THE CAPITAL - Karl Marx E-Book

Karl Marx

• Herausgeber: Lebooks Editora
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Seitenzahl: 1072

Beschreibung

Capital: Critique of Political Economy, commonly known as Das Kapital, is a foundational theoretical text in communist philosophy, economics, and politics by Karl Marx. The first volume was published in 1867, with subsequent volumes published posthumously by Engels based on Marx's notes. Structure and Content Capital is divided into three volumes, each addressing different aspects of capitalist production and economics: - Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital - This volume focuses on the production process of capital. It introduces key concepts such as commodity, value, surplus value, and the role of labor in creating value. Marx analyzes how commodities are produced and exchanged, and how the exploitation of labor leads to the accumulation of capital by the bourgeoisie. - Volume II: The Process of Circulation of Capital - Published posthumously in 1885 by Engels, this volume examines the circulation process of capital. It explores the dynamics of how capital moves through various stages, including money capital, productive capital, and commodity capital. Marx discusses the circulation of commodities and money, the role of credit, and the impact of these processes on the economy. - Volume III: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole - Also published posthumously by Engels in 1894, this volume integrates the findings of the first two volumes and presents a comprehensive analysis of capitalist production as a whole. It addresses topics such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the formation of an average rate of profit, and the interplay between different sectors of the economy. Style and Narrative Marx's writing in Capital is characterized by its rigorous and detailed analysis of economic concepts and processes. His style combines theoretical exposition with empirical evidence, drawing on historical examples and contemporary economic data. Marx employs dialectical reasoning to explore the contradictions inherent in capitalist production and to demonstrate how these contradictions drive the dynamics of the system.

Leseprobe

Karl Marx

THE CAPITAL (VOLUME. 1,2 AND 3)

Original Title:

“ Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Oekonomie”

Contents

INTRODUCTION

THE CAPITAL

BOOK 1: THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION OF CAPITAL

PART 1: COMMODITIES AND MONEY

PART 2: THE TRANSFORMATION OF MONEY INTO CAPITAL

PART 3: THE PRODUCTION OF ABSOLUTE SURPLUS VALUE

PART 4: PRODUCTION OF RELATIVE SURPLUS VALUE

PART 5: THE PRODUCTION OF ABSOLUTE AND OF RELATIVE SURPLUS VALUE

PART 6: WAGES

PART 7: THE ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL

PART 8: THE SO-CALLED PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION

BOOK 2: THE PROCESS OF CIRCULATION OF CAPITAL

PART 1: THE METAMORPHOSES OF CAPITAL AND THEIR CIRCUITS

PART 2: THE TURNOVER OF CAPITAL

PART 3: THE REPRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION OF THE AGGREGATE SOCIAL CAPITAL

BOOK 3: THE PROCESS OF CAPITALIST PRODUCTION AS A WHOLE

PART 1: THE CONVERSION OF SURPLUS VALUE INTO PROFIT AND OF THE RATE OF SURPLUS VALUE INTO THE RATE OF PROFIT

PART 2: CONVERSION OF PROFIT INTO AVERAGE PROFIT

PART 3: THE LAW OF THE TENDENCY OF THE RATE OF PROFIT TO FALL

PART 4: CONVERSION OF COMMODITY CAPITAL AND MONEY CAPITAL INTO COMMERCIAL CAPITAL AND MONEY-DEALING CAPITAL (MERCHANT S CAPITAL)

PART 5: DIVISION OF PROFIT INTO INTEREST AND PROFIT OF ENTERPRISE. INTEREST-BEARING CAPITAL

PART 6: TRANSFORMATION OF SURPLUS PROFIT INTO GROUND RENT

PART 7: REVENUES AND THEIR SOURCES CHAPTER 48: THE TRINITY FORMULA

INTRODUCTION

Karl Marx

1818-1883

Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in Trier, in the western part of what was then the Kingdom of Prussia. His family was of Jewish descent, but his father converted to Christianity, likely to avoid the anti-Semitic laws that restricted Jewish participation in society. Marx was the third of nine children in a middle-class family. His father, Heinrich Marx, was a successful lawyer who provided a comfortable upbringing for his family.

Marx attended the University of Bonn in 1835, initially studying law. However, he found the environment at Bonn distracting and his academic performance suffered. In 1836, he transferred to the more rigorous University of Berlin, where he became deeply engaged in the study of philosophy and history. It was during his time in Berlin that Marx was influenced by the ideas of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Radical Politics and Exile

Marx's academic pursuits led him to embrace radical political ideas. He became involved with the Young Hegelians, a group of intellectuals who critiqued the political and religious establishments of the time. Marx's radical views and his involvement in political activism led to conflicts with authorities. After completing his studies, he struggled to secure a position in academia due to his controversial views.

In 1843, Marx moved to Paris, where he began his collaboration with Friedrich Engels. The two formed a lifelong partnership, with Engels providing financial support and contributing to their joint intellectual projects. In Paris, Marx continued his radical political activities, leading to his expulsion from France in 1845. He moved to Brussels, where he continued his work on revolutionary theory and organized the Communist League with Engels.

The Communist Manifesto and London Years

In 1848, Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto, a political pamphlet that called for the overthrow of capitalist societies and the establishment of a communist society. The manifesto outlined the principles of Marxism and emphasized the role of the working class in bringing about social change. The revolutionary wave that swept across Europe in 1848 saw Marx involved in various political activities, but the revolutions ultimately failed, and Marx found himself once again facing political persecution.

In 1849, Marx moved to London, where he would live for the rest of his life. In London, he continued his work as a journalist, writing for various newspapers, including the New York Daily Tribune. He also spent considerable time in the British Museum, researching and writing his magnum opus, Capital.

Personal Struggles and Final Years

Marx's life in London was marked by financial difficulties and personal tragedies. Despite Engels' financial support, Marx and his family often lived in poverty. His wife, Jenny von Westphalen, whom he married in 1843, stood by him through their many hardships. They had seven children, but only three survived to adulthood. The Marx family faced severe health issues, and the loss of their children deeply affected both Karl and Jenny.

Despite these challenges, Marx continued his intellectual work. The first volume of Capital was published in 1867, but Marx struggled to complete the subsequent volumes due to health issues. Engels eventually edited and published the remaining volumes posthumously.

Death and Legacy

Karl Marx died on March 14, 1883, in London, at the age of 64. He was buried in Highgate Cemetery, where his grave has become a site of pilgrimage for those influenced by his ideas. Marx's contributions to political economy, sociology, and revolutionary theory have left an enduring legacy. His analysis of capitalism and his vision for a classless society have continued to inspire political movements and academic discourse worldwide.

Marx's work has been the subject of extensive study and debate, and his ideas have been applied in various contexts, from the development of socialist and communist states to critiques of contemporary capitalism. His influence extends beyond economics and politics, impacting fields such as philosophy, history, and cultural studies. Despite the controversies surrounding his ideas, Karl Marx remains one of the most influential thinkers in modern history.

Capital (Das Kapital)

Capital: Critique of Political Economy, commonly known as Das Kapital, is a foundational theoretical text in communist philosophy, economics, and politics by Karl Marx. The first volume was published in 1867, with subsequent volumes published posthumously by Engels based on Marx's notes.

Structure and Content

Capital is divided into three volumes, each addressing different aspects of capitalist production and economics:

Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital - This volume focuses on the production process of capital. It introduces key concepts such as commodity, value, surplus value, and the role of labor in creating value. Marx analyzes how commodities are produced and exchanged, and how the exploitation of labor leads to the accumulation of capital by the bourgeoisie.

Volume II: The Process of Circulation of Capital - Published posthumously in 1885 by Engels, this volume examines the circulation process of capital. It explores the dynamics of how capital moves through various stages, including money capital, productive capital, and commodity capital. Marx discusses the circulation of commodities and money, the role of credit, and the impact of these processes on the economy.

Volume III: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole - Also published posthumously by Engels in 1894, this volume integrates the findings of the first two volumes and presents a comprehensive analysis of capitalist production as a whole. It addresses topics such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the formation of an average rate of profit, and the interplay between different sectors of the economy.

Style and Narrative

Marx’s writing in Capital is characterized by its rigorous and detailed analysis of economic concepts and processes. His style combines theoretical exposition with empirical evidence, drawing on historical examples and contemporary economic data. Marx employs dialectical reasoning to explore the contradictions inherent in capitalist production and to demonstrate how these contradictions drive the dynamics of the system.

Impact and Legacy

Capital has had a profound impact on economic thought, political theory, and the development of socialist and communist movements worldwide. It provided a comprehensive critique of the capitalist system, highlighting its inherent contradictions and the exploitation of labor. Marx's analysis of capitalism laid the groundwork for the subsequent development of Marxist theory and influenced various fields, including sociology, political science, and economics.

The ideas presented in Capital continue to be studied and debated, influencing both academic discourse and practical political movements. Marx's critique of capitalism remains relevant in contemporary discussions about economic inequality, labor rights, and the sustainability of capitalist systems.

THE CAPITAL

BOOK1:THEPROCESS OF PRODUCTIONOFCAPITAL

PART 1: COMMODITIES AND MONEY

Chapter 1: Commodities

Section 1. The Two Factors of a Commodity: Use Value and Value (The Substance of Value and The Magnitude of Value)

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.

Let us now consider the residue of each of these products [...] 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 [...]

A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labor in the abstract has been embodied or materialized in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labor, contained in the article [...] Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor spent on it, the idler and unskillful the laborer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labor, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labor, expenditure of one uniform labor power. The total labor 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 labor 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 labor 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 labor 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 [.]

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labor socially necessary, or the labor time socially necessary for its production. Each individual commodity, in this connection, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labor are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value [...] The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labor time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labor. 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 organization of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labor in favorable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavorable, only in four [...] In general, the greater the productiveness of labor, the less is the labor time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labor crystallized in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versa, the less the productiveness of labor, the greater is the labor 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 labor incorporated in it.

A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labor. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, etc. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labor, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labor, 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. Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labor contained in it; the labor does not count as labor, and therefore creates no value.

Section 2. The Twofold Character of the Labor Embodied in Commodities

At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things — use value and exchange value. Later on, we saw also that labor, too, possesses the same twofold nature [...] The labor, whose utility is thus represented by the value in use of its product, or which manifests itself by making its product a use value, we call useful labor. In this connection we consider only its useful effect [...] Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use value to the value of commodities [...] Productive activity, if we leave out of sight its special form, viz., the useful character of the labor, is nothing but the expenditure of human labor power. Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this sense are human labor. They are but two different modes of expending human labor power [... The] value of a commodity represents human labor in the abstract, the expenditure of human labor in general [...] It is the expenditure of simple labor power, i. e., of the labor power which, on an average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple average labor, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labor counts only as simple labor intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labor, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labor […A] coat is worth twice as much as the ten yards of linen. Whence this difference in their values? It is owing to the fact that the linen contains only half as much labor as the coat, and consequently, that in the production of the latter, labor power must have been expended during twice the time necessary for the production of the former.

[... Thus, on] the one hand, all labor is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labor power, and in its character of identical abstract human labor, it creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labor is the expenditure of human labor power in a special form and with a definite aim, and in this, its character of concrete useful labor, it produces use values.

Section 3. The Form of Value or Exchange Value

Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, etc. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something twofold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form [...] If, however, we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labor, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity. In fact, we started from exchange value, or the exchange relation of commodities, in order to get at the value that lies hidden behind it [.]

Everyone knows, if he knows nothing else, that commodities have a value form common to them all, and presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their use values. I mean their money form. Here, however, a task is set us, the performance of which has never yet even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money form, of developing the expression of value implied in the value relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money form. By doing this we shall, at the same time, solve the riddle presented by money.

The simplest value relation is evidently that of one commodity to some one other commodity of a different kind. Hence the relation between the values of two commodities supplies us with the simplest expression of the value of a single commodity.

A. Elementary or Accidental Form of Value

The whole mystery of the form of value lies hidden in this elementary form. Its analysis, therefore, is our real difficulty. Here two different kinds of commodities (in our example the linen and the coat), evidently play two different parts. The linen expresses its value in the coat; the coat serves as the material in which that value is expressed. The former plays an active, the latter a passive, part. The value of the linen is represented as relative value, or appears in relative form. The coat officiates as equivalent, or appears in equivalent form [...] Human labor power in motion, or human labor, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object. In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation of human labor, that value must be expressed as having objective existence, as being a something materially different from the linen itself, and yet a something common to the linen and all other commodities [...] When occupying the position of equivalent in the equation of value, the coat ranks qualitatively as the equal of the linen, as something of the same kind, because it is value. In this position it is a thing in which we see nothing but value, or whose palpable bodily form represents value. Yet the coat itself, the body of the commodity, coat, is a mere use value. A coat as such no more tells us it is value, than does the first piece of linen we take hold of. This shows that when placed in value relation to the linen, the coat signifies more than when out of that relation, just as many a man strutting about in a gorgeous uniform counts for more than when in mufti [...]

When, at the beginning of this Chapter, we said, in common parlance, that a commodity is both a use value and an exchange value, we were, accurately speaking, wrong. A commodity is a use value or object of utility, and a value. It manifests itself as this twofold thing, that it is, as soon as its value assumes an independent form — viz., the form of exchange value. It never assumes this form when isolated, but only when placed in a value or exchange relation with another commodity of a different kind. When once we know this, such a mode of expression does no harm; it simply serves as an abbreviation [...]

B. Total or Expanded form of value

etc.

1. The Expanded Relative form of value

The value of a single commodity, the linen, for example, is now expressed in terms of numberless other elements of the world of commodities. Every other commodity now becomes a mirror of the linen’s value. It is thus, that for the first time, this value shows itself in its true light as a congelation of undifferentiated human labor. For the labor that creates it, now stands expressly revealed, as labor that ranks equally with every other sort of human labor, no matter what its form, whether tailoring, ploughing, mining, etc., and no matter, therefore, whether it is realized in coats, corn, iron, or gold. The linen, by virtue of the form of its value, now stands in a social relation, no longer with only one other kind of commodity, but with the whole world of commodities [...] The accidental relation between two individual commodity-owners disappears. It becomes plain, that it is not the exchange of commodities which regulates the magnitude of their value; but, on the contrary, that it is the magnitude of their value which controls their exchange proportions [.]

C. The General Form of Value

[...] All commodities now express their value (1) in an elementary form, because in a single commodity; (2) with unity, because in one and the same commodity. This form of value is elementary and the same for all, therefore general [...] The general form of relative value, embracing the whole world of commodities, converts the single commodity that is excluded from the rest, and made to play the part of equivalent — here the linen — into the universal equivalent [.]

If, then, in form C we replace the linen by gold, we get,

D. The Money Form

[The particular commodity with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money. It becomes the special social function of that commodity, and consequently its social monopoly, to play within the world of commodities the part of the universal equivalent.] Gold is now money with reference to all other commodities only because it was previously, with reference to them, a simple commodity. Like all other commodities, it was also capable of serving as an equivalent, either as simple equivalent in isolated exchanges, or as particular equivalent by the side of others. Gradually it began to serve, within varying limits, as universal equivalent. So soon as it monopolizes this position in the expression of value for the world of commodities, it becomes the money commodity, and then, and not till then, does form D become distinct from form C, and the general form of value become changed into the money form [...]

Section 4. He Fetishism of Commodities and The Secret Thereof

 [...] A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labor appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labor; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labor is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labor [.] There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labor, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. This Fetishism of commodities has its origin, as the foregoing analysis has already shown, in the peculiar social character of the labor that produces them [.]

Chapter 2: Exchange

To the owner of a commodity, every other commodity is, in regard to his own, a particular equivalent, and consequently his own commodity is the universal equivalent for all the others. But since this applies to every owner, there is, in fact, no commodity acting as universal equivalent, and the relative value of commodities possesses no general form under which they can be equated as values and have the magnitude of their values compared [.] They cannot bring their commodities into relation as values, and therefore as commodities, except by comparing them with some one other commodity as the universal equivalent. That we saw from the analysis of a commodity. But a particular commodity cannot become the universal equivalent except by a social act. The social action therefore of all other commodities, sets apart the particular commodity in which they all represent their values. Thereby the bodily form of this commodity becomes the form of the socially recognized universal equivalent. To be the universal equivalent, becomes, by this social process, the specific function of the commodity thus excluded by the rest. Thus it becomes - money [.]

Money is a crystal formed of necessity in the course of the exchanges, whereby different products of labor are practically equated to one another and thus by practice converted into commodities. The historical progress and extension of exchanges develops the contrast, latent in commodities, between use value and value. The necessity for giving an external expression to this contrast for the purposes of commercial intercourse, urges on the establishment of an independent form of value, and finds no rest until it is once for all satisfied by the differentiation of commodities into commodities and money. At the same rate, then, as the conversion of products into commodities is being accomplished, so also is the conversion of one special commodity into money.

In the direct barter of products, each commodity is directly a means of exchange to its owner, and to all other persons an equivalent, but that only in so far as it has use value for them. At this stage, therefore, the articles exchanged do not acquire a value form independent of their own use value, or of the individual needs of the exchangers. The necessity for a value form grows with the increasing number and variety of the commodities exchanged. The problem and the means of solution arise simultaneously. Commodity-owners never equate their own commodities to those of others, and exchange them on a large scale, without different kinds of commodities belonging to different owners being exchangeable for, and equated as values to, one and the same special article. Such last-mentioned article, by becoming the equivalent of various other commodities, acquires at once, though within narrow limits, the character of a general social equivalent. This character comes and goes with the momentary social acts that called it into life. In turns and transiently it attaches itself first to this and then to that commodity. But with the development of exchange it fixes itself firmly and exclusively to particular sorts of commodities, and becomes crystallized by assuming the money form [...]

The use value of the money commodity becomes two-fold. In addition to its special use value as a commodity (gold, for instance, serving to stop teeth, to form the raw material of articles of luxury, etc.), it acquires a formal use value, originating in its specific social function [...] We have seen that the money form is but the reflex, thrown upon one single commodity, of the value relations between all the rest. That money is a commodity is therefore a new discovery only for those who, when they analyses it, start from its fully developed shape. The act of exchange gives to the commodity converted into money, not its value, but its specific value form [...] Money, like every other commodity, cannot express the magnitude of its value except relatively in other commodities. This value is determined by the labor time required for its production [e.g., extraction of gold from mines], and is expressed by the quantity of any other commodity that costs the same amount of labor time [...] These objects, gold and silver, just as they come out of the bowels of the earth, are forthwith the direct incarnation of all human labor. Hence the magic of money. In the form of society now under consideration, the behavior of men in the social process of production is purely atomic. Hence their relations to each other in production assume a material character independent of their control and conscious individual action. These facts manifest themselves at first by products as a general rule taking the form of commodities. We have seen how the progressive development of a society of commodity producers stamps one privileged commodity with the character of money. Hence the riddle presented by money is but the riddle presented by commodities; only it now strikes us in its most glaring form.

Chapter 3: Money, Or The Circulation of commodities

Section 1. The Measure of Values

Throughout this work, I assume, for the sake of simplicity, gold as the money commodity [...] It is not money that renders commodities commensurable. Just the contrary. It is because all commodities, as values, are realized human labor, and therefore commensurable, that their values can be measured by one and the same special commodity, and the latter be converted into the common measure of their values, i.e., into money [...] Money as a measure of value, is the phenomenal form that must of necessity be assumed by that measure of value which is immanent in commodities, labor time [...] But money itself has no price. In order to put it on an equal footing with all other commodities in this respect, we should be obliged to equate it to itself as its own equivalent. The price or money form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental form […]

As measure of Value, and as standard of price, money has two entirely distinct functions to perform. It is the measure of value inasmuch as it is the socially recognized incarnation of human labor; it is the standard of price inasmuch as it is a fixed weight of metal. As the measure of value it serves to convert the values of all the manifold commodities into prices, into imaginary quantities of gold; as the standard of price it measures those quantities of gold.

The measure of values measures commodities considered as values; the standard of price measures, on the contrary, quantities of gold by a unit quantity of gold, not the value of one quantity of gold by the weight of another. In order to make gold a standard of price, a certain weight must be fixed upon as the unit. In this case, as in all cases of measuring quantities of the same denomination, the establishment of an unvarying unit of measure is all-important. Hence, the less the unit is subject to variation, so much the better does the standard of price fulfil its office. But only in so far as it is itself a product of labor, and, therefore, potentially variable in value, can gold serve as a measure of value. It is, in the first place, quite clear that a change in the value of gold does not, in any way, affect its function as a standard of price. No matter how this value varies, the proportions between the values of different quantities of the metal remain constant. However great the fall in its value, 12 ounces of gold still have 12 times the value of 1 ounce; and in prices, the only thing considered is the relation between different quantities of gold. Since, on the other hand, no rise or fall in the value of an ounce of gold can alter its weight, no alteration can take place in the weight of its aliquot parts. Thus gold always renders the same service as an invariable standard of price, however much its value may vary. In the second place, a change in the value of gold does not interfere with its functions as a measure of value.

The change affects all commodities simultaneously, and, therefore, caeteris paribus, leaves their relative values inter se, unaltered, although those values are now expressed in higher or lower gold-prices [...] A general rise in the prices of commodities can result only, either from a rise in their values — the value of money remaining constant — or from a fall in the value of money, the values of commodities remaining constant. On the other hand, a general fall in prices can result only, either from a fall in the values of commodities — the value of money remaining constant — or from a rise in the value of money, the values of commodities remaining constant [...]

Let us now go back to the consideration of the price form. By degrees there arises a discrepancy between the current money-names of the various weights of the precious metal figuring as money, and the actual weights which those names originally represented [...] The word pound, for instance, was the money-name given to an actual pound weight of silver. When gold replaced silver as a measure of value, the same name was applied according to the ratio between the values of silver and gold, to perhaps 1-15th of a pound of gold. The word pound, as a money name, thus becomes differentiated from the same word as a weight name. The debasing of money carried on for centuries by kings and princes to such an extent that, of the original weights of the coins, nothing in fact remained but the names [...] These historical causes convert the separation of the money name from the weight name into an established habit with the community. Since the standard of money is on the one hand purely conventional, and must on the other hand find general acceptance, it is in the end regulated by law. A given weight of one of the precious metals, an ounce of gold, for instance, becomes officially divided into aliquot parts, with legally bestowed names, such as pound, dollar, etc. [...] Hence, instead of saying: A quarter of wheat is worth an ounce of gold; we say, it is worth £3 17s. 10 1/2d. In this way commodities express by their prices how much they are worth, and money serves as money of account whenever it is a question of fixing the value of an article in its money form [...]

Price is the money name of the labor realized in a commodity. Hence the expression of the equivalence of a commodity with the sum of money constituting its price, is a tautology, just as in general the expression of the relative value of a commodity is a statement of the equivalence of two commodities. But although price, being the exponent of the magnitude of a commodity’s value, is the exponent of its exchange ratio with money, it does not follow that the exponent of this exchange ratio is necessarily the exponent of the magnitude of the commodity’s value. Suppose two equal quantities of socially necessary labor to be respectively represented by 1 quarter of wheat and £2 (nearly 1/2 oz. of gold), £2 is the expression in money of the magnitude of the value of the quarter of wheat, or is its price. If now circumstances allow of this price being raised to £3, or compel it to be reduced to £1, then although £1 and £3 may be too small or too great properly to express the magnitude of the wheat’s value; nevertheless, they are its prices, for they are, in the first place, the form under which its value appears, i.e., money; and in the second place, the exponents of its exchange ratio with money.

If the conditions of production, in other words, if the productive power of labor remain constant, the same amount of social labor time must, both before and after the change in price, be expended in the reproduction of a quarter of wheat [...] Magnitude of value expresses a relation of social production, it expresses the connection that necessarily exists between a certain article and the portion of the total labor time of society required to produce it. As soon as magnitude of value is converted into price, the above necessary relation takes the shape of a more or less accidental exchange ratio between a single commodity and another, the money commodity. But this exchange ratio may express either the real magnitude of that commodity’s value, or the quantity of gold deviating from that value, for which, according to circumstances, it may be parted with. The possibility, therefore, of quantitative incongruity between price and magnitude of value, or the deviation of the former from the latter, is inherent in the price form itself. This is no defect, but, on the contrary, admirably adapts the price form to a mode of production whose inherent laws impose themselves only as the mean of apparently lawless irregularities that compensate one another.

The price form, however, is not only compatible with the possibility of a quantitative incongruity between magnitude of value and price, i.e., between the former and its expression in money, but it may also conceal a qualitative inconsistency, so much so, that, although money is nothing but the value form of commodities, price ceases altogether to express value. Objects that in themselves are no commodities, such as conscience, honor, etc., are capable of being offered for sale by their holders, and of thus acquiring, through their price, the form of commodities. Hence an object may have a price without having value. The price in that case is imaginary, like certain quantities in mathematics. On the other hand, the imaginary price form may sometimes conceal either a direct or indirect real value relation; for instance, the price of uncultivated land, which is without value, because no human labor has been incorporated in it [.]

A price therefore implies both that a commodity is exchangeable for money, and also that it must be so exchanged. On the other hand, gold serves as an ideal measure of value, only because it has already, in the process of exchange, established itself as the money commodity. Under the ideal measure of values there lurks the hard cash.

Section 2. The Medium of Circulation

[a. The Metamorphosis of Commodities]

Let us now accompany the owner of some commodity — say, our old friend the weaver of linen — to the scene of action, the market. His 20 yards of linen has a definite price, £2. He exchanges it for the £2, and then, like a man of the good old stamp that he is, he parts with the £2 for a family Bible of the same price. The linen, which in his eyes is a mere commodity, a depository of value, he alienates in exchange for gold, which is the linen’s value form, and this form he again parts with for another commodity, the Bible, which is destined to enter his house as an object of utility and of edification to its inmates. The exchange becomes an accomplished fact by two metamorphoses of opposite yet supplementary character - the conversion of the commodity into money, and the re-conversion of the money into a commodity. The two phases of this metamorphosis are both of them distinct transactions of the weaver — selling, or the exchange of the commodity for money; buying, or the exchange of the money for a commodity; and, the unity of the two acts, selling in order to buy [...]

The exchange of commodities is therefore accompanied by the following changes in their form.

Commodity - Money - Commodity.

C-------M--------C.

The result of the whole process is, so far as concerns the objects themselves, C - C, the exchange of one commodity for another, the circulation of materialized social labor. When this result is attained, the process is at an end.

C — M. First metamorphosis, or sale

[...] A commodity strips off its original commodity form on being alienated, i.e., on the instant its use value actually attracts the gold, that before existed only ideally in its price. The realization of a commodity’s price, or of its ideal value form, is therefore at the same time the realization of the ideal use value of money; the conversion of a commodity into money, is the simultaneous conversion of money into a commodity. The apparently single process is in reality a double one. From the pole of the commodity-owner it is a sale, from the opposite pole of the money-owner, it is a purchase. In other words, a sale is a purchase, C-M is also M-C [.] We will assume that the two gold pieces, in consideration of which our weaver has parted with his linen, are the metamorphosed shape of a quarter of wheat. The sale of the linen, C-M, is at the same time its purchase, M-C. But the sale is the first act of a process that ends with a transaction of an opposite nature, namely, the purchase of a Bible; the purchase of the linen, on the other hand, ends a movement that began with a transaction of an opposite nature, namely, with the sale of the wheat. C-M (linen-money), which is the first phase of C-M-C (linen-money-Bible), is also M-C (money-linen), the last phase of another movement C-M-C (wheat-money-linen). The first metamorphosis of one commodity, its transformation from a commodity into money, is therefore also invariably the second metamorphosis of some other commodity, the retransformation of the latter from money into a commodity [...]

M—C, or purchase. The second and

concluding metamorphosis of a commodity

[...] M-C, a purchase, is, at the same time, C-M, a sale; the concluding metamorphosis of one commodity is the first metamorphosis of another. With regard to our weaver, the life of his commodity ends with the Bible, into which he has reconverted his £2. But suppose the seller of the Bible turns the £2 set free by the weaver into brandy M-C, the concluding phase of C-M-C (linen-money-Bible), is also C-M, the first phase of C-M-C (Bible-money-brandy). The producer of a particular commodity has that one article alone to offer; this he sells very often in large quantities, but his many and various wants compel him to split up the price realized, the sum of money set free, into numerous purchases. Hence a sale leads to many purchases of various articles. The concluding metamorphosis of a commodity thus constitutes an aggregation of first metamorphoses of various other commodities.

[...] If we now consider the completed metamorphosis of a commodity, as a whole, it appears in the first place, that it is made up of two opposite and complementary movements, C-M and M-C. These two antithetical transmutations of a commodity are brought about by two antithetical social acts on the part of the owner, and these acts in their turn stamp the character of the economic parts played by him. As the person who makes a sale, he is a seller; as the person who makes a purchase, he is a buyer. But just as, upon every such transmutation of a commodity, its two forms, commodity form and money form, exist simultaneously but at opposite poles, so every seller has a buyer opposed to him, and every buyer a seller. While one particular commodity is going through its two transmutations in succession, from a commodity into money and from money into another commodity, the owner of the commodity changes in succession his part from that of seller to that of buyer [.]

The two metamorphoses constituting the circuit are at the same time two inverse partial metamorphoses of two other commodities. One and the same commodity, the linen, opens the series of its own metamorphoses, and completes the metamorphosis of another (the wheat). In the first phase or sale, the linen plays these two parts in its own person. But, then, changed into gold, it completes its own second and final metamorphosis, and helps at the same time to accomplish the first metamorphosis of a third commodity. Hence the circuit made by one commodity in the course of its metamorphoses is inextricably mixed up with the circuits of other commodities. The total of all the different circuits constitutes the circulation of commodities.

[...] It is only because the farmer has sold his wheat that the weaver is enabled to sell his linen, only because the weaver has sold his linen that our Hotspur is enabled to sell his Bible, and only because the latter has sold the water of everlasting life that the distiller is enabled to sell his eau-de-vie, and so on.

The process of circulation, therefore, does not, like direct barter of products, become extinguished upon the use values changing places and hands. The money does not vanish on dropping out of the circuit of the metamorphosis of a given commodity. It is constantly being precipitated into new places in the arena of circulation vacated by other commodities. In the complete metamorphosis of the linen, for example, linen-money-Bible, the linen first falls out of circulation, and money steps into its place. Then the Bible falls out of circulation, and again money takes its place. When one commodity replaces another, the money commodity always sticks to the hands of some third person. Circulation sweats money from every pore [...] If the interval in time between the two complementary phases of the complete metamorphosis of a commodity become too great, if the split between the sale and the purchase become too pronounced, the intimate connection between them, their oneness, asserts itself by producing — a crisis. The antithesis, use value and value; the contradictions that private labor is bound to manifest itself as direct social labor, that a particularized concrete kind of labor has to pass for abstract human labor; the contradiction between the personification of objects and the representation of persons by things; all these antitheses and contradictions, which are immanent in commodities, assert themselves, and develop their modes of motion, in the antithetical phases of the metamorphosis of a commodity. These modes therefore imply the possibility, and no more than the possibility, of crises. The conversion of this mere possibility into a reality is the result of a long series of relations, that, from our present standpoint of simple circulation, have as yet no existence [...]

[b. The currency of money]

The change of form, C-M-C, by which the circulation of the material products of labor is brought about, requires that a given value in the shape of a commodity shall begin the process, and shall, also in the shape of a commodity, end it. The movement of the commodity is therefore a circuit. On the other hand, the form of this movement precludes a circuit from being made by the money. The result is not the return of the money, but its continued removal further and further away from its starting-point. So long as the seller sticks fast to his money, which is the transformed shape of his commodity, that commodity is still in the first phase of its metamorphosis, and has completed only half its course. But so soon as he completes the process, so soon as he supplements his sale by a purchase, the money again leaves the hands of its possessor [...] Hence the movement directly imparted to money by the circulation of commodities takes the form of a constant motion away from its starting-point, of a course from the hands of one commodity owner into those of another. This course constitutes its currency (cours de la monnaie). The currency of money is the constant and monotonous repetition of the same process [...]

Every commodity, when it first steps into circulation, and undergoes its first change of form, does so only to fall out of circulation again and to be replaced by other commodities. Money, on the contrary, as the medium of circulation, keeps continually within the sphere of circulation, and moves about in it. The question therefore arises; how much money this sphere constantly absorbs?

In a given country there take place every day at the same time, but in different localities, numerous one-sided metamorphoses of commodities, or, in other words, numerous sales and numerous purchases. The commodities are equated beforehand in imagination, by their prices, to definite quantities of money. And since, in the form of circulation now under consideration, money and commodities always come bodily face to face, one at the positive pole of purchase, the other at the negative pole of sale, it is clear that the amount of the means of circulation required, is determined beforehand by the sum of the prices of all these commodities. As a matter of fact, the money in reality represents the quantity or sum of gold ideally expressed beforehand by the sum of the prices of the commodities. The equality of these two sums is therefore self-evident. We know, however, that, the values of commodities remaining constant, their prices vary with the value of gold (the material of money), rising in proportion as it falls, and falling in proportion as it rises. Now if, in consequence of such a rise or fall in the value of gold, the sum of the prices of commodities fall or rise, the quantity of money in currency must fall or rise to the same extent [.]

If the mass of commodities remains constant, the quantity of circulating money varies with the fluctuations in the prices of those commodities. It increases and diminishes because the sum of the prices increases or diminishes in consequence of the change of price [...] Suppose the following articles to be sold or partially metamorphosed simultaneously in different localities: say, one quarter of wheat, 20 yards of linen, one Bible, and 4 gallons of brandy. If the price of each article be £2, and the sum of the prices to be realized be consequently £8, it follows that £8 in money must go into circulation [...] Hence the velocity of the currency of money is measured by the number of moves made by a given piece of money in a given time. Suppose the circulation of the 4 articles takes a day. The sum of the prices to be realized in the day is £8, the number of moves of the two pieces of money is four, and the quantity of money circulating is £2. Hence, for a given interval of time during the process of circulation, we have the following relation: the quantity of money functioning as the circulating medium is equal to the sum of the prices of the commodities divided by the number of moves made by coins of the same denomination [.]

The total quantity of money functioning during a given period as the circulating medium, is determined, on the one hand, by the sum of the prices of the circulating commodities, and on the other hand, by the rapidity with which the antithetical phases of the metamorphoses follow one another. On this rapidity depends what proportion of the sum of the prices can, on the average, be realized by each single coin. But the sum of the prices of the circulating commodities depends on the quantity, as well as on the prices, of the commodities. These three factors, however, state of prices, quantity of circulating commodities, and velocity of money-currency, are all variable. Hence, the sum of the prices to be realized, and consequently the quantity of the circulating medium depending on that sum, will vary with the numerous variations of these three factors in combination [.]

[c. Coin and symbols of value]

The only difference, therefore, between coin and bullion, is one of shape, and gold can at any time pass from one form to the other. But no sooner does coin leave the mint, then it immediately finds itself on the high-road to the melting pot. During their currency, coins wear away, some more, others less. Name and substance, nominal weight and real weight, begin their process of separation. Coins of the same denomination become different in value, because they are different in weight. The weight of gold fixed upon as the standard of prices, deviates from the weight that serves as the circulating medium, and the latter thereby ceases any longer to be a real equivalent of the commodities whose prices it realizes. The history of coinage during the Middle Ages and down into the 18th century, records the ever renewed confusion arising from this cause. The natural tendency of circulation to convert coins into a mere semblance of what they profess to be, into a symbol of the weight of metal they are officially supposed to contain, is recognized by modern legislation, which fixes the loss of weight sufficient to demonetize a gold coin, or to make it no longer legal tender.

The fact that the currency of coins itself effects a separation between their nominal and their real weight, creating a distinction between them as mere pieces of metal on the one hand, and as coins with a definite function on the other — this fact implies the latent possibility of replacing metallic coins by tokens of some other material, by symbols serving the same purposes as coins. The practical difficulties in the way of coining extremely minute quantities of gold or silver, and the circumstance that at first the less precious metal is used as a measure of value instead of the-more precious, copper instead of silver, silver instead of gold, and that the less precious circulates as money until dethroned by the more precious — all these facts explain the parts historically played by silver and copper tokens as substitutes for gold coins [...]

The weight of metal in the silver and copper tokens is arbitrarily fixed by law. When in currency, they wear away even more rapidly than gold coins. Hence their functions are totally independent of their weight, and consequently of all value. The function of gold as coin becomes completely independent of the metallic value of that gold. Therefore, things that are relatively without value, such as paper notes, can serve as coins in its place. This purely symbolic character is to a certain extent masked in metal tokens. In paper money it stands out plainly [...]

The State puts in circulation bits of paper on which their various denominations, say £1, £5, etc., are printed. In so far as they actually take the place of gold to the same amount, their movement is subject to the laws that regulate the currency of money itself. A law peculiar to the circulation of paper money can spring up only from the proportion in which that paper money represents gold. Such a law exists; stated simply, it is as follows: the issue of paper money must not exceed in amount the gold (or silver as the case may be) which would actually circulate if not replaced by symbols [...] If the quantity of paper money issued be double what it ought to be, then, as a matter of fact, £1 would be the money name not of 1/4 of an ounce, but of 1/8 of an ounce of gold. The effect would be the same as if an alteration had taken place in the function of gold as a standard of prices. Those values that were previously expressed by the price of £1 would now be expressed by the price of £2.

Section 3. Money

[A. Hoarding]

With the very earliest development of the circulation of commodities, there is also developed the necessity, and the passionate desire, to hold fast the product of the first metamorphosis. This product is the transformed shape of the commodity, or its gold-chrysalis. Commodities are thus sold not for the purpose of buying others, but in order to replace their commodity form by their money form. From being the mere means of effecting the circulation of commodities, this change of form becomes the end and aim. The changed form of the commodity is thus prevented from functioning as its unconditionally alienable form, or as its merely transient money form. The money becomes petrified into a hoard, and the seller becomes a hoarder of money [...]

As the production of commodities further develops, every producer of commodities is compelled to make sure of the nexus rerum