Lecture 5: Tracing the origin of the money form of value (continued)

The elementary form of value expresses the value of one commodity in terms of one other commodity; it is still far from expressing its qualitative equality, and quantitative proportionality with all other commodities. However this elementary form of value easily develops into a higher form. For whilst this elementary form only expresses one value in one equivalent, yet that equivalent may be any other commodity at all. So we can obtain a series of different elementary expressions of value of the commodity (linen) limited only by the number of the other commodities.

Total or Expanded form of value

Z commodity A = u commodity B or= v commodity Cor= w commodity D or= x commodity E or = &etc

(20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10lbs of tea or =40lbs of coffee or = 1 quarter corn or = 2 ounces of gold or = &etc)

In the expanded form of value the linen 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 the world.’ (p63) The accidental relation between two individual commodity owners disappears. It becomes clear 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.’ (p63)

Instead of a single equivalent form we now have a heterogeneous mass of different equivalents. This leads Marx to point to the defects of the expanded form of value. First it is never complete. Second the equivalent side has no unity – we have fragmentary equivalent forms, each excluding the other.

But the expanded form of value is only the multitude of elementary expressions of value:

20 yards of linen = 1 coat

20 yards of linen = 10lbs of tea etc

And each of these equations or expressions implies its opposite, to the converse relations already implied in the series:

1 coat = 20 yards of linen

10lbs of tea = 20 yards of linen etc

This leads us on to the

General form of value

1 coat

10lbs of tea

40lbs of coffee = 20 yards of linen

1 quarter of corn

2 ounces of gold

x com A etc

Here all commodities express their value in a single commodity and with unity. In comparison with this the elementary form relates to early stages of commodity production where the exchanges are only casual. The extended form is the outcome of the habitual exchange of one kind of commodity for all sorts of other commodities ie cattle. But this general form corrects these faults. Here the value of all sort of commodities is expressed in a single form, and all commodities have the same simple equivalent in common. The value of every commodity is now, by being equated to the linen, not only differentiated from its own use-value, but from all other use-values generally, and is made to appear as what is common to them all – their common value. For the first time the commodities effectively come forward as values and for the first time made to appear as exchange-values. (p66)

The general from of value results from the joint action of the whole world of commodities. Since the existence of commodities as values is purely social, this social existence can only be expressed adequately by the totality of their social relations alone, and consequently that the form of their value must be some socially recognised form.

The general form of relative value converts the single commodity which is excluded from the rest and made to play the part of equivalent – in our case the linen – into the universal equivalent. The bodily form of the linen is now the form assumed in common by the values of all commodities; it becomes directly exchangeable with all other commodities. The substance linen, the visible incarnation, the social chrysalis state, of every kind of human labour. The general form of value is the reduction of all kinds of actual labour to their common character of being human labour generally, of being the expenditure of human labour power.

The degree of the development of the relative form of value corresponds to the development of the equivalent form – which in turn is only the expression and the result of the development of the former. The commodity that figures as universal equivalent is excluded from the relative value form. If it were to share in the relative value form it would have to serve as its own equivalent. We should then have 20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen – this tautology expresses neither value nor magnitude of value.

Transition from the General form of value to the money-form

The universal equivalent form is a form of value in general and can, therefore, be assumed by any commodity. One commodity is excluded from the rest and this exclusion has to have social validity. ‘And from the moment that this exclusion becomes finally restricted to one particular commodity, from that moment only, the general form of relative value of the world of commodities obtains real consistence and general social validity.’ This particular commodity, with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money. It becomes the special function of that commodity, its social monopoly, to play the role of universal equivalent amongst the world of commodities. The commodity which has obtained historically the prominent position amongst commodities as universal equivalent has been gold. Hence if we replace linen by gold in the general form of value we get;

The money form

20 yards of linen

1 coat

10lbs of tea=2 ounces of gold

40 lbs of coffee

x commodity A

Gold could become money, for expressing the value of commodities, only because it was itself previously one of those commodities. The elementary expression of the relative value of a single commodity, such as linen, in terms of the money commodity, gold, is the price-form of that commodity. The price-form of linen is 20yards of linen = 2 ounces of gold or, if two ounces of gold when coined are £2, 20 yards of linen = £2.

In this analysis so far Marx has shown how the simple commodity-form of value is the germ of the money-form.

The fetishism of commodities

A commodity at first sight appears to be a very trivial, easily understood thing. However on analysing it we find that there is much more to it than was at first thought. It turns out to be ‘a very strange thing abounding in metaphysical subtleties’ (p71) What is it then which makes commodities so mysterious,

Regarded as a use-value, the commodity has nothing mysterious about it. A table, for example, is the product of labour and Nature. It is a natural product modified by human labour to satisfy a human need.

The mystery of the commodity does not come from its use-value. Neither does it come from the nature of the determinants of its value. In the first place (regarding the qualitative aspect of its value), however different the useful kinds of human labour, it is clear that, as human labour, they are expenditures of human energy. In the second place (regarding the quantitative aspect of value) there is clearly a difference between the character of being human labour and the quantity of that human labour. In all states of society the necessary labour-time it costs to produce the means of subsistence is of importance to humanity, even if not to the same degree at different stages of development. Finally that the commodity is a social product is easily understood. As soon as people start to work for each other in any way their labour assumes a social form.

1. So where does the mysterious character of the product of labour arise from as soon as it assumes the form of commodities? It arises from the commodity form itself – from the commodity being both a use-value and value. This is because:
2. The equality of one kind of labour with another kind of labour is not expressed as such equality, but is only expressed objectively by another kind of equality: the equality of different commodities in all being equally values (the value in linen being equal to the value in coats).The quantity of socially necessary labour-time in commodities is not expressed as such quantity, that is, in a direct comparison of time, but only as another quantity, that is, indirectly, as equal quantities of value.
3. The mutual relations of the producers of commodities, within which the social characters of their labour manifest itself, are not expressed as such relations, but as relations between the products of labour.

The real mystery of commodity production lies in the fact that social relations between people are disguised. ‘The relations connecting the labour of one individual with the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things.’ Similarly the relations of the labour of individuals to the total labour of society are presented as something else; as the value-relations of different commodities to a universal equivalent, namely money. And it is precisely this ultimate money-form of the world of commodities which actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the social character of private labour and the social relations of individual producers.

Marx calls all this the fetishism of commodities. The economic categories of bourgeois economy consist of such fetish forms.

The magic and mystery of fetishism disappear the moment we consider wealth production which is not the production of commodities. Marx examines Robinson Crusoe on his lonely island. He must labour and produce different things in order to live and must apportion his time accordingly. The relations between Crusoe and his products are not disguised.

The same is true of feudal society. Here there is an absence of independent producers. The society is based on dependence. The relations are perfectly plain and free from disguise. The serf produces useful things directly for his own use or else directly for the use of his lord and master. Marx then turns to the example of a European peasant family where the labour of the family is directly social and it produces everything it needs for its own use. We have a social division of labour in the family – no exchange and no commodities. Finally Marx turns to a society consisting of a community of free individuals, carrying on work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Crusoe’s labour are repeated here except that they are social, instead of individual. The total product is social. It is divided into fresh means of production and means of subsistence etc, the latter distributed according to the amount of labour-time the individual producer contributes to the social product. There is no fetishism in all these examples.

To find an analogy with fetishism of commodities we must go to the ‘mist-enveloped regions of the religious world.’ In that world ‘the products of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life and entering into relation with one another and with the human race.’ What is the product of the creative imagination of people, controls them and determines their life. So it is with the world of commodities. What people produce as a result of their social labour takes the form of objects which rule them, instead of being ruled by them.

This will be the case for as long as capitalism exists. It will disappear only in a socialist society when social production is carried out by freely associated individuals and ‘stands under their conscious and planned control.’ (p80)