A commodity has a value, because it is a crystallization of social labour. We arrive, therefore, at this conclusion. ![]() Of course, to apply this measure, all sorts of labour are reduced to average or simple labour as their unit. But how does one measure quantities of labour? By the time the labour lasts, in measuring the labour by the hour, the day, etc. In this respect they can differ only by representing greater or smaller quantities of labour, as, for example, a greater amount of labour may be worked up in a silken handkerchief than in a brick. If we consider commodities as values, we consider them exclusively under the single aspect of realized, fixed, or, if you like, crystallized social labour. It is nothing without the other divisions of labour, and on its part is required to integrate them. It must be subordinate to the division of labour within society. But to produce a commodity, a man must not only produce an article satisfying some social want, but his labour itself must form part and parcel of the total sum of labour expended by society. As a self-sustaining producer he has nothing to do with society. A man who produces an article for his own immediate use, to consume it himself, creates a product, but not a commodity. And I say not only labour, but social labour. To produce a commodity a certain amount of labour must be bestowed upon it, or worked up in it. We must be able to reduce all of them to an expression common to all, and distinguishing them only by the proportions in which they contain that identical measure.Īs the exchangeable values of commodities are only social functions of those things, and have nothing at all to do with the natural qualities, we must first ask: What is the common social substance of all commodities? It is labour. The same mode of procedure must obtain with the values of commodities. Having found from the nature of the triangle that its area is equal to half the product of its base by its height, we can then compare the different values of all sorts of triangles, and of all rectilinear figures whatever, because all of them may be resolved into a certain number of triangles. In comparing the areas of triangles of all possible forms and magnitudes, or comparing triangles with rectangles, or any other rectilinear figure, how do we proceed? We reduce the area of any triangle whatever to an expression quite different from its visible form. To elucidate this point I shall recur to a very simple geometrical illustration. Either of them, the wheat or the iron, must, therefore, independently of the other, be reducible to this third thing which is their common measure. It must be possible to express, in a very different form, these various equations with various commodities.īesides, if I say a quarter of wheat exchanges with iron in a certain proportion, or the value of a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain amount of iron, I say that the value of wheat and its equivalent in iron are equal to some third thing, which is neither wheat nor iron, because I suppose them to express the same magnitude in two different shapes. ![]() Yet, its value remaining always the same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any other commodity, it must be something distinct from, and independent of, these different rates of exchange with different articles. ![]() Taking one single commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find that a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless variations of proportion with different commodities. But then arises the question: How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary infinitely. In fact, in speaking of the value, the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in which it exchanges with all other commodities. The first question we have to put is: What is the value of a commodity? How is it determined?Īt first sight it would seem that the value of a commodity is a thing quite relative, and not to be settled without considering one commodity in its relations to all other commodities. I can, as the French would say, but “effleurer la question,” touch upon the main points. I cannot promise to do this in a very satisfactory way, because to do so I should be obliged to go over the whole field of political economy. Value and LabourĬitizens, I have now arrived at a point where I must enter upon the real development of the question. Economic Manuscripts: VALUE, PRICE AND PROFIT
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |