Thusthecontradictioninherentinthecommodityassuch,namelythatofbeingaparticularuse—valueandsimultaneouslyuniversalequivalent,andhenceause—valueforeverybodyorauniversaluse—value,hasbeensolvedinthecaseofthisonecommodity。Whereasnowtheexchange—valueofallothercommoditiesisinthefirstplacepresentedintheformofanidealequationwiththecommoditythathasbeensetapart,anequationwhichhasstilltoberealised;theuse—valueofthiscommodity,thoughreal,seemsintheexchangeprocesstohavemerelyaformalexistencewhichhasstilltoberealisedbyconversionintoactualuse—values。Thecommodityoriginallyappearedascommodityingeneral,asuniversallabour—timematerialisedinapartieularuse—value。Allcommoditiesarecomparedintheexchangeprocesswiththeoneexcludedcommoditywhichisregardedascommodityingeneral,thecommodity,theembodimentofuniversallabour—timeinaparticularuse—value。Theyarethereforeasparticularcommoditiesopposedtooneparticularcommodityconsideredasbeingtheuniversalcommodity。[ThesametermisusedbyGenovesi。（Noteinauthor'scopy。）]Thefactthatcommodity—ownerstreatoneanother'slabourasuniversalsociallabourappearsintheformoftheirtreatingtheirowncommoditiesasexchange—values;andtheinterrelationofcommoditiesasexchange—valuesintheexchangeprocessappearsastheiruniversalrelationtoaparticularcommodityastheadequateexpressionoftheirexchange—value;thisinturnappearsasthespecificrelationofthisparticularcommoditytoallothercommoditiesandhenceasthedistinctive,asitwerenaturallyevolved,socialcharacterofathing。Theparticularcommoditywhichthusrepresentstheexchange—valueofallcommodities,thatistosay,theexchange—valueofcommoditiesregardedasaparticular,exclusivecommodity,constitutesmoney。Itisacrystallizationoftheexchange—valueofcommoditiesandisformedintheexchangeprocess。Thus,whileintheexchangeprocesscommoditiesbecomeuse—valuesforoneanotherbydiscardingalldeterminateformsandconfrontingoneanotherintheirimmediatephysicalaspect,theymustassumeanewdeterminateformthey——mustevolvemoney,soastobeabletoconfrontoneanotherasexchange—values。
　　Moneyisnotasymbol,justastheexistenceofause—valueintheformofacommodityisnosymbol。Asocialrelationofproductionappearsassomethingexistingapartfromindividualhumanbeings,andthedistinctiverelationsintowhichtheyenterinthecourseofproductioninsocietyappearasthespecificpropertiesofathing——itisthispervertedappearance,thisprosaicallyreal,andbynomeansimaginary,mystificationthatischaracteristicofallsocialformsoflabourpositingexchange—value。Thispervertedappearancemanifestsitselfmerelyinamorestrikingmannerinmoneythanitdoesincommodities。
　　Thenecessaryphysicalpropertiesoftheparticularcommodity,inwhichthemoneyformofallothercommoditiesistobecrystallised——insofarastheydirect]yfollowfromthenatureofexchange—value——are:unlimiteddivisibility,homogeneityofitspartsanduniformqualityofallunitsofthecommodity。Asthematerialisationofuniversallabour—timeitmustbehomogeneousandcapableofexpressingonlyquantitativedifferences。
　　Anothernecessarypropertyisdurabilityofitsuse—valuesinceitmustendurethroughtheexchangeprocess。Preciousmetalspossessthesequalitiesinanexceptionallyhighdegree。Sincemoneyisnottheresultofdeliberationorofagreement,buthascomeintobeingspontaneouslyinthecourseofexchange,manydifferent,moreorlessunsuitable,commoditieswereatvarioustimesusedasmoney。Whenexchangereachesacertainstageofdevelopment,theneedarisestopolarisethefunctionsofexchange—valueanduse—valueamongvariouscommodities——sothatonecommodity,forexample,shallactasmeansofexchangewhileanotherisdisposedofasause—value。Theoutcomeisthatonecommodityorsometimesseveralcommoditiesrepresentingthemostcommonuse—valuecomeoccasionallytoserveasmoney。Evenwhennoimmediateneedfortheseuse—valuesexists,thedemandforthemisboundtobemoregeneralthanthatforotheruse—values,sincetheyconstitutethemostsubstantialphysicalelementinwealth。
　　Directbarter,thespontaneousformofexchange,signifiesthebeginningofthetransformationofuse—valuesintocommoditiesratherthanthetransformationofcommoditiesintomoney。Exchange—valuedoesnotacquireanindependentform,butisstilldirectlytiedtouse—value。Thisismanifestedintwoways。Use—value,notexchange—value,isthepurposeofthewholesystemofproduction,anduse—valuesaccordinglyceasetobeuse—valuesandbecomemeansofexchange,orcommodities,onlywhenalargeramountofthemhasbeenproducedthanisrequiredforconsumption。Ontheotherhand,theybecomecommoditiesonlywithinthelimitssetbytheirimmediateuse—value,evenwhenthisfunctionispolarisedsothatthecommoditiestobeexchangedbytheirownersmustbeuse—valuesforbothofthem,buteachcommoditymustbeause—valueforitsnon—owner。Infact,theexchangeofcommoditiesevolvesoriginallynotwithinprimitivecommunities,[11]butontheirmargins,ontheirborders,thefewpointswheretheycomeintocontactwithothercommunities。Thisiswherebarterbeginsandmovesthenceintotheinteriorofthecommunity,exertingadisintegratinginfluenceuponit。Theparticularuse—valueswhich,asaresultofbarterbetweendifferentcommunities,becomecommodities,e。g。,slaves,cattle,metals,usuallyservealsoasthefirstmoneywithinthesecommunities。Wehaveseenthatthedegreetowhichtheexchange—valueofacommodityfunctionsasexchange—valueisthehigher,thelongertheseriesofitsequivalentsorthelargerthesphereinwhichthecommodityisexchanged。Thegradualextensionofbarter,thegrowingnumberofexchangetransactions,andtheincreasingvarietyofcommoditiesbarteredlead,therefore,tothefurtherdevelopmentofthecommodityasexchange—value,stimulatestheformationofmoneyandconsequentlyhasadisintegratingeffectondirectbarter。Economistsusuallyreasonthattheemergenceofmoneyisduetoexternaldifficultieswhichtheexpansionofbarterencounters,buttheyforgetthatthesedifficultiesarisefromtheevolutionofexchange—valueandhencefromthatofsociallabourasuniversallabour。
　　Forexamplecommoditiesasuse—valuesarenotdivisibleatwill,apropertywhichasexchange—valuestheyshouldpossess。OritmayhappenthatthecommoditybelongingtoAmaybeuse—valuerequiredbyB;whereasB'scommoditymaynothaveanyuse—valueforA。Orthecommodity—ownersmayneedeachother'scommoditiesbutthesecannotbedividedandtheirrelativeexchange—valuesaredifferent。Inotherwords,onthepleaofexaminingsimplebarter,theseeconomistsdisplaycertainaspectsofthecontradictioninherentinthecommodityasbeingthedirectunityofuse—valueandexchange—value。
　　Ontheotherhand,theythenpersistentlyregardbarterasaformwelladaptedtocommodityexchange,sufferingmerelyfromcertaintechnicalinconveniences,toovercomewhichmoneyhasbeencunninglydevised。Proceedingfromthisquitesuperficialpointofview,aningeniousBritisheconomisthasrightlymaintainedthatmoneyismerelyamaterialinstrument,likeashiporasteamengine,andnotanexpressionofasocialrelationofproduction,andhenceisnotaneconomiccategory。Itisthereforesimplyamalpracticetodealwiththissubjectinpoliticaleconomy,whichinfacthasnothingincommonwithtechnology。[12]
　　Theworldofcommoditiespresupposesadevelopeddivisionoflabour,orratherthedivisionoflabourmanifestsitselfdirectlyinthediversityofuse—valueswhichconfrontoneanotherasparticularcommoditiesandwhichembodyjustasmanydiversekindsoflabour。Thedivisionoflabourastheaggregateofallthedifferenttypesofproductiveactivityconstitutesthetotalityofthephysicalaspectsofsociallabouraslabourproducinguse—values。Butitexistsassuch——asregardscommoditiesandtheexchangeprocess——onlyinitsresults,inthevarietyofthecommoditiesthem—
　　selves。
　　Theexchangeofcommoditiesistheprocessinwhichthesocialmetabolism,inotherwordstheexchangeofparticularproductsofprivateindividuals,simultaneouslygivesrisetodefinitesocialrelationsofproduction,intowhichindividualsenterinthecourseofthismetabolism。
　　Astheydevelop,theinterrelationsofcommoditiescrystalliseintodistinctaspectsoftheuniversalequivalent,andthustheexchangeprocessbecomesatthesametimetheprocessofformationofmoney。Thisprocessasawhole,whichcomprisesseveralprocesses,constitutescirculation。
　　FOOTNOTES1。Aristotle,DeRepublica,L。I,C。"Ofeverthingwhichwepossesstherearetwouses:……oneistheproper,andtheothertheimproperorsecondaryuseofit。Forexample,ashoeisusedforwear,andisusedforexchange;bothareusesoftheshoe。Hewhogivesashoeinexchangeformoneyorfoodtohimwhowantsone,doesindeedusetheshoeasashoe,butthisisnotitsproperorprimarypurpose,forashoeisnotmadetobeanobjectofbarter。Thesamemaybesaidofallpossessions……"
　　2。ThatiswhyGermancompilerswriteconamoreaboutuse—values,callingthem"goods"。Seeforexamplethesectionon"goods"inI。Stein,SystemderStaatswissenschaft,Bd。1。Usefulinformationon"goods"
　　maybefoundin"manualsdealingwithmerchandise"。
　　3。Atpresentanabsurdlybiasedviewiswidelyheld,namelythatprimitivecommunalpropertyisaspecificallySlavonic,orevenanexclusivelyRussian,phenomenon。ItisanearlyformwhicheanbefoundamongRomans,TeutonsandCelts,andofwhichawholecollectionofdiversepatterns（thoughsometimesonlyremnantssurvive）isstillinexistenceinIndia。
　　AcarefulstudyofAsiatic,particularlyIndian,formsofcommunalpropertywouldindicatethatthedisintegrationofdifferentformsofprimitivecommunalownershipgivesrisetodiverseformsofproperty。Forinstance,variousprototypesofRomanandGermanicprivatepropertycanbetracedbacktocertainformsofIndiancommunalproperty。
　　4。"Laricchezzaeunaragionetraduepersone。"Galiani,DellaMoneta,p。221。InVolumeIIIofCustodi'scollectionofScrittoriclassiciItalianidiEconomiaPolitica。ParteModerna,Milano,1803。
　　5。"Initsnaturalstate,matter……isalwaysdestituteofvalue。"McCulloch,ADiscourseontheRise,Progress,PeculiarObjects,andImportanceofPoliticalEconomy,SecondEdition,Edinburgh,1825,p。48。ThisshowshowhighevenaMcCullochstandsabovethefetishismofGerman"thinkers"
　　whoassertthat"material"andhalfadozensimilarirrelevanciesareelementsofvalue。See,interalia,L。Stein,op。cit。,Bd。1,p。
　　170。
　　6。Berkeley,TheQuerist,London,1750
　　7。ThomasCooper,LecturesontheElementsofPoliticalEonomy,London,1831（Columbia,1826）,p。99。
　　8。FriedrichListhasneverbeenabletograspthedifferencebetweenlabourataproducerofsomethinguseful,ause—value,andlabourasaproducerofexchange—value,aspecificsocialformofwealth（sincehismindbeingoccupiedwithpracticalmatterswasnotconcernedwithunderstanding）;
　　hethereforeregardedthemodernEnglisheconomistsasmereplagiaristsofMosesofEgypt。
　　9。Itcaneasilybeseenwhat"service"thecategory"service"mustrendertoeconomistssuchasJ。B。SayandF。Bastiat,whosesagacity,asMalthushasaptlyremarked,alwaysabstractsfromthespecificformofeconomicconditions。
　　10。"Itisanotherpeculiarityofmeasurestoenterintosucharelationwiththethingmeasured,thatinacertainwaythethingmeasuredbecomesthemeasureofthemeasuringunit。"Montanari,DellaMoneta,p。
　　41inCustodi'scollection,Vol。III,ParteAntica。
　　11。Aristotlemakesasimilarobservationwithregardtotheindividualfamilyconsideredastheprimitivecommunity。Buttheprimitiveformofthefamilyisthetribalfamily,fromthehistoricaldissolutionofwhichtheindividualfamilydevelops。"Inthefirstcommunity,indeedwhichisthefamily,thisart"（thatis,trade）"isobviouslyofnouse"（Aristotle,loc。cit。）。
　　12。"Moneyis,infact,onlytheinstrumentforcarryingonbuyingandselling"（butcouldyoupleaseexplainwhatyoumeanbybuyingandselling？）
　　"andtheconsiderationofitnomoreformsapartofthescienceofpoliticaleconomythantheconsiderationofshipsorsteamengines,orofanyotherinstrumentsemployedtofacilitatetheproductionanddistributionofwealth"
　　（ThomasHodgskin,PopularPoliticalEconomy,London,1827,pp。178,179）。
　　HistoricalNotesontheAnalysisofCommoditiesKarlMarx'sACONTRIBUTIONTOTHECRITIQUEOFPOLITICALECONOMY
　　A。HistoricalNotesontheAnalysisofCommoditiesThedecisiveoutcomeoftheresearchcarriedonforoveracenturyandahalfbyclassicalpoliticaleconomy,beginningwithWilliamPettyinBritainandBoisguillebert[1]inFrance,andendingwithRicardoinBritainandSismondiinFrance,isananalysisoftheaspectsofthecommodityintotwoformsoflabour——
　　use—valueisreducedtoconcretelabourorpurposiveproductiveactivity,exchange—valuetolabour—timeorhomogeneoussociallabour。
　　Pettyreducesuse—valuetolabourwithoutdeceivinghimselfaboutthedependenceofitscreativepoweronnaturalfactors。Heimmediatelyperceivesconcretelabourinitsentiresocialaspectasdivisionoflabour。[2]ThisconceptionofthesourceofmaterialwealthdoesnotremainmoreorlesssterileaswithhiscontemporaryHobbes,butleadstothepoliticalarithmetic,thefirstforminwhichpoliticaleconomyistreatedasaseparatescience。Butheacceptsexchange—valueasitappearsintheexchangeofcommodities,i。e。,asmoney,andmoneyitselfasanexistingcommodity,asgoldandsilver。CaughtupintheideasoftheMonetarySystem,heassertsthatthelabourwhichdeterminesexchange—valueistheparticularkindofconcretelabourbywhichgoldandsilverisextracted。Whathereallyhasinmindisthatinbourgeoiseconomylabourdoesnotdirectlyproduceuse—valuesbutcommodities,use—valueswhich,inconsequenceoftheiralienationinexchange,arecapableofassumingtheformofgoldandsilver,i。e。,ofmoney,i。e。,ofexchange—value,i。e。,ofmaterialiseduniversallabour。Hiscaseisastrikingproofthatrecognitionoflabourasthesourceofmaterialwealthbynomeansprecludesmisapprehensionofthespecificsocialforminwhichlabourconstitutesthesourceofexchange—value。
　　Boisguillebertforhispart,infact,althoughhemaynotbeawareofit,reducestheexchange—valueofcommoditiestolabour—time,bydeterminingthe"truevalue"（lajustevaleur）accordingtothecorrectproportioninwhichthelabour—timeoftheindividualproducersisdividedbetweenthedifferentbranchesofindustry,anddeclaringthatfreecompetitionisthesocialprocessbywhichthiscorrectproportionisestablished。Butsimultaneously,andincontrastwithPetty,Boisguillebertwagesafanaticalstruggleagainstmoney,whoseintervention,healleges,disturbsthenaturalequilibriumortheharmonyoftheexchangeofcommoditiesand,likeafantasticMoloch,demandsallphysicalwealthasasacrifice。
　　Thispolemicagainstmoneyis,ontheonehand,connectedwithdefinitehistoricalconditions,forBoisguillebertfightsagainsttheblindlydestructivegreedforgoldwhichpossessedthecourtofLouisXIV,histax—farmersandthearistocracy;[3]whereasPettyacclaimsthegreedforgoldasavigorousforcewhichspursanationtoindustrialprogressandtotheconquestoftheworldmarket;atthesametimehoweveritthrowsintoboldreliefmoreprofoundfundamentaldifferenceswhichrecurasaperpetualcontrastbetweentypicallyEnglishandtypicallyFrench[4]politicaleconomy。Boisguillebert,indeed,seesonlythematerialsubstanceofwealth,itsuse—value,enjoymentofit,[5]andregardsthebourgeoisformoflabour,theproductionofuse—valuesascommoditiesandtheexchangeofcommodities,astheappropriatesocialforminwhichindividuallabouraccomplishesthisobject。Where,asinmoney,heencountersthespecificfeaturesofbourgeoiswealth,hethereforespeaksoftheintrusionofusurpingalienfactors,andinveighsagainstoneoftheformsoflabourinbourgeoissociety,whilesimultaneouslypronouncingutopianeulogiesonitinanotherform。[6]Boisguillebert'sworkprovesthatitispossibletoregardlabour—timeasthemeasureofthevalueofcommodities,whileconfusingthelabourwhichismaterialisedintheexchange—valueofcommoditiesandmeasuredintimeunitswiththedirectphysicalactivityofindividuals。
　　ItisamanoftheNewWorld——wherebourgeoisrelationsofproductionimportedtogetherwiththeirrepresentativessproutedrapidlyinasoilinwhichthesuperabundanceofhumusmadeupforthelackofhistoricaltradition——whoforthefirsttimedeliberatelyandclearly（soclearlyastobealmosttrite）reducesexchange—valuetolabour—time。ThismanwasBenjaminFranklin,whoformulatedthebasiclawofmodernpoliticaleconomyinanearlywork,whichwaswrittenin1729andpublishedin1731。[7]Hedeclaresitnecessarytoseekanothermeasureofvaluethanthepreciousmetals,andthatthismeasureislabour。
　　"Bylabourmaythevalueofsilverbemeasuredaswellasotherthings。
　　As,supposeonemanisemployedtoraisecorn,whileanotherisdiggingandrefiningsilver;attheyear'send,oratanyotherperiodoftime,thecompleteproduceofcorn,andthatofsilver,arethenaturalpriceofeachother;andifonebetwentybushels,andtheothertwentyounces,thenanounceofthatsilverisworththelabourofraisingabushelofthatcorn。Nowifbythediscoveryofsomenearer,moreeasyorplentifulmines,amanmaygetfortyouncesofsilveraseasilyasformerlyhedidtwenty,andthesamelabourisstillrequiredtoraisetwentybushelsofcorn,thentwoouncesofsilverwillbeworthnomorethanthesamelabourofraisingonebushelofcorn,andthatbushelofcornwillbeascheapattwoounces,asitwasbeforeatone,caeterisparibus。Thustherichesofacountryaretobevaluedbythequantityoflabouritsinhabitantsareabletopurchase"（op。cit。,p。265）。
　　FromtheoutsetFranklinregardslabour—timefromarestrictedeconomicstandpointasthemeasureofvalue。Thetransformationofactualproductsintoexchange—valuesistakenforgranted,anditisthereforeonlyaquestionofdiscoveringameasureoftheirvalue。
　　ToquoteFranklinagain:"Tradeingeneralbeingnothingelsebuttheexchangeoflabourforlabour,thevalueofallthingsis,asIhavesaidbefore,mostjustlymeasuredbylabour"（op。cit。,p。267）。
　　Ifinthissentencethetermlabourisreplacedbyconcretelabour,itisatonceobviousthatlabourinoneformisbeingconfusedwithlabourinanotherform。Becausetrademay,forexample,consistintheexchangeofthelabourofashoemaker,miner,spinner,painterandsoon,isthereforethelabourofthepainterthebestmeasureofthevalueofshoes？Franklin,onthecontrary,considersthatthevalueofshoes,minerals,yarn,paintings,etc。,isdeterminedbyabstractlabourwhichhasnoparticularqualityandcanthusbemeasuredonlyintermsofquantity。[8]Butsincehedoesnotexplainthatthelabourcontainedinexchangevalueisabstractuniversalsociallabour,whichisbroughtaboutbytheuniversalalienationofindividuallabour,heisboundtomistakemoneyforthedirectembodimentofthisalienatedlabour。Hethereforefailstoseetheintrinsicconnectionbetweenmoneyandlabourwhichpositsexchange—value,butonthecontraryregardsmoneyasaconvenienttechnicaldevicewhichhasbeenintroducedintothesphereofexchangefromoutside。[9]Franklin'sanalysisofexchange—valuehadnodirectinfluenceonthegeneralcourseofthescience,becausehedealtonlywithspecialproblemsofpoliticaleconomyfordefinitepracticalpurposes。
　　Thedifferencebetweenconcreteusefullabourandlabourwhichcreatesexchange—valuearousedconsiderableinterestinEuropeduringtheeighteenthcenturyinthefollowingform:whatparticularkindofconcretelabouristhesourceofbourgeoiswealth？Itwasthusassumedthatnoteverykindoflabourwhichismaterialisedinuse—valuesoryieldsproductsmusttherebydirectlycreatewealth。ButforboththePhysiocratsandtheiropponentsthecrucialissuewasnotwhatkindoflabourcreatesvaluebutwhatkindoflabourcreatessurplusvalue。Theywerethusdiscussingacomplexformoftheproblembeforehavingsolveditselementaryform;
　　justasthehistoricalprogressofallsciencesleadsonlythroughamultitudeofcontradictorymovestotherealpointofdeparture。Science,unlikeotherarchitects,buildsnotonlycastlesintheair,butmayconstructseparatehabitablestoreysofthebuildingbeforelayingthefoundationstone。WeshallnowleavethePhysiocratsanddisregardawholeseriesofItalianeconomists,whosemoreorlesspertinentideascomeclosetoacorrectanalysisofthecommodity,[10]inordertoturnatoncetoSirJamesSteuart,[11]thefirstBritontoexpoundageneralsystemofbourgeoiseconomy。Theconceptofexchange—valueliketheotherabstractcategoriesofpoliticaleconomyareinhisworkstillinprocessofdifferentiationfromtheirmaterialcontentandthereforeappeartobeblurredandambiguous。
　　Inonepassagehedeterminesrealvaluebylabour—time（"whataworkmancanperforminaday"）,butbesideitheintroduceswagesandrawmaterialinaratherconfusingway。[12]Hisstrugglewiththematerialcontentisbroughtoutevenmorestrikinglyinanotherpassage。Hecallsthephysicalelementcontainedinacommodity,e。g。,thesilverinsilverfiligree,its"intrinsicworth",andthelabour—timecontainedinitits"usefulvalue"。
　　Thefirstisaccordingtohimsomething"realinitself",whereas"thevalueofthesecondmustbeestimatedaccordingtothelabourithascosttoproduceit……Thelabouremployedinthemodificationrepresentsaportionofaman'stime。"[13]
　　Hiscleardifferentiationbetweenspecificallysociallabourwhichmanifestsitselfinexchange—valueandconcretelabourwhichyieldsuse—valuesdistinguishesSteuartfromhispredecessorsandhissuccessors。
　　"Labour,"hesays,"whichthroughitsalienationcreatesauniversalequivalent,Icallindustry。"
　　Hedistinguisheslabourasindustrynotonlyfromconcretelabourbutalsofromothersocialformsoflabour。Heseesinitthebourgeoisformoflabourasdistinctfromitsantiqueandmediaevalforms。Heisparticularlyinterestedinthedifferencebetweenbourgeoisandfeudallabour,havingobservedthelatterinthestageofitsdeclinebothinScotlandandduringhisextensivejourneysonthecontinent。Steuartknewverywellthatinpre—bourgeoiserasalsoproductsassumedtheformofcommoditiesandcommoditiesthatofmoney;butheshowsingreatdetailthatthecommodityastheelementaryandprimaryunitofwealthandalienationasthepredominantformofappropriationarecharacteristiconlyofthebourgeoisperiodofproduction,andthataccordinglylabourwhichcreatesexchange—valueisaspecificallybourgeoisfeature。[14]
　　Variouskindsofconcretelabour,suchasagriculture,manufacture,shippingandcommerce,hadeachinturnbeenclaimedtoconstitutetherealsourceofwealth,beforeAdamSmithdeclaredthatthesolesourceofmaterialwealthorofuse—valuesislabouringeneral,thatistheentiresocialaspectoflabourasitappearsinthedivisionoflabour。Whereasinthiscontexthecompletelyoverlooksthenaturalfactor,heispursuedbyitwhenheexaminesthesphereofpurelysocialwealth,exchange—value。AlthoughAdamSmithdeterminesthevalueofcommoditiesbythelabour—timecontainedinthem,hethenneverthelesstransfersthisdeterminationofvalueinactualfacttopre—Smithiantimes。Inotherwords,whatheregardsastruewhenconsideringsimplecommoditiesbecomesconfusedassoonasheexaminesthehigherandmorecomplexformsofcapital,wage—labour,rent,etc。Heexpressesthisinthefollowingway:thevalueofcommoditieswasmeasuredbylabour—timeintheparadiselostofthebourgeoisie,wherepeopledidnotconfrontoneanotherascapitalists,wage—labourers,landowners,tenantfarmers,usurers,andsoon,butsimplyaspersonswhoproducedcommoditiesandexchangedthem。AdamSmithconstantlyconfusesthedeterminationofthevalueofcommoditiesbythelabour—timecontainedinthemwiththedeterminationoftheirvaluebythevalueoflabour;heisofteninconsistentinthedetailsofhisexpositionandhemistakestheobjectiveequalisationofunequalquantitiesoflabourforciblybroughtaboutbythesocialprocessforthesubjectiveequalityofthelaboursofindividuals。[15]Hetriestoaccomplishthetransitionfromconcretelabourtolabourwhichproducesexchange—value,i。e。,thebasicformofbourgeoislabour,bymeansofthedivisionoflabour。Butthoughitiscorrecttosaythatindividualexchangepresupposesdivisionoflabour,itiswrongtomaintainthatdivisionoflabourpresupposesindividualexchange。Forexample,divisionoflabourhadreachedanexceptionallyhighdegreeofdevelopmentamongthePeruvians,althoughnoindividualexchange,noexchangeofproductsintheformofcommodities,tookplace。
　　DavidRicardo,unlikeAdamSmith,neatlysetsforththedeterminationofthevalueofcommoditiesbylabour—time,anddemonstratesthatthislawgovernseventhosebourgeoisrelationsofproductionwhichapparentlycontradictitmostdecisively。Ricardo'sinvestigationsareconcernedexclusivelywiththemagnitudeofvalue,andregardingthisheisatleastawarethattheoperationofthelawdependsondefinitehistoricalpre—conditions。
　　Hesaysthatthedeterminationofvalue—bylabour—timeappliesto"suchcommoditiesonlyascanbeincreasedinquantitybytheexertionofhumanindustry,andontheproductionofwhichcompetitionoperateswithoutrestraint"。[16]
　　Thisinfactmeansthatthefulldevelopmentofthelawofvaluepresupposesasocietyinwhichlarge—scaleindustrialIproductionandfreecompetitionobtain,inotherwordsmodernbourgeoissociety。Fortherest,thebourgeoisformoflabourisregardedbyRicardoastheeternalnaturalformofsociallabour。Ricardo'sprimitivefishermanandprimitivehunterarefromtheoutsetownersofcommoditieswhoexchangetheirfishandgameinproportiontothelabour—timewhichismaterialisedintheseexchange—values。OnthisoccasionheslipsintotheanachronismofallowingtheprimitivefishermanandhuntertocalculatethevalueoftheirimplementsinaccordancewiththeannuitytablesusedontheLondonStockExchangein1817。Apartfrombourgeoissociety,theonlysocialsystemwithwhichRicardowasacquaintedseemstohavebeenthe"parallelogramsofMr。Owen"。Althoughencompassedbythisbourgeoishorizon,Ricardoanalysesbourgeoiseconomy,whosedeeperlayersdifferessentiallyfromitssurfaceappearance,withsuchtheoreticalacumenthatLordBroughamcouldsayofhim:
　　"Mr。Ricardoseemedasifhehaddroppedfromanotherplanet。"
　　ArguingdirectlywithRicardo,Sismondinotonlyemphasisesthespecificallysocialcharacteroflabourwhichcreatesexchange—value,[17]butstatesalsothatitisa"characteristicfeatureofoureconomicprogress"
　　toreducevaluetonecessarylabour—time,to"therelationbetweentheneedsofthewholesocietyandthequantity—
　　oflabourwhichissufficienttosatisfytheseneeds"。[18]
　　SismondiisnolongerpreoccupiedwithBoisguillebert'snotionthatlabourwhichcreatesexchange—valueisdistortedbymoney,butjustasBoisguillebertdenouncedmoneysodoesSismondidenouncelargeindustrialcapital。WhereasRicardo'spoliticaleconomyruthlesslydrawsitsfinalconclusionandtherewithends,Sismondisupplementsthisendingbyexpressingdoubtinpoliticaleconomyitself。