108
Chapter 4
motion of its own, passing through a life-process of its own, in which money and commodities
are mere forms which it assumes and casts off in turn. Nay, more: instead of simply representing
the relations of commodities, it enters now, so to say, into private relations with itself. It
differentiates itself as original value from itself as surplus-value; as the father differentiates
himself from himself qua the son, yet both are one and of one age: for only by the surplus-value
of £10 does the £100 originally advanced become capital, and so soon as this takes place, so soon
as the son, and by the son, the father, is begotten, so soon does their difference vanish, and they
again become one, £110.
Value therefore now becomes value in process, money in process, and, as such, capital. It comes
out of circulation, enters into it again, preserves and multiplies itself within its circuit, comes back
out of it with expanded bulk, and begins the same round ever afresh.
14
M-M', money which
begets money, such is the description of Capital from the mouths of its first interpreters, the
Mercantilists.
Buying in order to sell, or, more accurately, buying in order to sell dearer, M-C-M', appears
certainly to be a form peculiar to one kind of capital alone, namely, merchants’ capital. But
industrial capital too is money, that is changed into commodities, and by the sale of these
commodities, is re-converted into more money. The events that take place outside the sphere of
circulation, in the interval between the buying and selling, do not affect the form of this
movement. Lastly, in the case of interest-bearing capital, the circulation M-C-M' appears
abridged. We have its result without the intermediate stage, in the form M-M', “en style lapidaire”
so to say, money that is worth more money, value that is greater than itself.
M-C-M' is therefore in reality the general formula of capital as it appears prima facie within the
sphere of circulation.
1
The contrast between the power, based on the personal relations of dominion and servitude, that is
conferred by landed property, and the impersonal power that is given by money, is well expressed by
the two French proverbs, “Nulle terre sans seigneur,” and “L’argent n’a pas de maître,” – “No land
without its lord,” and “Money has no master.”
2
“Avec de l’argent on achète des marchandises et avec des marchandises on achète de l’argent.”
[“With money one buys commodities, and with commodities one buys money”] (Mercier de la
Rivière: “L’ordre naturel et essentiel des sociétés politiques,” p. 543.)
3
“When a thing is bought in order to be sold again, the sum employed is called money advanced;
when it is bought not to be sold, it may be said to be expended.” — (James Steuart: “Works,” &c.
Edited by Gen. Sir James Steuart, his son. Lond., 1805, V. I., p. 274.)
4
“On n’échange pas de l’argent contre de l’argent,” [“One does not exchange money for money,”]
says Mercier de la Rivière to the Mercantilists (l.c., p. 486.) In a work, which, ex professo treats of
“trade” and “speculation,” occurs the following: “All trade consists in the exchange of things of
different kinds; and the advantage” (to the merchant?) “arises out of this difference. To exchange a
pound of bread against a pound of bread ... would be attended with no advantage; ... Hence trade is
advantageously contrasted with gambling, which consists in a mere exchange of money for money.”
(Th. Corbet, “An Inquiry into the Causes and Modes of the Wealth of Individuals; or the Principles of
Trade and Speculation Explained.” London, 1841, p. 5.) Although Corbet does not see that M-M, the
exchange of money for money, is the characteristic form of circulation, not only of merchants’ capital
but of all capital, yet at least he acknowledges that this form is common to gambling and to one
species of trade, viz., speculation: but then comes MacCulloch and makes out, that to buy in order to
sell, is to speculate, and thus the difference between Speculation and Trade vanishes. “Every
transaction in which an individual buys produce in order to sell it again, is, in fact, a speculation.”
109
Chapter 4
(MacCulloch: “A Dictionary Practical, &c., of Commerce.” Lond., 1847, p. 1009.) With much more
naiveté, Pinto, the Pindar of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, remarks, “Le commerce est un jeu:
(taken from Locke) et ce n’est pas avec des gueux qu’on peut gagner. Si l’on gagnait longtemps en
tout avec tous, il faudrait rendre de bon accord les plus grandes parties du profit pour recommencer le
jeu.” [“Trade is a game, and nothing can be won from beggars. If one won everything from everybody
all the time, it would be necessary to give back the greater part of the profit voluntarily, in order to
begin the game again”] (Pinto: “Traité de la Circulation et du Crédit.” Amsterdam, 1771. p. 231,)
5
“Capital is divisible ... into the original capital and the profit, the increment to the capital ... although
in practice this profit is immediately turned into capital, and set in motion with the original.” (F.
Engels, “Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalökonomie, in: Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher,
herausgegeben von Arnold Ruge und Karl Marx.” Paris, 1844, p. 99.)
6
Aristotle opposes Oeconomic to Chrematistic. He starts from the former. So far as it is the art of
gaining a livelihood, it is limited to procuring those articles that are necessary to existence, and
useful either to a household or the state. “True wealth (o aleqinos ploutos) consists of such values
in use; for the quantity of possessions of this kind, capable of making life pleasant, is not
unlimited. There is, however, a second mode of acquiring things, to which we may by preference
and with correctness give the name of Chrematistic, and in this case there appear to be no limits
to riches and possessions. Trade (e kapelike is literally retail trade, and Aristotle takes this kind
because in it values in use predominate) does not in its nature belong to Chrematistic, for here the
exchange has reference only to what is necessary to themselves (the buyer or seller).” Therefore,
as he goes on to show, the original form of trade was barter, but with the extension of the latter,
there arose the necessity for money. On the discovery of money, barter of necessity developed
into kapelike, into trading in commodities, and this again, in opposition to its original tendency,
grew into Chrematistic, into the art of making money. Now Chrematistic is distinguishable from
Oeconomic in this way, that “in the case of Chrematistic circulation is the source of riches
poietike crematon ... dia chrematon diaboles. And it appears to revolve about money, for money
is the beginning and end of this kind of exchange (to nomisma stoiceion tes allages estin).
Therefore also riches, such as Chrematistic strives for, are unlimited. Just as every art that is not a
means to an end, but an end in itself, has no limit to its aims, because it seeks constantly to
approach nearer and nearer to that end, while those arts that pursue means to an end, are not
boundless, since the goal itself imposes a limit upon them, so with Chrematistic, there are no
bounds to its aims, these aims being absolute wealth. Oeconomic not Chrematistic has a limit ...
the object of the former is something different from money, of the latter the augmentation of
money.... By confounding these two forms, which overlap each other, some people have been led
to look upon the preservation and increase of money ad infinitum as the end and aim of
Oeconomic.” (Aristoteles, De Rep. edit. Bekker, lib. l.c. 8, 9. passim.)
7
“Commodities (here used in the sense of use-values) are not the terminating object of the trading
capitalist, money is his terminating object.” (Th. Chalmers,
On Pol. Econ. &c., 2nd Ed., Glasgow,
1832, pp. 165, 166.)
8
“Il mercante non conta quasi per niente il lucro fatto, ma mira sempre al futuro.” [“The merchant
counts the money he has made as almost nothing; he always looks to the future.”] (A. Genovesi,
Lezioni di Economia Civile (1765), Custodi’s edit. of Italian Economists. Parte Moderna t. viii, p.
139.)
9
“The inextinguishable passion for gain, the auri sacra fames, will always lead capitalists.”
(MacCulloch: “The Principles of Polit. Econ.” London, 1830, p. 179.) This view, of course, does not
prevent the same MacCulloch and others of his kidney, when in theoretical difficulties, such, for