112
Chapter 5
plenty of wine and no corn treats with a man who has plenty of corn and no wine; an exchange
takes place between them of corn to the value of 50, for wine of the same value. This act
produces no increase of exchange-value either for the one or the other; for each of them already
possessed, before the exchange, a value equal to that which he acquired by means of that
operation.”
2
The result is not altered by introducing money, as a medium of circulation, between
the commodities, and making the sale and the purchase two distinct acts.
3
The value of a
commodity is expressed in its price before it goes into circulation, and is therefore a precedent
condition of circulation, not its result.
4
Abstractedly considered, that is, apart from circumstances not immediately flowing from the laws
of the simple circulation of commodities, there is in an exchange nothing (if we except the
replacing of one use-value by another) but a metamorphosis, a mere change in the form of the
commodity. The same exchange-value, i.e., the same quantity of incorporated social labour,
remains throughout in the hands of the owner of the commodity, first in the shape of his own
commodity, then in the form of the money for which he exchanged it, and lastly, in the shape of
the commodity he buys with that money. This change of form does not imply a change in the
magnitude of the value. But the change, which the value of the commodity undergoes in this
process, is limited to a change in its money-form. This form exists first as the price of the
commodity offered for sale, then as an actual sum of money, which, however, was already
expressed in the price, and lastly, as the price of an equivalent commodity. This change of form
no more implies, taken alone, a change in the quantity of value, than does the change of a £5 note
into sovereigns, half sovereigns and shillings. So far therefore as the circulation of commodities
effects a change in the form alone of their values, and is free from disturbing influences, it must
be the exchange of equivalents. Little as Vulgar-Economy knows about the nature of value, yet
whenever it wishes to consider the phenomena of circulation in their purity, it assumes that
supply and demand are equal, which amounts to this, that their effect is nil. If therefore, as
regards the use-values exchanged, both buyer and seller may possibly gain something, this is not
the case as regards the exchange-values. Here we must rather say, “Where equality exists there
can be no gain.”
5
It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from their values, but
these deviations are to be considered as infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities
6
,
which in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing
value.
7
Hence, we see that behind all attempts to represent the circulation of commodities as a source of
surplus-value, there lurks a
quid pro quo, a mixing up of use-value and exchange-value. For
instance, Condillac says: “It is not true that on an exchange of commodities we give value for
value. On the contrary, each of the two contracting parties in every case, gives a less for a greater
value. ... If we really exchanged equal values, neither party could make a profit. And yet, they
both gain, or ought to gain. Why? The value of a thing consists solely in its relation to our wants.
What is more to the one is less to the other, and vice versâ. ... It is not to be assumed that we offer
for sale articles required for our own consumption. ... We wish to part with a useless thing, in
order to get one that we need; we want to give less for more. ... It was natural to think that, in an
exchange, value was given for value, whenever each of the articles exchanged was of equal value
with the same quantity of gold. ... But there is another point to be considered in our calculation.
The question is, whether we both exchange something superfluous for something necessary.”
8
We see in this passage, how Condillac not only confuses use-value with exchange-value, but in a
really childish manner assumes, that in a society, in which the production of commodities is well
developed, each producer produces his own means of subsistence, and throws into circulation
only the excess over his own requirements
9
Still, Condillac’s argument is frequently used by
113
Chapter 5
modern economists, more especially when the point is to show, that the exchange of commodities
in its developed form, commerce, is productive of surplus-value. For instance, “Commerce ...
adds value to products, for the same products in the hands of consumers, are worth more than in
the hands of producers, and it may strictly be considered an act of production.”
10
But
commodities are not paid for twice over, once on account of their use-value, and again on account
of their value. And though the use-value of a commodity is more serviceable to the buyer than to
the seller, its money-form is more serviceable to the seller. Would he otherwise sell it? We might
therefore just as well say that the buyer performs “strictly an act of production,” by converting
stockings, for example, into money.
If commodities, or commodities and money, of equal exchange-value, and consequently
equivalents, are exchanged, it is plain that no one abstracts more value from, than he throws into,
circulation. There is no creation of surplus-value. And, in its normal form, the circulation of
commodities demands the exchange of equivalents. But in actual practice, the process does not
retain its normal form. Let us, therefore, assume an exchange of non-equivalents.
In any case the market for commodities is only frequented by owners of commodities, and the
power which these persons exercise over each other, is no other than the power of their
commodities. The material variety of these commodities is the material incentive to the act of
exchange, and makes buyers and sellers mutually dependent, because none of them possesses the
object of his own wants, and each holds in his hand the object of another’s wants. Besides these
material differences of their use-values, there is only one other difference between commodities,
namely, that between their bodily form and the form into which they are converted by sale, the
difference between commodities and money. And consequently the owners of commodities are
distinguishable only as sellers, those who own commodities, and buyers, those who own money.
Suppose then, that by some inexplicable privilege, the seller is enabled to sell his commodities
above their value, what is worth 100 for 110, in which case the price is nominally raised 10%.
The seller therefore pockets a surplus-value of 10. But after he has sold he becomes a buyer. A
third owner of commodities comes to him now as seller, who in this capacity also enjoys the
privilege of selling his commodities 10% too dear. Our friend gained 10 as a seller only to lose it
again as a buyer.
11
The net result is, that all owners of commodities sell their goods to one
another at 10% above their value, which comes precisely to the same as if they sold them at their
true value. Such a general and nominal rise of prices has the same effect as if the values had been
expressed in weight of silver instead of in weight of gold. The nominal prices of commodities
would rise, but the real relation between their values would remain unchanged.
Let us make the opposite assumption, that the buyer has the privilege of purchasing commodities
under their value. In this case it is no longer necessary to bear in mind that he in his turn will
become a seller. He was so before he became buyer; he had already lost 10% in selling before he
gained 10% as buyer.
12
Everything is just as it was.
The creation of surplus-value, and therefore the conversion of money into capital, can
consequently be explained neither on the assumption that commodities are sold above their value,
nor that they are bought below their value.
13
The problem is in no way simplified by introducing irrelevant matters after the manner of Col.
Torrens: “Effectual demand consists in the power and inclination (!), on the part of consumers, to
give for commodities, either by immediate or circuitous barter, some greater portion of ... capital
than their production costs.”
14
In relation to circulation, producers and consumers meet only as
buyers and sellers. To assert that the surplus-value acquired by the producer has its origin in the
fact that consumers pay for commodities more than their value, is only to say in other words: The
owner of commodities possesses, as a seller, the privilege of selling too dear. The seller has