002 Chapter 1: Commodities-Section 1: The Two Factors of a Commodity
Chapter 1: Commodities商品
Section 1: The Two Factors of a Commodity:
Use-Value and Value
(The Substance of Value and the Magnitude of Value)
商品的2要素：使用价值和Value（Value的实质和大小）
【使用价值是商品的自然界的属性，Value是商品的社会的属性】
The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production
prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1]1 its
unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the
analysis of a commodity.
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its
properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such
wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes
no difference.[2]2 Neither are we here concerned to know how the object
satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly
as means of production.
Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of
view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may
therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is
the work of history.[3]3 So also is the establishment of socially-recognized
standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity
of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to
be measured, partly in convention.
每一个有用的东西（如铁、纸等）都可以从性质和数量2方面考察。
The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4]4 But this utility is not a
thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has
no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a
diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something
useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour
required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we
always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches,
yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the
material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of
commodities.[5]5 Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they
also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of
that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in
addition, the material depositories of exchange value.
一样东西的效用使它成为一个使用价值。通过使用或消费，使用价值就被实现了。使用价值是财富的物质内容。在资本主义社会，使用价值同时也是交换价值的载体。
Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as
the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of
another sort,[6]6 a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence
exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and
consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably
connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.[7]7
Let us consider the matter a little more closely.
A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y
silk, or z gold, &c. – in short, for other commodities in the most different
proportions. Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great
many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the exchange
value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as
exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other.
Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express
something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of
expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet
distinguishable from it.
给定一个商品（如一斗米），用它可以交换x斤碳、y尺布或z克金等，也就是说，可以按各自比例交换不同的商品。米有许多交换价值。一斗米可以换x斤碳，我们就说“x斤碳”是一斗米的交换价值。一斗米可以换y尺布，我们就说“y尺布”是一斗米的交换价值。一斗米可以换z克金，我们就说“z克金”是一斗米的交换价值。等等。既然x斤碳、y尺布或z克金都是一斗米的交换价值，它们就是相等的。因此：交换价值在诉说着/表现着/包含着某种相同的东西；但交换价值并不是那个东西。一个标识着10克的砝码，诉说着/表现着/包含着10克的质量，但这个砝码只是砝码，不是质量。
Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which
they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be
represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some
quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation
tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x
cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two
things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one
nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be
reducible to this third.
例如两个商品：米corn(Weizen)
和布iron(Eisen)。人们在市场上交换它们的行为可以表示为：
1斗米=x尺布
这个等式说明了什么？它说明了在1斗米和x尺布中，存在着某种性质相同数量也相同的东西。这个共同的东西，既不是米也不是布，而是其他的一个什么东西。
A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate
and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles.
But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different
from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by
the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable
of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they
represent a greater or less quantity.
用一个简单的几何学例子来类比一下，可以便于理解。为了计算和比较各种直线图形的面积，我们将它们划分为多个三角形。三角形的面积又通过“底乘高的一半”来表达。我们说“三角形的面积是底乘高的一半”，但注意，这只是个简便说法，三角形的面积是一个视觉可见的东西，“底乘高的一半”是一个数量，这两者并不是同一个东西，准确的说法是“三角形的面积可以用‘底乘高的一半’来表达”。三角形的面积这个属性，可以用“底乘高的一半”这个性质相同数量可比较的东西表达。同理，商品的交换价值这个属性，一定可以用某种性质相同数量可比较的东西表达。
This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other
natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so
far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But
the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total
abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another,
provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says,
“one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no
difference or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth
of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or
gold.”[8]8
商品内这个共同的东西，不可能是几何的、化学的或任何自然界的属性。自然界的属性只会影响商品的使用价值。
As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as
exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not
contain an atom of use value.
不同商品的使用价值，其性质是不同的；不同商品的交换价值，却只有数量的差别，因此一丁点使用价值的成分也没有。
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have
only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the
product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make
abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the
material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no
longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a
material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the
product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other
definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the
products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the
various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour;
there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and
the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.
木匠劳动1日的产品是2把木椅，瓦匠劳动1日的产品是1堵砖墙，裁缝劳动1日的产品是3件衣服。他们同意相互交换各自的产品，是因为他们为取得各自的产品付出了数量相等的劳动。他们各自的劳动创造出性质不同的使用价值，这是具体的人类劳动；同时，他们各自的劳动都是人类劳动，都是人的肌肉、神经的耗费，这是抽象的人类劳动。
Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the
same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human
labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure.
All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended
in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as
crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.
劳动力耗费在了产品中；产品无声地诉说着人类劳动。凝结在各种产品中的抽象的社会劳动量，就是价值。
We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests
itself as something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract
from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the
common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities,
whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation
will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities
can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to
consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.
在交换价值中显露出来的东西，就是商品的价值。商品的交换价值这个属性，可以用价值表达。“质量”描述物质的多少，“底乘高的一半”描述三角形面积的大小，“价值”描述产品中包含社会劳动的多少。它从社会的角度描述产品的状态，它一丁点自然物质的成分也没有。
【为减少歧义，便于理解，后文全部用英文单词Value指代商品的价值。而“使用价值”没什么歧义，就不用英文单词了。】
A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour
in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the
magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the
value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of
labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds
its standard in weeks, days, and hours.
如何度量产品中含义多少Value？显然，用凝结在产品中的劳动的多少度量。劳动的多少，则由劳动时间度量，劳动时间则以周、日、小时等为度量单位。
凝结在2把木椅中的劳动是1日的劳动，凝结在1堵砖墙中的劳动是1日的劳动，凝结在3件衣服中的劳动是1日的劳动。因此2把木椅、1堵砖墙、3件衣服的Value相等，人们同意交换它们。
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the
quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the
more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its
production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is
homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total
labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all
commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of
human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each
of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the
average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it
requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average,
no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that
required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and
with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The
introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour
required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as
a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all
that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only
half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former
value.
有人可能会问，如果商品的Value由为它耗费的劳动量决定，那么不熟练的懒惰的劳动者会在同一个商品中凝结更多的Value喽？请注意，能够形成Value的劳动，是社会必要劳动，是一个社会统一的劳动力支出，即不以懒惰者的个人劳动时间为准。社会的全部个人劳动，被买者视为一个均匀的社会劳动，凝结在社会全部商品中。社会必要劳动，是在社会当前的技术水平、劳动强度、劳动熟练程度下，生产某产品所需的劳动时间。例如，在英国使用蒸汽织布机后，将同量的纱织成布所需的社会必要劳动时间减少了一半。而英国手工织布工人将同量的纱织成布仍旧需要之前那么多的时间，此时其个人1小时的产品量只有社会平均1小时产品量的一半，其价值也就只能是从前的一半。
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article
is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially
necessary for its production.[9]9 Each individual commodity, in this connexion,
is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10]10 Commodities,
therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be
produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to
the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the
one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all
commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]11
The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time
required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with
every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is
determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of
skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical
application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities
of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same
amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in
unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal
than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s
surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour
time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts
whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more
to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond
mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of
one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the
same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore
represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would
embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed
at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their
value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the
productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the
production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that
article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the
productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the
production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a
commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the
productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. [12]*
如果生产商品的社会必要劳动时间不变，商品的Value量就不变。但社会必要劳动时间是随着劳动生产率而变化的。丰年多量的粮食与灾年少量的粮食可以代表同样多的价值量。开采钻石耗费的劳动量很大，所以一小块钻石代表着大量的劳动，它就很贵。如果我们发明了用少量劳动就可以将碳转化为钻石的技术，钻石可能变得会比砖头还便宜。【电脑、手机的价格变化就是现实的例子】
A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its
utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows,
&c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a
commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own
labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce
the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others,
social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant
produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But
neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of
the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product
must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of
an exchange.)[13]12 Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of
utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour
does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
有使用价值的东西不一定有Value，例如空气、处女地、天然草地。有使用价值、含有人类劳动的东西不一定是商品，例如自己在家做饭给自己吃。要算作商品，就必须为别人、为社会生产使用价值。（而且不仅如此，中世纪农民为封建领主生产作为代役租的粮食，为牧师生产作为十一税的粮食，但那并不是商品。要成为商品，产品必须通过社会交换，转到消费者手里）最后，没有用的东西，就不会有Value。如果一个东西没有用，那为生产它耗费的劳动就没有用，那它就不代表任何社会必要劳动，因此没有Value。
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
* The following passage occurred only in the first edition. “Now we know
the substance of value. It is labour. We know the measure of its magnitude.
It is labour time. The form, which stamps value as exchange-value, remains
to be analysed. But before this we need to develop the characteristics we
have already found somewhat more fully.” Taken from the Penguin edition of
“Capital,” translated by Ben Fowkes. ↩︎1 Karl Marx, “Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.” Berlin, 1859, p. 3. ↩︎
|
微信扫码，自愿捐赠。天涯同道，共谱新篇。
微信捐赠不显示捐赠者个人信息，如需要，请注明联系方式。 |
