41
Chapter 1
value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he
lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality.
4. The Elementary Form of value considered as a whole
The elementary form of value of a commodity is contained in the equation, expressing its value
relation to another commodity of a different kind, or in its exchange relation to the same. The
value of commodity A, is qualitatively expressed, by the fact that commodity B is directly
exchangeable with it. Its value is quantitatively expressed by the fact, that a definite quantity of B
is exchangeable with a definite quantity of A. In other words, the value of a commodity obtains
independent and definite expression, by taking the form of exchange value. 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 two-fold 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.
Our analysis has shown, that the form or expression of the value of a commodity originates in the
nature of value, and not that value and its magnitude originate in the mode of their expression as
exchange value. This, however, is the delusion as well of the mercantilists and their recent
revivers, Ferrier, Ganilh,
23
and others, as also of their antipodes, the modern bagmen of Free-
trade, such as Bastiat. The mercantilists lay special stress on the qualitative aspect of the
expression of value, and consequently on the equivalent form of commodities, which attains its
full perfection in money. The modern hawkers of Free-trade, who must get rid of their article at
any price, on the other hand, lay most stress on the quantitative aspect of the relative form of
value. For them there consequently exists neither value, nor magnitude of value, anywhere except
in its expression by means of the exchange relation of commodities, that is, in the daily list of
prices current. Macleod, who has taken upon himself to dress up the confused ideas of Lombard
Street in the most learned finery, is a successful cross between the superstitious mercantilists, and
the enlightened Free-trade bagmen.
A close scrutiny of the expression of the value of A in terms of B, contained in the equation
expressing the value relation of A to B, has shown us that, within that relation, the bodily form of
A figures only as a use value, the bodily form of B only as the form or aspect of value. The
opposition or contrast existing internally in each commodity between use value and value, is,
therefore, made evident externally by two commodities being placed in such relation to each
other, that the commodity whose value it is sought to express, figures directly as a mere use
value, while the commodity in which that value is to be expressed, figures directly as mere
exchange value. Hence the elementary form of value of a commodity is the elementary form in
which the contrast contained in that commodity, between use value and value, becomes apparent.
Every product of labour is, in all states of society, a use value; but it is only at a definite historical
epoch in a society’s development that such a product becomes a commodity, viz., at the epoch
when the labour spent on the production of a useful article becomes expressed as one of the
objective qualities of that article, i.e., as its value. It therefore follows that the elementary value
form is also the primitive form under which a product of labour appears historically as a
commodity, and that the gradual transformation of such products into commodities, proceeds pari
passu with the development of the value form.
42
Chapter 1
We perceive, at first sight, the deficiencies of the elementary form of value: it is a mere germ,
which must undergo a series of metamorphoses before it can ripen into the price form.
The expression of the value of commodity A in terms of any other commodity B, merely
distinguishes the value from the use value of A, and therefore places A merely in a relation of
exchange with a single different commodity, B; but it is still far from expressing A’s qualitative
equality, and quantitative proportionality, to all commodities. To the elementary relative value
form of a commodity, there corresponds the single equivalent form of one other commodity.
Thus, in the relative expression of value of the linen, the coat assumes the form of equivalent, or
of being directly exchangeable, only in relation to a single commodity, the linen.
Nevertheless, the elementary form of value passes by an easy transition into a more complete
form. It is true that by means of the elementary form, the value of a commodity A, becomes
expressed in terms of one, and only one, other commodity. But that one may be a commodity of
any kind, coat, iron, corn, or anything else. Therefore, according as A is placed in relation with
one or the other, we get for one and the same commodity, different elementary expressions of
value.
24
The number of such possible expressions is limited only by the number of the different
kinds of commodities distinct from it. The isolated expression of A’s value, is therefore
convertible into a series, prolonged to any length, of the different elementary expressions of that
value.
B. Total or Expanded Form of value
z Com. A = u Com. B or = v Com. C or = w Com. D or = Com. E or = &c.
(20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lbs tea or = 40 lbs. coffee or
= 1 quarter corn or = 2 ounces gold or = ½ ton iron or = &c.)
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.
25
It is thus, that for the first time, this value shows itself in its true light as a
congelation of undifferentiated human labour. For the labour that creates it, now stands expressly
revealed, as labour that ranks equally with every other sort of human labour, no matter what its
form, whether tailoring, ploughing, mining, &c., and no matter, therefore, whether it is realised 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. As a commodity, it is a citizen of that world. At the same time, the interminable
series of value equations implies, that as regards the value of a commodity, it is a matter of
indifference under what particular form, or kind, of use value it appears.
In the first form, 20 yds of linen = 1 coat, it might, for ought that otherwise appears, be pure
accident, that these two commodities are exchangeable in definite quantities. In the second form,
on the contrary, we perceive at once the background that determines, and is essentially different
from, this accidental appearance. The value of the linen remains unaltered in magnitude, whether
expressed in coats, coffee, or iron, or in numberless different commodities, the property of as
many different owners. 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.