A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy/Chapter 1/Note A

by Karl Marx

 

NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF COMMODITIES.

The analysis of commodities according to their twofold aspect of use-value and exchange value by which the former is reduced to work or deliberate productive activity; and the latter, to labor time or homogeneous social labor, is the result of a century and a half of critical study by the classical school of political economy which dates from William Petty in England and Boisguillebert in France^[1] and closes with Ricardo in the former country and Sismondi in the latter.

Petty reduces use-value to labor, without deceiving himself as to the natural limitation of its creative power. As regards concrete labor, he sizes it up in the magnitude of its social aspect, as the division of labor.^[2]This view of the source of material wealth does not remain more or less fruitless as in the case of his contemporary, Hobbes, but leads up to his Political Arithmetic, the first form in which Political Economy is differentiated as an independent science.

He defines exchange value, however, just as it appears in the process of exchange of commodities, viz. as money; and money he defines as an existing commodity, gold and silver. Laboring under the ideas of the monetary system, he declares the special branch of labor which is devoted to the production of gold and silver as the labor which determines exchange value. What he really means is that the labor of members of society must {{hwe|duce|produce not direct use-values, but commodities or use-values which by means of exchange are capable of assuming the form of gold and silver, i. e. of money, i. e. of exchange value, i. e. of embodiments of universal labor. His example, however, shows strikingly that the recognition of labor as the source of material wealth by no means excludes the misconception of the particular social form in which labor constitutes the source of exchange value.

In his turn, Boisguillebert, if not consciously, at any rate actually reduces the exchange value of a commodity to labor-time, since he determines "true value" (la juste valeur) by the right proportion in which the labor-time of individuals is distributed among the several branches of industry, and defines free competition as the social process which determines these correct proportions. At the same time, however, and in contrast with Petty he wages a fanatical war against money which, by its interference, disturbs the natural equilibrium or harmony of exchange of commodities and, like a wanton Moloch, demands all natural wealth as sacrifice. It is true that this assault on money was called forth by certain historic conditions. Since Boisguillebert attacked^[3] the blind destructive lust after gold which possessed the court of Louis XIV, his tax collectors, and his nobility; on the other hand. Petty extolled in the greed of gold the mighty impulse which spurred on the nation in her industrial development and in her conquest of the world-market; still, there asserts itself here a deeper antagonism of principles which constantly recurs between true English and true French^[4] Political Economy. Boisguillebert sees, in fact, only the material substance of wealth, its use-value, the enjoyment^[5] of it, and considers the capitalistic form of labor, i. e. the production of use-values as commodities and the exchange of those commodities, as the natural social form in which individual labor attains its end. When he is, therefore, confronted with the specific character of capitalistic wealth as in the case of money, he sees in it the usurping interference of extraneous elements and gets into a rage about the capitalist system of labor in one form while utopian-like he praises it in another.^[6] Boisguillebert furnishes us with proof that one may treat labor-time as the measure of value of commodities, and at the same time confound labor embodied in the exchange value of commodities and measured by time, with the direct natural activity of individuals.

The first sensible analysis of exchange value as labor-time, made so clear as to seem almost commonplace, is to be found in the work of a man of the New World where the bourgeois relations of production imported together with their representatives sprouted rapidly in a soil which made up its lack of historical traditions with a surplus of humus. That man was Benjamin Franklin, who formulated the fundamental law of modern political economy^[7] in his first work which he wrote when a mere youth and published in 1721.

He declares it necessary to look for another measure of value than precious metals. That measure is labor. "By labor may the value of silver be measured as well as other things. As, suppose one man employed to raise corn, while another is digging and refining silver; at the year's end, or at any other period of time, the complete produce of corn, and that of silver, are the natural price of each other; and if one be twenty bushels, and the other twenty ounces, then an ounce of that silver is worth the labor of raising a bushel of that corn. Now if by the discovery of some nearer, more easy or plentiful mines, a man may get forty ounces of silver as easily as formerly he did twenty, and the same labor is still required to raise twenty bushels of corn, then two ounces of silver will be worth no more than the same labor of raising one bushel of corn, and that bushel of corn will be as cheap at two ounces, as it was before at one, ceteris paribus. Thus the riches of a country are to be valued by the quantity of labor its inhabitants are able to purchase."^[8] Thus Franklin regards labor-time from the one-sided economic point of view, as the measure of value. The transformation of actual products into exchange values is self-evident with him and the only question is as to finding a quantitative measure of value. "Trade," says he, "in general being nothing else but the exchange of labour for labour, the value of all things is, as I have said before, most justly measured by labour."^[9] Substitute the word "work" for "labor" in the above statement, and the confusion of labor in one form and labor in another form becomes at once apparent. Since trade consists e. g. in the exchange of the respective labors of the shoemaker, miner, spinner, painter, etc., does it follow that the value of shoes is most justly measured by the work of a painter? On the contrary, Franklin meant that the value of shoes, mining products, yarn, paintings, etc., is determined by abstract labor which possesses no particular qualities and can, therefore, be measured only quantitatively.^[10] But since he does not develop the idea that labor contained in exchange value is abstract universal labor which assumes the form of social labor as a result of the universal alienation of the products of individual labor, he necessarily fails to recognize in money the direct embodiment of this alienated labor. For that reason he sees no inner connection between money and labor which creates exchange value, and considers money merely as an instrument introduced from outside into the sphere of exchange for purposes of technical convenience.^[11] Franklin's analysis of exchange value did not exert any direct influence on the general trend of science, because he discussed only special questions of political economy whenever there was a definite practical occasion for it.

The contrast between useful work and labor which creates exchange value agitated all Europe during the eighteenth century in the form of this question: what particular kind of labor constitutes the source of bourgeois wealth? It was thus assumed that not every kind of labor which is realized in use-values or yields certain products does thereby directly create wealth. With the physiocrats, however, as well as with their opponents, the burning question was not, what kind of labor creates value, but which is it that creates surplus value. They approached the problem in its complicated form before they had solved it in its elementary form; such is the historical course of all sciences leading them by a labyrinth of intersecting paths to the real starting points. Unlike other builders, science not only erects castles in the air, but constructs separate stories of the building, before it has laid the foundation. Without dwelling any longer on the physiocrats and omitting quite a number of Italian economists who in some more or less ingenious ideas came close to a correct analysis of the nature of commodity,^[12] we pass at once to the first Briton who elaborated the general system of bourgeois economics. Sir James Steuart.^[13] His idea of exchange value as well as all the abstract categories of political economy still seem to be with him in the process of differentiation from the material elements they represent and therefore appear quite vague and unsettled. In one place he determines real value by labor-time ("what a workman can perform in a day"), but immediately creates confusion by introducing the elements of wages and raw material.^[14] In another place his struggle with the material substance of the subject he treats of is revealed even more strikingly. He cans the material of nature contained in a commodity, such as the silver in a silver plate, its "intrinsic worth," while the labor-time contained in it he calls "useful value." The former, he says "is . . . something real in itself," while "the value of the second must be estimated according to the labour it has cost to produce it. . . . The labour employed in the modification [of the substance] represents a portion of a man's time."^[15]

What distinguishes Steuart from his predecessors and followers is his keen differentiation between specifically social labor which is represented in exchange value, and concrete labor which produces use-values. Labor, he says, which through its alienation creates a universal equivalent, I call industry. Labor as industry he distinguishes not only from concrete labor, but from all other social forms of labor.^[16] It is to him the capitalistic form of labor in contrast to its antique and mediaeval forms. He is especially interested in the difference between capitalistic and feudal labor, of which he had observed the latter in its decaying forms both in Scotland and on his extensive travels over the continent. Steuart knew, of course, very well that products took on the form of commodities and commodities, the form of money in pre-capitalistic epochs as well; but he proves conclusively that it is only in the capitalistic period of production that the commodity becomes the elementary and fundamental form of wealth, and alienation [of commodities], the ruling form of acquisition and that consequently labor creating exchange value is specifically capitalistic in its character.^[17]

After different forms of concrete labor, such as agriculture, manufacture, navigation, trade, etc., had each in turn been declared the true source of wealth, Adam Smith proclaimed labor in general, and namely in its general social form of division of labor, to be the only source of material wealth or use-values. While ignoring in connection with the latter the part played by nature, he is troubled by it when he comes to deal with purely social wealth i. e. exchange value. To be sure, Adam determines the value of a commodity by the labor-time contained in it, but relegates the actual application of the principle to pre-Adamic times. In other words, what seems to him true from the standpoint of simple commodity, ceases to be clear as soon as the higher and more complex forms of capital, wage-labor, rent, etc. take its place. This he expresses by saying, that the value of commodities used to be measured by labor-time in the paradise lost of bourgeois society, in which men dealt with each other not as capitalists, wage-workers, landlords, tenants, usurers, etc., but merely as plain producers of commodities which they exchanged. He constantly confuses the determination of the value of commodities by the labor-time contained in them with the determination of their value by the value of labor. He becomes confused in working out the details and fails to see the objective equalization of different kinds of labor which the social process forcibly carries out, mistaking it for the subjective equality of the labors of individuals.^[18] The transition from concrete labor to labor creating exchange value, i. e. to labor in its fundamental capitalistic form he tries to derive from the division of labor. Yet, while it is true that private exchange implies the division of labor, it is false to maintain that division of labor implies private exchange. Among the Peruvians, e. g., labor was divided to an extraordinary extent, although there was no private exchange, no exchange of products, as commodities.

Contrary to Adam Smith, David Ricardo elaborated with great clearness the determination of the value of a commodity by labor-time and showed that this law governs also such relations of capitalistic production which seem to contradict it most. Ricardo confines his investigations exclusively to the quantitative determination of value and as regards the latter he is at least conscious of the fact that the realization of the law depends upon certain historical conditions. He says, namely, that the determination of value by labor-time holds good for commodities "only as can be increased in quantity by the exertion of human industry, and on the production of which competition operates without restraint."^[19] What he really means is that the law of value presupposes for its full development an industrial society in which production is carried on a large scale and free competition prevails, i. e. the modern capitalist society. In all other respects, Ricardo considers the capitalist form of labor as the eternal natural form of social labor. He makes the primitive fisherman and the primitive hunter straightway exchange their fish and game as owners of commodities, in proportion to the labor-time embodied in these exchange values. On this occasion he commits the anachronism of making the primitive fisherman and primitive hunter consult the annuity tables in current use on the London Exchange in the year 1817 in the calculation relating to their instruments. The "parallelograms of Mr. Owen" seem to be the only form of society outside of the bourgeois form with which he was acquainted. Although confined within this bourgeois horizon, Ricardo analyzes the bourgeois economy—which looks quite different to deeper insight than it does on the surface—with such keen power of theoretical penetration that Lord Brougham could say of him: "Mr. Ricardo seemed as if he had dropped from another planet."

In a direct controversy with Ricardo, Sismondi lays stress upon the specifically social character of labor which creates exchange value,^[20] and says it is "characteristic of our economic progress" to reduce the magnitude of value to the necessary labor-time, to the relation between the demand of society as a whole and the quantity of labor which is sufficient to satisfy this demand.^[21] Sismondi is no more laboring under Boisguillebert's idea, that labor which creates exchange value is adulterated by money; but just as Boisguillebert denounced money, so does Sismondi denounce large industrial capital. In Ricardo political economy reached its climax, after recklessly drawing its ultimate conclusions, while Sismondi supplemented it by impersonating its doubts.

Since Ricardo gave to classical political economy its final shape, having formulated and elaborated with the greatest clearness the law of the determination of exchange value by labor-time, it is natural that all the polemics among economists should center about him. Stripped of its puerile^[22] form this controversy comes down to the following points:

First: Labor itself has exchange value, and different kinds of labor have different exchange values. We get into a vicious circle by making exchange value the measure of exchange value, because the measuring exchange value needs a measure itself. This objection may be reduced to the following problem: Given labor-time as the intrinsic measure of exchange value, develop from that the determination of wages. The theory of wages gives the answer to that.

Second: If the exchange value of a product is equal to the labor-time contained in it, then the exchange value of one day of labor is equal to the product of that labor. In other words, wages must be equal to the product of labor.^[23] But the very opposite is actually the case. Ergo. this objection comes down to the following problem: How does production, based on the determination of exchange value by labor-time only, lead to the result that the exchange value of labor is less than the exchange value of its product? This problem is solved by us in the discussion of capital.

Third: The market price of commodities either falls below or rises above its exchange value with the changing relations of supply and demand. Therefore, the exchange value of commodities is determined by the relation of supply and demand and not by the labor-time contained in them. As a matter of fact, this queer conclusion merely amounts to the question, how a market price based on exchange value can deviate from that exchange value; or, better still, how does the law of exchange value assert itself only in its antithesis? This problem is solved in the theory of competition.

Fourth: The last and apparently the most striking objection, if not raised in the usual form of queer examples: If exchange value is nothing but mere labor-time contained in commodities, how can commodities which contain no labor possess exchange-value, or in other words, whence the exchange value of mere forces of nature? This problem is solved in the theory of rent.

---

1. A comparative study of the writings and characters of Petty and Boisguillebert, outside of the light which it would throw upon the difference of French and English society at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries, would disclose the origin of the national contrast between English and French Political Economy. The same contrast reasserts itself in Ricardo and Sismondi.
2. Petty had illustrated the productive power inherent in the division of labor on a much grander scale than that was done later by Adam Smith. See his "Essay concerning the multiplication of mankind, etc.," 3rd edition, 1686, p. 35–36. He not only brings out the advantages of the division of labor on the example of the manufacture of a watch, as Adam Smith did later on that of a needle, but considers also a city and an entire country from the point of view of a large manufacturing establishment. The Spectator, of November 26, 1711, refers to this "illustration of the admirable Sir William Petty." McCulloch is, therefore, mistaken when he supposes that the Spectator confounded Petty with a writer forty years his junior. See McCulloch, "The Literature of Political Economy, a classified catalogue," London, 1845, p. 105. Petty is conscious of being the founder of a new science. His method, he says, "is not yet very usual, for instead of using only comparative and superlative Words, and intellectual Arguments," he has undertaken to speak "in Terms of Number, Weight or Measure; to use only Arguments of Sense, and to consider only such Causes, as have visible Foundations in Nature; leaving those that depend upon the mutable Minds, Opinions, Appetites, and Passions of particular Men, to the Consideration of others." (Political Arithmetick, etc., London, 1699. Preface.) (A new edition of "The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty," edited by Chas. Henry Hull, has been published by the University Press at Cambridge, 1899. The above passage will be found in vol. I., p. 244, The further references are given to this new, more accessible edition. Translator.) His wonderful keenness shows itself e. g. in the proposal to transport "all the moveables and people of Ireland, and of the Highlands of Scotland . . . into the rest of Great Britain." Thereby much labor-time would be saved, the productivity of labor increased, and "the King and his Subjects would thereby become more Rich and Strong." (Political Arithmetick, ch. 4, p. 285.) Or in the chapter of his Political Arithmetic in which he proves that England's mission is the conquest of the world's market at a time when Holland still played the leading part as a trading nation and France seemed to be on the way of becoming the ruling trading Power: "That the King of England's Subjects, have Stock competent and convenient, to drive the Trade of the whole Commercial World" (l. c., ch. 10, p. 311). "That the Impediments of England's greatness are but contingent and removable" (l. c., ch. 5, p. 298). A singular humor pervades all his writings. Thus, he shows that it was by material means that Holland—at that time the model country with English economists, just as England is with continental economists to-day—conquered the world market "without such Angelical Wits and Judgments, as some attribute to the Hollanders" (l. c., p. 258). He advocates "Liberty of Conscience" as a condition of trade, because "Dissenters . . . are . . . patient Men, and such as believe that Labour and Industry is their Duty towards God," and "They believe that . . . for those who have less Wealth, to think they have the more Wit and Understanding, especially of the things of God which they think chiefly belong to the Poor." "From whence it follows that Trade is not fixt to any species of Religion as such; but rather . . . to the Heterodox part of the whole" (l. c., p. 262–264). He advocates an "allowance by Publick Tax" for those "who live by begging, cheating, stealing, gaming, borrowing without intention of restoring," because "it were more for the publick profit" to tax the country for such persons "than to suffer them to spend extravagantly, at the only charge of careless, credulous, and good natured People" (p. 269–270). But he is opposed to taxes which transfer the wealth from industrious people "to such as do nothing at all, but eat and drink, sing, play, and dance; nay such as study the Metaphysicks" (ibid.). Petty's writings are rarities of the bookseller's trade and are to be found only in scattered poor old editions, which is the more surprising since William Petty was not only the father of English Political Economy, but also the ancestor of Henry Petty, alias Marquis of Lansdowne, the nestor of the English Whigs. However, the Lansdowne family could hardly bring out a complete edition of Petty's works without prefacing it with his biography, and what can be said of most origines of the great Whig families holds good also in this case, viz., "the less said of them the better." The keen-witted but cynical army surgeon who was as ready to plunder in Ireland under the shield of Cromwell as to crawl before Charles II. to get the title of baron which he needed for his plunderings, is a model hardly fit for public exhibition. Besides that, Petty seeks to prove in most of his writings which he published in his lifetime, that England's prosperity reached its climax under Charles II., a heterodox view for the hereditary exploiters of the "glorious revolution."
3. In contrast with the "black art of finance" of his time, Boisguillebert says: "La science financière n'est que la connaissance approfondie des intérêts de l'agriculture et du commerce." Le Détail de la France, 1697. Eugène Daire's edition of Economistes financiers du XVIII. siècle, Paris, 1843, vol. I., p. 241.
4. But not Romance Political Economy, since the Italians re-produce the contrast between the English and French economists in the two respective schools of Naples and Milan, while the Spaniards of the earlier period are either pure Mercantilists; modified mercantilists like Ustariz; or, like Jovellanos (see his Obras, Barcelona, 1839-40), hold to the "golden mean" with Adam Smith.
5. "La véritable richesse . . . jouissance entière, non seulement des besoins de la vie, mais même de tous les superflus et de tout, ce qui peut fair plaisir à la sensualité," Boisguillebert, "Dissertation sur la nature de la richesse," etc., l. c., p. 403. But while Petty was a frivolous, rapacious and unprincipled adventurer, Boisguillebert, though an intendant under Louis XIV, championed the interests of the oppressed classes with a daring that was equal to his keenness of mind.
6. The French Socialism of the Proudhon type suffers from the same national hereditary disease.
7. "Benjamin Franklin, The Works of, etc.," ed. by I. Sparks, vol. II., Boston, 1836. "A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency."
8. L. c., p. 265.
9. L. c., p. 267
10. L. c., "Remarks and Facts relative to the American Paper Money," 1764.
11. See "Papers on American Politics; Remarks and Facts relative to the American Paper Money," 1764, l. c.
12. See e. g. Galiani, "Della Moneta," in vol. 3 of Scrittori Classici italiani di Economia politica. (Published by Custodi). Parte Moderna, Milano, 1803. "La fatica, he says, è l'unica che dà valore alla cosa" ("only effort can give value to any thing"). The designation of labor as "fatica," strain, effort, is characteristic of the southerner.
13. Steuart's work, "An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy, being an Essay on the Science of Domestic Policy in Free Nations," appeared first in London in two quarto volumes in the year 1767, ten years before Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations." I quote from the Dublin edition of 1770. (The references to pages are the same for the standard London edition of 1767, except where otherwise stated. Translator.)
14. Steuart, l. c., vol. I., p. 181–183.
15. Steuart, l. c., vol. I., p. 361–362.
16. See chapter I., book II., vol. I. "of the reciprocal connections between Trade and Industry" (Translator).
17. He declares, therefore, the patriarchal form of agriculture which is devoted to the direct production of use-values for the owner of the land, to be an "abuse," not in Sparta, or Rome, or even in Athens, but in the industrial countries of the eighteenth century. This "abusive agriculture" is not "trade," but a "direct means of subsisting." Just as capitalistic agriculture clears the country of superfluous mouths, so does the capitalistic mode of manufacture clear the factory of superfluous hands.
18. Thus e. g., Adam Smith says: "Equal quantities of labour, at all times and places, may be said to be of equal value to the labourer. In his ordinary state of health, strength and spirits, in the ordinary degree of his skill and dexterity, he must always lay down the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness. The price which he pays must always be the same, whatever may be the quantity of goods which he receives in return for it. Of these, indeed, it may sometimes purchase a greater and sometimes a smaller quantity; but it is their value which varies, not that of the labour which purchases them. . . . Labour alone, therefore, never varying in its own value . . . is their [commodities'] real price, etc. Adam Smith (Book I., ch. V.. p. 34, Oxford, 1809. Translator.)
19. David Ricardo, "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," 3rd edition, London, 1821, p. 3.
20. Sismondi, "Etudes sur l'Economic Politique," t. II., Bruxelles, 1837. "C'est l'opposition entre la valeur usuelle . . . et la valeur échangeable à laquelle le commerce a reduit toute chose," p. 161. [Paris edition, p. 229, Transl.]
21. Sismondi l. c., p. 163–166 seq. [Paris edition, 230 etf. Transl.]
22. Perhaps the silliest to be found are the annotations of J. B. Say to the French translation of Ricardo, made by Constancio, and the most pedantically arrogant are the remarks of Mr. MacLeod in his newly published "Theory of Exchange," London, 1858.
23. This objection raised against Ricardo by bourgeois economists was taken up later by the socialists. Having assumed the correctness of the formula, they charged the practice with contradiction to the theory and appealed to bourgeois society to realize in practice the conclusions which were supposed to follow from its theoretical principles. That was at least the way in which the English socialists turned Ricardo's formula of exchange value against political economy. It remained for Mr. Proudhon not only to proclaim the fundamental principle of old society as the principle of the new, but also to declare himself the discoverer of the formula in which Ricardo summed up the combined results of classical English political economy. It has been proven that the Utopian interpretation of the Ricardian formula was about forgotten in England when Mr. Proudhon "discovered" it on the other side of the Canal. (Cf. my work: "Misère de la Philosophie." etc., Paris, 1847, paragraph on la valeur constituée.)