114
Chapter 5
himself produced the commodities or represents their producer, but the buyer has to no less extent
produced the commodities represented by his money, or represents their producer. The distinction
between them is, that one buys and the other sells. The fact that the owner of the commodities,
under the designation of producer, sells them over their value, and under the designation of
consumer, pays too much for them, does not carry us a single step further.
15
To be consistent therefore, the upholders of the delusion that surplus-value has its origin in a
nominal rise of prices or in the privilege which the seller has of selling too dear, must assume the
existence of a class that only buys and does not sell, i.e., only consumes and does not produce.
The existence of such a class is inexplicable from the standpoint we have so far reached, viz., that
of simple circulation. But let us anticipate. The money with which such a class is constantly
making purchases, must constantly flow into their pockets, without any exchange, gratis, by
might or right, from the pockets of the commodity-owners themselves. To sell commodities
above their value to such a class, is only to crib back again a part of the money previously given
to it.
16
The towns of Asia Minor thus paid a yearly money tribute to ancient Rome. With this
money Rome purchased from them commodities, and purchased them too dear. The provincials
cheated the Romans, and thus got back from their conquerors, in the course of trade, a portion of
the tribute. Yet, for all that, the conquered were the really cheated. Their goods were still paid for
with their own money. That is not the way to get rich or to create surplus-value.
Let us therefore keep within the bounds of exchange where sellers are also buyers, and buyers,
sellers. Our difficulty may perhaps have arisen from treating the actors as personifications instead
of as individuals.
A may be clever enough to get the advantage of B or C without their being able to retaliate. A
sells wine worth £40 to B, and obtains from him in exchange corn to the value of £50. A has
converted his £40 into £50, has made more money out of less, and has converted his commodities
into capital. Let us examine this a little more closely. Before the exchange we had £40 worth of
wine in the hands of A, and £50 worth of corn in those of B, a total value of £90. After the
exchange we have still the same total value of £90. The value in circulation has not increased by
one iota, it is only distributed differently between A and B. What is a loss of value to B is surplus-
value to A; what is “minus” to one is “plus” to the other. The same change would have taken
place, if A, without the formality of an exchange, had directly stolen the £10 from B. The sum of
the values in circulation can clearly not be augmented by any change in their distribution, any
more than the quantity of the precious metals in a country by a Jew selling a Queen Anne’s
farthing for a guinea. The capitalist class, as a whole, in any country, cannot over-reach
themselves.
17
Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no
surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value.
18
Circulation,
or the exchange of commodities, begets no value.
19
The reason is now therefore plain why, in analysing the standard form of capital, the form under
which it determines the economic organisation of modern society, we entirely left out of
consideration its most popular, and, so to say, antediluvian forms, merchants’ capital and money-
lenders’ capital.
The circuit M-C-M, buying in order to sell dearer, is seen most clearly in genuine merchants’
capital. But the movement takes place entirely within the sphere of circulation. Since, however, it
is impossible, by circulation alone, to account for the conversion of money into capital, for the
formation of surplus-value, it would appear, that merchants’ capital is an impossibility, so long as
equivalents are exchanged;
20
that, therefore, it can only have its origin in the two-fold advantage
gained, over both the selling and the buying producers, by the merchant who parasitically shoves
115
Chapter 5
himself in between them. It is in this sense that Franklin says, “war is robbery, commerce is
generally cheating.”
21
If the transformation of merchants’ money into capital is to be explained
otherwise than by the producers being simply cheated, a long series
of intermediate steps would
be necessary, which, at present, when the simple circulation of commodities forms our only
assumption, are entirely wanting.
What we have said with reference to merchants’ capital, applies still more to
money-lenders’ capital. In merchants’ capital, the two extremes, the money that is
thrown upon the market, and the augmented money that is withdrawn from the
market, are at least connected by a purchase and a sale, in other words by the
movement of the circulation. In money-lenders’ capital the form M-C-M is
reduced to the two extremes without a mean, M-M , money exchanged for more
money, a form that is incompatible with the nature of money, and therefore
remains inexplicable from the standpoint of the circulation of commodities. Hence
Aristotle: “since chrematistic is a double science, one part belonging to
commerce, the other to economic, the latter being necessary and praiseworthy, the
former based on circulation and with justice disapproved (for it is not based on
Nature, but on mutual cheating), therefore the usurer is most rightly hated,
because money itself is the source of his gain, and is not used for the purposes for
which it was invented. For it originated for the exchange of commodities, but
interest makes out of money, more money. Hence its
name (τοκος interest and
offspring). For the begotten are like those who beget them. But interest is money
of money, so that of all modes of making a living, this is the most contrary to
Nature.”
22
In the course of our investigation, we shall find that both merchants’ capital and interest-bearing
capital are derivative forms, and at the same time it will become clear, why these two forms
appear in the course of history before the modern standard form of capital.
We have shown that surplus-value cannot be created by circulation, and, therefore, that in its
formation, something must take place in the background, which is not apparent in the circulation
itself.
23
But can surplus-value possibly originate anywhere else than in circulation, which is the
sum total of all the mutual relations of commodity-owners, as far as they are determined by their
commodities? Apart from circulation, the commodity-owner is in relation only with his own
commodity. So far as regards value, that relation is limited to this, that the commodity contains a
quantity of his own labour, that quantity being measured by a definite social standard. This
quantity is expressed by the value of the commodity, and since the value is reckoned in money of
account, this quantity is also expressed by the price, which we will suppose to be £10. But his
labour is not represented both by the value of the commodity, and by a surplus over that value,
not by a price of 10 that is also a price of 11, not by a value that is greater than itself. The
commodity owner can, by his labour, create value, but not self-expanding value. He can increase
the value of his commodity, by adding fresh labour, and therefore more value to the value in
hand, by making, for instance, leather into boots. The same material has now more value, because
it contains a greater quantity of labour. The boots have therefore more value than the leather, but
the value of the leather remains what it was; it has not expanded itself, has not, during the making
of the boots, annexed surplus-value. It is therefore impossible that outside the sphere of
circulation, a producer of commodities can, without coming into contact with other commodity-
owners, expand value, and consequently convert money or commodities into capital.