Preface
　　Iexaminethesystemofbourgeoiseconomyinthefollowingorder:capital,landedproperty,wage—labour;theState,foreigntrade,worldmarket。Theeconomicconditionsofexistenceofthethreegreatclassesintowhichmodernbourgeoissocietyisdividedareanalysedunderthefirstthreeheadings;theinterconnectionoftheotherthreeheadingsisself—evident。
　　Thefirstpartofthefirstbook,dealingwithCapital,comprisesthefollowingchapters:1。Thecommodity,2。Moneyorsimplecirculation;3。Capitalingeneral。Thepresentpartconsistsofthefirsttwochapters。Theentirematerialliesbeforemeintheformofmonographs,whichwerewrittennotforpublicationbutforself—clarificationatwidelyseparatedperiods;
　　theirremouldingintoanintegratedwholeaccordingtotheplanIhaveindicatedwilldependuponcircumstances。
　　Ageneralintroduction,whichIhaddrafted,isomitted,sinceonfurtherconsiderationitseemstomeconfusingtoanticipateresultswhichstillhavetobesubstantiated,andthereaderwhoreallywishestofollowmewillhavetodecidetoadvancefromtheparticulartothegeneral。Afewbriefremarksregardingthecourseofmystudyofpoliticalappropriatehere。
　　AlthoughIstudiedjurisprudence,Ipursueditasasubjectsubordinatedtophilosophyandhistory。Intheyear1842—43,aseditoroftheRheinischeZeitung,Ifirstfoundmyselfintheembarrassingpositionofhavingtodiscusswhatisknownasmaterialinterests。ThedeliberationsoftheRhenishLandtagonforesttheftsandthedivisionoflandedproperty;theofficialspolemicstartedbyHerrvonSchaper,thenOberprasidentoftheRhineProvince,againsttheRheinischeZeitungabouttheconditionoftheMosellepeasantry,andfinallythedebatesonfreetradeandprotectivetariffscausedmeinthefirstinstancetoturnmyattentiontoeconomicquestions。Ontheotherhand,atthattimewhengoodintentions"topushforward"oftentooktheplaceoffactualknowledge,anechoofFrenchsocialismandcommunism,slightlytingedbyphilosophy,wasnoticeableintheRheinischeZeitung。Iobjectedtothisdilettantism,butatthesametimefranklyadmittedinacontroversywiththeAllgemeineAugsburgerZeitungthatmypreviousstudiesdidnotallowmetoexpressanyopiniononthecontentoftheFrenchtheories。WhenthepublishersoftheRheinischeZeitungconceivedtheillusionthatbyamorecompliantpolicyonthepartofthepaperitmightbepossibletosecuretheabrogationofthedeathsentencepasseduponit,Ieagerlygraspedtheopportunitytowithdrawfromthepublicstagetomystudy。
　　ThefirstworkwhichIundertooktodispelthedoubtsassailingmewasacriticalre—examinationoftheHegelianphilosophyoflaw;theintroductiontothisworkbeingpublishedintheDeutsch—FranzosischeJahrbucherissuedinParisin1844。Myinquiryledmetotheconclusionthatneitherlegalrelationsnorpoliticalformscouldbecomprehendedwhetherbythemselvesoronthebasisofaso—calledgeneraldevelopmentofthehumanmind,butthatonthecontrarytheyoriginateinthematerialconditionsoflife,thetotalityofwhichHegel,followingtheexampleofEnglishandFrenchthinkersoftheeighteenthcentury,embraceswithintheterm"civilsociety";
　　thattheanatomyofthiscivilsociety,however,hastobesoughtinpoliticaleconomy。Thestudyofthis,whichIbeganinParis,IcontinuedinBrussels,whereImovedowingtoanexpulsionorderissuedbyM。Guizot。ThegeneralconclusionatwhichIarrivedandwhich,oncereached,becametheguidingprincipleofmystudiescanbesummarisedasfollows。Inthesocialproductionoftheirexistence,meninevitablyenterIntodefiniterelations,whichareindependentoftheirwill,namelyrelationsofproductionappropriatetoagivenstageinthedevelopmentoftheirmaterialforcesofproduction。
　　Thetotalityoftheserelationsofproductionconstitutestheeconomicstructureofsociety,therealfoundation,onwhicharisesalegalandpoliticalsuperstructureandtowhichcorresponddefiniteformsofsocialconsciousness。Themodeofproductionofmateriallifeconditionsthegeneralprocessofsocial,politicalandintellectuallife。Itisnottheconsciousnessofmenthatdeterminestheirexistence,buttheirsocialexistencethatdeterminestheirconsciousness。Atacertainstageofdevelopment,thematerialproductiveforcesofsocietycomeintoconflictwiththeexistingrelationsofproductionor——thismerelyexpressesthesamethinginlegalterms——withthepropertyrelationswithintheframeworkofwhichtheyhaveoperatedhitherto。Fromformsofdevelopmentoftheproductiveforcestheserelationsturnintotheirfetters。Thenbeginsaneraofsocialrevolution。
　　Thechangesintheeconomicfoundationleadsoonerorlatertothetransformationofthewholeimmensesuperstructure。Instudyingsuchtransformationsitisalwaysnecessarytodistinguishbetweenthematerialtransformationoftheeconomicconditionsofproduction,whichcanbedeterminedwiththeprecisionofnaturalscience,andthelegal,political,religious,artisticorphilosophic——inshort,ideologicalformsinwhichmenbecomeconsciousofthisconflictandfightitout。Justasonedoesnotjudgeanindividualbywhathethinksabouthimself,soonecannotjudgesuchaperiodoftransformationbyitsconsciousness,but,onthecontrary,thisconsciousnessmustbeexplainedfromthecontradictionsofmateriallife,fromtheconflictexistingbetweenthesocialforcesofproductionandtherelationsofproduction。Nosocialorderiseverdestroyedbeforealltheproductiveforcesforwhichitissufficienthavebeendeveloped,andnewsuperiorrelationsofproductionneverreplaceolderonesbeforethematerialconditionsfortheirexistencehavematuredwithintheframeworkoftheoldsociety。Mankindthusinevitablysetsitselfonlysuchtasksasitisabletosolve,sincecloserexaminationwillalwaysshowthattheproblemitselfarisesonlywhenthematerialconditionsforitssolutionarealreadypresentoratleastinthecourseofformation。Inbroadoutline,theAsiatic,ancient,feudalandmodernbourgeoismodesofproductionmaybedesignatedasepochsmarkingprogressintheeconomicdevelopmentofsociety。Thebourgeoismodeofproductionisthelastantagonisticformofthesocialprocessofproduction——antagonisticnotinthesenseofindividualantagonismbutofanantagonismthatemanatesfromtheindividuals'
　　socialconditionsofexistence——buttheproductiveforcesdevelopingwithinbourgeoissocietycreatealsothematerialconditionsforasolutionofthisantagonism。Theprehistoryofhumansocietyaccordinglycloseswiththissocialformation。
　　FrederickEngels,withwhomImaintainedaconstantexchangeofideasbycorrespondencesincethepublicationofhisbrilliantessayonthecritiqueofeconomiccategories（printedintheDeutsch—FranzosischeJahrbucher,arrivedbyanotherroad（comparehisLagederarbeitendenKlasseinEngland）atthesameresultasI,andwheninthespringof1845hetoocametoliveinBrussels,wedecidedtosetforthtogetherourconceptionasopposedtotheideologicaloneofGermanphilosophy,infacttosettleaccountswithourformerphilosophicalconscience。Theintentionwascarriedoutintheformofacritiqueofpost—Hegelianphilosophy。Themanuscript[TheGermanIdeology],twolargeoctavovolumes,hadlongagoreachedthepublishersinWestphaliawhenwewereinformedthatowingtochangedcircumstancesitcouldnotbeprinted。Weabandonedthemanuscripttothegnawingcriticismofthemiceallthemorewillinglysincewehadachievedourmainpurpose——self—clarification。Ofthescatteredworksinwhichatthattimewepresentedoneoranotheraspectofourviewstothepublic,IshallmentiononlytheManifestooftheCommunistParty,jointlywrittenbyEngelsandmyself,andaDiscourssurlelibreechange,whichImyselfpublished。Thesalientpointsofourconceptionwerefirstoutlinedinanacademic,althoughpolemical,forminmyMiseredelaphilosophie……,thisbookwhichwasaimedatProudhonappearedin1847。ThepublicationofanessayonWage—Labour[Wage—LaborandCapital]writteninGermaninwhichIcombinedthelecturesIhadheldonthissubjectattheGermanWorkers'AssociationinBrussels,wasinterruptedbytheFebruaryRevolutionandmyforcibleremovalfromBelgiuminconsequence。
　　ThepublicationoftheNeueRheinischeZeitungin1848and1849
　　andsubsequenteventscutshortmyeconomicstudies,whichIcouldonlyresumeinLondonin1850。TheenormousamountofmaterialrelatingtothehistoryofpoliticaleconomyassembledintheBritishMuseum,thefactthatLondonisaconvenientvantagepointfortheobservationofbourgeoissociety,andfinallythenewstageofdevelopmentwhichthissocietyseemedtohaveenteredwiththediscoveryofgoldinCaliforniaandAustralia,inducedmetostartagainfromtheverybeginningandtoworkcarefullythroughthenewmaterial。ThesestudiesledpartlyoftheirownaccordtoapparentlyquiteremotesubjectsonwhichIhadtospendacertainamountoftime。Butitwasinparticulartheimperativenecessityofearningmylivingwhichreducedthetimeatmydisposal。Mycollaboration,continuednowforeightyears,withtheNewYorkTribune,theleadingAnglo—Americannewspaper,necessitatedanexcessivefragmentationofmystudies,forI
　　wroteonlyexceptionallynewspapercorrespondenceinthestrictsense。
　　SinceaconsiderablepartofmycontributionsconsistedofarticlesdealingwithimportanteconomiceventsinBritainandonthecontinent,Iwascompelledtobecomeconversantwithpracticaldetailwhich,strictlyspeaking,lieoutsidethesphereofpoliticaleconomy。
　　Thissketchofthecourseofmystudiesinthedomainofpoliticaleconomyisintendedmerelytoshowthatmyviews——nomatterhowtheymaybejudgedandhowlittletheyconformtotheinterestedprejudicesoftherulingclasses——aretheoutcomeofconscientiousresearchcarriedonovermanyyears。Attheentrancetoscience,asattheentrancetohell,thedemandmustbemade:QuisiconvienlasciareognisospettoOgniviltaconvienchequisiamorta。[FromDante,DivinaCommedia:Heremustalldistrustbeleft;Allcowardicemustherebedead。]
　　KarlMarxLondon,January1859
　　TheCommodityKarlMarx'sACONTRIBUTIONTOTHECRITIQUEOFPOLITICALECONOMYPartI
　　THECOMMODITY
　　Thewealthofbourgeoissociety,atfirstsight,presentsitselfasanimmenseaccumulationofcommodities,itsunitbeingasinglecommodity。
　　Everycommodity,however,hasatwofoldaspect——use—valueandexchange—value。[1]
　　Tobeginwith,acommodity,inthelanguageoftheEnglisheconomists,is"anythingnecessary,usefulorpleasantinlife",anobjectofhumanwants,ameansofexistenceinthewidestsenseoftheterm。Use—valueasanaspectofthecommoditycoincideswiththephysicalpalpableexistenceofthecommodity。Wheat,forexample,isadistinctuse—valuedifferingfromtheuse—valuesofcotton,glass,paper,etc。Ause—valuehasvalueonlyinuse,andisrealizedonlyintheprocessofconsumption。Oneandthesameuse—valuecanbeusedinvariousways。Buttheextentofitspossibleapplicationislimitedbyitsexistenceasanobjectwithdistinctproperties。
　　Itis,moreover,determinednotonlyqualitativelybutalsoquantitatively。
　　Differentuse—valueshavedifferentmeasuresappropriatetotheirphysicalcharacteristics;forexample,abushelofwhat,aquireofpaper,ayardoflinen。
　　Whateveritssocialformmaybe,wealthalwaysconsistsofuse—values,whichinthefirstinstancearenotaffectedbythisform。Fromthetasteofwheatitisnotpossibletotellwhoproducedit,aRussianserf,aFrenchpeasantoranEnglishcapitalist。Althoughuse—valuesservesocialneedsandthereforeexistwithinthesocialframework,theydonotexpressthesocialrelationsofproduction。Forinstance,letustakeasause—valueacommoditysuchasadiamond。Wecannottellbylookingatitthatthediamondisacommodity。Whereitservesasanaestheticormechanicaluse—value,ontheneckofacourtesanorinthehandofaglass—cutter,itisadiamondandnotacommodity。Tobeause—valueisevidentlyanecessaryprerequisiteofthecommodity,butitisimmaterialtotheuse—valuewhetheritisacommodity。Use—valueassuch,sinceitisindependentofthedeterminateeconomicform,liesoutsidethesphereofinvestigationofpoliticaleconomy。[2]Itbelongsinthissphereonlywhenitisitselfadeterminateform。Use—valueistheimmediatephysicalentityinwhichadefiniteeconomicrelationship——exchange—value——isexpressed。
　　Exchange—valueseemsatfirsttobeaquantitatverelation,theproportioninwhichuse—valuesareexchangedforoneanother。Inthisrelationtheyconstituteequalexchangeablemagnitudes。ThusonevolumeofPropertiusandeightouncesofsnuffmayhavethesameexchange—value,despitethedissimilaruse—valuesofsnuffandelegies。Consideredasexchange—value,oneuse—valueisworthjustasmuchasanother,providedthetwoareavailableintheappropriateproportion。Theexchange—valueofapalacecanbeexpressedinadefinitenumberoftinsofbootpolish。Londonmanufacturersofbootpolish,ontheotherhand,haveexpressedtheexchange—valueoftheirnumeroustinsofpolishintermsofpalaces。Quiteirrespective,therefore,oftheirnaturalformofexistence,andwithoutregardtothespecificcharacteroftheneedstheysatisfyasuse—values,commoditiesindefinitequantitiesarecongruent,theytakeoneanother'splaceintheexchangeprocess,areregardedasequivalents,anddespitetheirmotleyappearancehaveacommondenominator。
　　Use—valuesservedirectlyasmeansofexistence。But,ontheotherhand,thesemeansofexistencearethemselvestheproductsofsocialactivity,theresultofexpendedhumanenergy,materializedlabour。Asobjectificationofsociallabour,allcommoditiesarecrystallisationsofthesamesubstance。Thespecificcharacterofthissubstance,i。e。,oflabourwhichisembodiedinexchange—value,hasnowtobeexamined。
　　Letussupposethatoneounceofgold,onetonofiron,onequarterofwheatandtwentyyardsofsilkareexchange—valuesofequalmagnitude。
　　Asexchange—valuesinwhichthequalitativedifferencebetweentheiruse—valuesiseliminated,theyrepresentequalamountsofthesamekindoflabour。
　　Thelabourwhichisuniformlymaterialisedinthemmustbeuniform,homogeneous,simplelabour;itmattersaslittlewhetherthisisembodiedingold,iron,wheatorsilk,asitmatterstooxygenwhetheritisfoundinrustyiron,intheatmosphere,inthejuiceofgrapesorinhumanblood。Butdigginggold,miningiron,cultivatingwheatandweavingsilkarequalitativelydifferentkindsoflabour。Infact,whatappearsobJectivelyasdiversityoftheuse—values,appears,whenlookedatdynamically,asdiversityoftheactivitieswhichproducethoseuse—values。Sincetheparticularmaterialofwhichtheuse—valuesconsistisirrelevanttothelabourthatcreatesexchange—value,theparticularformofthislabourisequallyirrelevant。
　　Differentuse—valuesare,moreover,productsoftheactivityofdifferentindividualsandthereforetheresultofindividuallydifferentkindsoflabour。Butasexchange—valuestheyrepresentthesamehomogeneouslabour,i。e。,labourinwhichtheindividualcharacteristicsoftheworkersareobliterated。Labourwhichcreatesexchange—valueisthusabstractgenerallabour。
　　Ifoneounceofgold,onetonofiron,onequarterofwheatandtwentyyardsofsilkareexchange—valuesofequalmagnitudeorequivalents,thenoneounceofgold,halfatonofiron,threebushelsofwheatandfiveyardsofsilkareexchange—valueswhichhaveverydifferentmagnitudes,andthisquantitativedifferenceistheonlydifferenceofwhichasexchange—valuestheyareatallcapable。Asexchange—valuesofdifferentmagnitudestheyrepresentlargerorsmallerportions,largerorsmalleramountsofsimple,homogeneous,abstractgenerallabour,whichisthesubstanceofexchange—value。
　　Thequestionnowarises,howcantheseamountsbemeasured？Orratherthequestionarises,whatisthequantitativeformofexistenceofthislabour,sincethequantitativedifferencesofthecommoditiesasexchange—valuesaremerelythequantitativedifferencesofthelabourembodiedinthem。Justasmotionismeasuredbytime,soislabourbylabour—time。Variationsinthedurationoflabouraretheonlypossibledifferencethatcanoccurifthequalityoflabourisassumedtobegiven。Labour—timeismeasuredintermsofthenaturalunitsoftime,i。e。,hours,days,weeks,etc。Labour—timeisthelivingstateofexistenceoflabour,irrespectiveofitsform,itscontentanditsindividualfeatures;itisthequantitativeaspectoflabouraswellasitsinherentmeasure。Thelabour—timematerialisedintheuse—valuesofcommoditiesisboththesubstancethatturnsthemintoexchange—valuesandthereforeintocommodities,andthestandardbywhichtheprecisemagnitudeoftheirvalueismeasured。
　　Thecorrespondingquantitiesofdifferentuse—valuescontainingthesameamountoflabour—timeareequivalents;thatis,alluse—valuesareequivalentswhentakeninproportionswhichcontainthesameamountofexpended,materialisedlabour—time。Regardedasexchange—valuesallcommoditiesaremerelydefinitequantitiesofcongealedlabour—time。
　　Thefollowingbasicpropositionsareessentialforanunderstandingofthedeterminationofexchange—valuebylabour—time。Labourisreducedtosimplelabour,labour,sotospeak,withoutanyqualitativeattributes;
　　labourwhichcreatesexchange—value,andthereforecommodities,isspecificallysociallabour;finally,labourinsofarasitsresultsareuse—valuesisdistinctfromlabourinsofarasitsresultsareexchange—values。
　　Tomeasuretheexchange—valueofcommoditiesbythelabour—timetheycontain,thedifferentkindsoflabourhavetobereducedtouniform,homogeneous,simplelabour,inshorttolabourofuniformquality,whoseonlydifference,therefore,isquantity。
　　Thisreductionappearstobeanabstraction,butitisanabstractionwhichismadeeverydayinthesocialprocessofproduction。Theconversionofallcommoditiesintolabour—timeisnogreateranabstraction,andisnolessreal,thantheresolutionofallorganicbodiesintoair。Labour,thusmeasuredbytime,doesnotseem,indeed,tobethelabourofdifferentpersons,butonthecontrarythedifferentworkingindividualsseemtobemereorgansofthislabour。Inotherwordsthelabourembodiedinexchange—valuescouldbecalledhumanlabouringeneral。Thisabstraction,humanlabouringeneral,existsintheformofaveragelabourwhich,inagivensociety,theaveragepersoncanperform,productiveexpenditureofacertainamountofhumanmuscles,nerves,brain,etc。Itissimplelabour[Englisheconomistscallit"unskilledlabour"]
　　whichanyaverageindividualcanbetrainedtodoandwhichinonewayoranotherhehastoperform。Thecharacteristicsofthisaveragelabouraredifferentindifferentcountriesanddifferenthistoricalepochs,butinanyparticularsocietyitappearsassomethinggiven。Thegreaterpartofthelabourperformedinbourgeoissocietyissimplelabourasstatisticaldatashow。WhetherAworks6hoursproducingironand6hoursproducinglinen,andBlikewiseworks6hoursproducingironand6hoursproducinglinen,orAworks12hoursproducingironandB12hoursproducinglinenisquiteevidentlymerelyadifferentapplicationofthesamelabour—time。
　　Butwhatisthepositionwithregardtomorecomplicatedlabourwhich,beinglabourofgreaterintensityandgreaterspecificgravity,risesabovethegenerallevel？Thiskindoflabourresolvesitselfintosimplelabour;
　　itissimplelabourraisedtoahigherpower,sothatforexampleonedayofskilledlabourmayequalthreedaysofsimplelabour。Thelawsgoverningthisreductiondonotconcernushere。Itis,however,clearthatthereductionismade,for,asexchange—value,theproductofhighlyskilledlabourisequivalent,indefiniteproportions,totheproductofsimpleaveragelabour;
　　thusbeingequatedtoacertainamountofthissimplelabour。
　　Thedeterminationofexchange—valuebylabour—time,moreover,presupposesthatthesameamountoflabourismaterialisedinaparticularcommodity,sayatonofiron,irrespectiveofwhetheritistheworkofAorofB,thatistosay,differentindividualsexpendequalamountsoflabour—timetoproduceuse—valueswhicharequalitativelyandquantitativelyequal。
　　Inotherwords,itisassumedthatthelabour—timecontainedinacommodityisthelabour—timenecessaryforitsproduction,namelythelabour—timerequired,underthegenerallyprevailingconditionsofproduction,toproduceanotherunitofthesamecommodity。
　　Fromtheanalysisofexchange—valueitfollowsthattheconditionsoflabourwhichcreatesexchange—valuearesocialcategoriesoflabourorcategoriesofsociallabour,socialhowevernotinthegeneralsensebutintheparticularsense,denotingaspecifictypeofsociety。Uniformsimplelabourimpliesfirstofallthatthelabourofdifferentindividualsisequalandthattheirlabouristreatedasequalbybeinginfactreducedtohomogeneouslabour。Thelabourofeveryindividualinsofarasitmanifestsitselfinexchange—valuespossessesthissocialcharacterofequality,anditmanifestsitselfinexchange—valueonlyinsofarasitisequatedwiththelabourofallotherindividuals。
　　Furthermore,inexchange—valuethelabour—timeofaparticularindividualisdirectlyrepresentedaslabour—timeingeneral,andthisgeneralcharacterofindividuallabourappearsasthesocialcharacterofthislabour。Thelabour—timeexpressedinexchange—valueisthelabour—timeofanindividual,butofanindividualinnowaydifferingfromthenextindividualandfromallotherindividualsinsofarastheyperformequallabour;thelabour—time,therefore,whichonepersonrequiresfortheproductionofagivencommodityisthenecessarylabour—timewhichanyotherpersonwouldrequiretoproducethesamecommodity。Itisthelabour—timeofanindividual,hislabour—time,butonlyaslabour—timecommontoall;consequentlyitisquiteimmaterialwhoseindividuallabour—timethisis。Thisuniversallabour—timefindsitsexpressioninauniversalproduct,auniversalequivalent,adefiniteamountofmaterialisedlabour—time,forwhichthedistinctformoftheuse—valueinwhichitismanifestedasthedirectproductofonepersonisamatterofcompleteindifference,anditcanbeconvertedatwillintoanyotherformofuse—value,inwhichitappearsastheproductofanyotherperson。Onlyassuchauniversalmagnitudedoesitrepresentasocialmagnitude。Thelabourofanindividualcanproduceexchange—valueonlyifitproducesuniversalequivalents,thatistosay,iftheindividual'slabour—timerepresentsuniversallabour—timeorifuniversallabour—timerepresentsindividuallabour—time。Theeffectisthesameasifthedifferentindividualshadamalgamatedtheirlabour—timeandallocateddifferentportionsofthelabour—timeattheirjointdisposaltothevarioususe—values。Thelabour—timeoftheindividualisthus,infact,thelabour—timerequiredbysocietytoproduceaparticularuse—value,thatistosatisfyaparticularwant。
　　Butwhatmattershereisonlythespecificmannerinwhichthesocialcharacteroflabourisestablished。Acertainamountofaspinner'slabour—timeismaterialised,say,in100lb。oflinenyarn。Thesameamountoflabour—timeisassumedtoberepresentedin100yardsoflinen,theproductofaweaver。Sincethesetwoproductsrepresentequalamountsofuniversallabour—time,andarethereforeequivalentsofanyuse—valuewhichcontainsthesameamountoflabour—time,theyareequaltoeachother。
　　Onlybecausethelabour—timeofthespinnerandthelabour—timeoftheweaverrepresentuniversallabour—time,andtheirproductsarethusuniversalequivalents,isthesocialaspectofthelabourofthetwoindividualsrepresentedforeachofthembythelabouroftheother,thatistosay,thelabouroftheweaverrepresentsitforthespinner,andthelabourofthespinnerrepresentsitfortheweaver。Ontheotherhand,undertheruralpatriarchalsystemofproduction,whenspinnerandweaverlivedunderthesameroof——thewomenofthefamilyspinningandthemenweaving,sayfortherequirementsofthefamily——yarnandlinenweresocialproducts,andspinningandweavingsociallabourwithintheframeworkofthefamily。Buttheirsocialcharacterdidnotappearintheformofyarnbecomingauniversalequivalentexchangedforlinenasauniversalequivalent,i。e。,ofthetwoproductsexchangingforeachotherasequalandequallyvalidexpressionsofthesameuniversallabour—time。Onthecontrary,theproductoflabourborethespecificsocialimprintofthefamilyrelationshipwithitsnaturallyevolveddivisionoflabour。OrletustaketheservicesandduesinkindoftheMiddleAges。Itwasthedistinctlabouroftheindividualinitsoriginalform,theparticularfeaturesofhislabourandnotitsuniversalaspectthatformedthesocialtiesatthattime。Orfinallyletustakecommunallabourinitsspontaneouslyevolvedformaswefinditamongallcivilisednationsatthedawnoftheirhistory。[3]Inthiscasethesocialcharacteroflabourisevidentlynoteffectedbythelabouroftheindividualassumingtheabstractformofuniversallabourorhisproductassumingtheformofauniversalequivalent。
　　Thecommunalsystemonwhichthismodeofproductionisbasedpreventsthelabourofanindividualfrombecomingprivatelabourandhisproducttheprivateproductofaseparateindividual;itcausesindividuallabourtoappearratherasthedirectfunctionofamemberofthesocialorganisation。
　　Labourwhichmanifestsitselfinexchange—valueappearstobethelabourofanisolatedindividual。Itbecomessociallabourbyassumingtheformofitsdirectopposite,ofabstractuniversallabour。
　　Lastly,itisacharacteristicfeatureoflabourwhichpositsexchange—valuethatitcausesthesocialrelationsofindividualstoappearinthepervertedformofasocialrelationbetweenthings。Thelabourofdifferentpersonsisequatedandtreatedasuniversallabouronlybybringingoneuse—valueintorelationwithanotheroneintheguiseofexchange—value。Althoughitisthuscorrecttosaythatexchange—valueisarelationbetweenpersons,[4]itishowevernecessarytoaddthatitisarelationhiddenbyamaterialveil。Justasapoundofironandapoundofgoldhavethesameweightdespitetheirdifferentphysicalandchemicalproperties,sotwocommoditieswhichhavedifferentuse—valuesbutcontainthesameamountoflabour—timehavethesameexchange—value。Exchange—valuethusappearstobeasocialdeterminationofuse—values,adeterminationwhichispropertothemasthingsandinconsequenceofwhichtheyareableindefiniteproportionstotakeoneanother'splaceintheexchangeprocess,i。e。,theyareequivalents,justassimplechemicalelementscombinedincertainproportionsformchemicalequivalents。Onlytheconventionsofoureverydaylifemakeitappearcommonplaceandordinarythatsocialrelationsofproductionshouldassumetheshapeofthings,sothattherelationsintowhichpeopleenterinthecourseoftheirworkappearastherelationofthingstooneanotherandofthingstopeople。Thismystificationisstillaverysimpleoneinthecaseofacommodity。Everybodyunderstandsmoreorlessclearlythattherelationsofcommoditiesasexchange—valuesarereallytherelationsofpeopletotheproductiveactivitiesofoneanother。Thesemblanceofsimplicitydisappearsinmoreadvancedrelationsofproduction。AlltheillusionsoftheMonetarySystemarisefromthefailuretoperceivethatmoney,thoughaphysicalobjectwithdistinctproperties,representsasocialrelationofproduction。Assoonasthemoderneconomists,whosneeratssoftheMonetarySystem,dealwiththemorecomplexeconomiccategories,suchascapital,theydisplaythesameillusions。Thisemergesclearlyintheirconfessionofnaiveastonishmentwhenthephenomenonthattheyhavejustponderouslydescribedasathingreappearsasasocialrelationand,amomentlater,havingbeendefinedasasocialrelation,teasesthemoncemoreasathing。