalandmoralfacultiesarealoneouroriginalriches，theemploymentofthosefaculties，labourofsomekind，isouronlyoriginaltreasure，anditisalwaysfromthisemploymentthatallthosethingsarecreatedwhichwecallriches……Itiscertain，too，thatallthosethingsonlyrepresentthelabourwhichhascreatedthem，andiftheyhaveavalue，oreventwodistinctvalues，theycanonlyderivethemfromthat（thevalue）ofthelabourfromwhichtheyemanate。\"（Ricardo，\"ThePrinciplesofPol。Econ。，\"
3Ed。Lond。1821，p。334。）Wewouldhereonlypointout，thatRicardoputshisownmoreprofoundinterpretationuponthewordsofDestutt。Whatthelatterreallysaysis，thatontheonehandallthingswhichconstitutewealthrepresentthelabourthatcreatesthem，butthatontheotherhand，theyacquiretheir\"twodifferentvalues\"（use—valueandexchange—value）
from\"thevalueoflabour。\"Hethusfallsintothecommonplaceerrorofthevulgareconomists，whoassumethevalueofonecommodity（inthiscaselabour）inordertodeterminethevaluesoftherest。ButRicardoreadshimasifhehadsaid，thatlabour（notthevalueoflabour）isembodiedbothinuse—valueandexchange—value。Nevertheless，Ricardohimselfpayssolittleattentiontothetwo—foldcharacterofthelabourwhichhasatwo—foldembodiment，thathedevotesthewholeofhischapteron\"ValueandRiches，TheirDistinctiveProperties，\"toalaboriousexaminationofthetrivialitiesofaJ。B。Say。AndatthefinishheisquiteastonishedtofindthatDestuttontheonehandagreeswithhimastolabourbeingthesourceofvalue，andontheotherhandwithJ。B。Sayastothenotionofvalue。