003The Two-fold Character of the Labour Embodied in Commodities

Section 2: The Two-fold Character of the Labour Embodied in Commodities

体现在商品中的劳动的二重性

At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things –
use value and exchange value. Later on, we saw also that labour, too, possesses
the same two-fold nature; for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does
not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use
values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two-fold
nature of the labour contained in commodities. As this point is the pivot on
which a clear comprehension of political economy turns, we must go more into
detail.

首先，商品是使用价值和交换价值的二重复合物。然后，劳动也具有二重性质，即它是创造使用价值的具体劳动和创造Value的抽象劳动。我是第一个指出并批判地论证商品中包含的劳动的二重性质的。这是理解政治经济学的核心，我们得多深入一些详情。

Let us take two commodities such as a coat and 10 yards of linen, and let the
former be double the value of the latter, so that, if 10 yards of linen = W, the
coat = 2W.

假设1件衣服的Value是10尺麻布的2倍，即如果10尺麻布=W，那么1件衣服=2W。

The coat is a use value that satisfies a particular want. Its existence is the
result of a special sort of productive activity, the nature of which is
determined by its aim, mode of operation, subject, means, and result. The
labour, whose utility is thus represented by the value in use of its product, or
which manifests itself by making its product a use value, we call useful labour.
In this connection we consider only its useful effect.

As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use values, so also
are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and weaving. Were these
two objects not qualitatively different, not produced respectively by labour of
different quality, they could not stand to each other in the relation of
commodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value is not exchanged
for another of the same kind.

衣服和麻布的使用价值，其性质是不同的。生产它们的劳动（即缝和织），其性质也是不同的。市场上的人们不会用同样的衣服交换同样的衣服。商品的使用价值的性质不同，它们才能作为商品相互对立。

To all the different varieties of values in use there correspond as many
different kinds of useful labour, classified according to the order, genus,
species, and variety to which they belong in the social division of labour. This
division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities,
but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a
necessary condition for the division of labour. In the primitive Indian
community there is social division of labour, without production of commodities.
Or, to take an example nearer home, in every factory the labour is divided
according to a system, but this division is not brought about by the operatives
mutually exchanging their individual products. Only such products can become
commodities with regard to each other, as result from different kinds of labour,
each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private
individuals.

每种使用价值都有相应的有用劳动，这是劳动分工。出现了劳动分工，才可能出现商品生产；但没有商品生产仍旧可能有劳动分工。古代印度公社出现了劳动分工，但没有商品生产。现代工厂内部也有各种劳动分工，但这不是由工人们相互交换产品引起的。只有互相独立的私人劳动产品，才能作为商品相互对立。

To resume, then: In the use value of each commodity there is contained useful
labour, i.e., productive activity of a definite kind and exercised with a
definite aim. Use values cannot confront each other as commodities, unless the
useful labour embodied in them is qualitatively different in each of them. In a
community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities,
i.e., in a community of commodity producers, this qualitative difference
between the useful forms of labour that are carried on independently by
individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system,
a social division of labour.

Anyhow, whether the coat be worn by the tailor or by his customer, in either
case it operates as a use value. Nor is the relation between the coat and the
labour that produced it altered by the circumstance that tailoring may have
become a special trade, an independent branch of the social division of labour.
Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made clothes for
thousands of years, without a single man becoming a tailor. But coats and linen,
like every other element of material wealth that is not the spontaneous produce
of Nature, must invariably owe their existence to a special productive activity,
exercised with a definite aim, an activity that appropriates particular
nature-given materials to particular human wants. So far therefore as labour is
a creator of use value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition,
independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is
an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material
exchanges between man and Nature, and therefore no life.

在有裁缝这个职业之前的几千年，人类就已经在缝衣服了。无论社会形态如何，非自然存在的物质财富都要通过生产活动才能获得。因此，劳动作为使用价值的创造者，作为有用劳动，是不以一切社会形式为转移的人类生存条件，是人和自然之间的物质变换即人类生活得以实现的永恒的自然必然性。

The use values, coat, linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are
combinations of two elements – matter and labour. If we take away the useful
labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is
furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature
does, that is by changing the form of matter.^[1]13 Nay more, in this work of
changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that
labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by
labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother.

种种使用价值，是劳动与自然物质的结合。威廉·配第(William Petty)说：劳动是财富之父，地球是财富之母。

Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use value to the value of
commodities.

现在我们来考虑商品的Value。

By our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the linen. But this is a
mere quantitative difference, which for the present does not concern us. We bear
in mind, however, that if the value of the coat is double that of 10 yds of
linen, 20 yds of linen must have the same value as one coat. So far as they are
values, the coat and the linen are things of a like substance, objective
expressions of essentially identical labour. But tailoring and weaving are,
qualitatively, different kinds of labour. There are, however, states of society
in which one and the same man does tailoring and weaving alternately, in which
case these two forms of labour are mere modifications of the labour of the same
individual, and not special and fixed functions of different persons, just as
the coat which our tailor makes one day, and the trousers which he makes another
day, imply only a variation in the labour of one and the same individual.
Moreover, we see at a glance that, in our capitalist society, a given portion of
human labour is, in accordance with the varying demand, at one time supplied in
the form of tailoring, at another in the form of weaving. This change may
possibly not take place without friction, but take place it must.

Productive activity, if we leave out of sight its special form, viz., the useful
character of the labour, is nothing but the expenditure of human labour power.
Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are
each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this
sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human
labour power. Of course, this labour power, which remains the same under all its
modifications, must have attained a certain pitch of development before it can
be expended in a multiplicity of modes. But the value of a commodity represents
human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. And
just as in society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere man, on
the other hand, a very shabby part,^[2]14 so here with mere human labour. It is
the expenditure of simple labour power, i.e., of the labour power which, on an
average, apart from any special development, exists in the organism of every
ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in
different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is
given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as
multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to
a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is
constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled
labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour,
represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone.^[3]15 The different
proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour
as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the
backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom. For
simplicity’s sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be
unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble
of making the reduction.

缝、织等任何生产活动，都是人类劳动力的耗费，都是人的脑、神经、肌肉在生产上的消耗，都是人类劳动。商品的Value代表抽象的人类劳动，代表人类劳动的平均耗费。这里的人类劳动是指没有专长的普通人具有的简单平均劳动。简单平均劳动在各个国家和各个时代是不同的，但在一定的社会里是一定的。复杂劳动可以视为强化的或加倍的简单劳动。【袜子和飞机可以交换就是例子。】为叙述方便，我们把各种劳动都视为简单劳动。

Just as, therefore, in viewing the coat and linen as values, we abstract from
their different use values, so it is with the labour represented by those
values: we disregard the difference between its useful forms, weaving and
tailoring. As the use values, coat and linen, are combinations of special
productive activities with cloth and yarn, while the values, coat and linen,
are, on the other hand, mere homogeneous congelations of undifferentiated
labour, so the labour embodied in these latter values does not count by virtue
of its productive relation to cloth and yarn, but only as being expenditure of
human labour power. Tailoring and weaving are necessary factors in the creation
of the use values, coat and linen, precisely because these two kinds of labour
are of different qualities; but only in so far as abstraction is made from their
special qualities, only in so far as both possess the same quality of being
human labour, do tailoring and weaving form the substance of the values of the
same articles.

从Value的角度看衣服和麻布时，我们不看它们使用价值的性质的差别，同样不看缝和织这两种劳动的性质的差别。从Value的角度看，衣服和麻布凝结着性质相同的劳动，即抽象劳动。抽象劳动是Value的实质。

Coats and linen, however, are not merely values, but values of definite
magnitude, and according to our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as
the ten yards of linen. Whence this difference in their values? It is owing to
the fact that the linen contains only half as much labour as the coat, and
consequently, that in the production of the latter, labour power must have been
expended during twice the time necessary for the production of the former.

1件衣服和10尺麻布，不仅有Value，而且有一定量的Value。我们曾假定1件衣服值10尺麻布的2倍。为何会有这个差异？因为1件衣服包含着的劳动量是10尺麻布的2倍，即生产1件衣服的社会必要劳动时间是10尺麻布的2倍。

While, therefore, with reference to use value, the labour contained in a
commodity counts only qualitatively, with reference to value it counts only
quantitatively, and must first be reduced to human labour pure and simple. In
the former case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How much?
How long a time? Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only
the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when
taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value.

因此，使用价值是指劳动的性质，是劳动的How和What的问题。Value是指劳动的数量，是劳动的社会必要的时间，是How much和How long的问题。既然商品的Value只表示劳动量，那么任何两种商品都是可以以某个比例交换的。

If the productive power of all the different sorts of useful labour required for
the production of a coat remains unchanged, the sum of the values of the coats
produced increases with their number. If one coat represents x days’ labour, two
coats represent 2x days’ labour, and so on. But assume that the duration of the
labour necessary for the production of a coat becomes doubled or halved. In the
first case one coat is worth as much as two coats were before; in the second
case, two coats are only worth as much as one was before, although in both cases
one coat renders the same service as before, and the useful labour embodied in
it remains of the same quality. But the quantity of labour spent on its
production has altered.

如果生产衣服的所有有用劳动的生产力不变，那么衣服的Value就随衣服的数量一同增加：若1件衣服代表x工作日，则n件衣服代表n*x工作日。如果生产1件衣服的社会必要劳动时间增加1倍，那么现在1件衣服的Value就具有从前2件衣服的Value，尽管1件衣服的使用价值的性质和数量没有改变。

An increase in the quantity of use values is an increase of material wealth.
With two coats two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man. Nevertheless,
an increased quantity of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall
in the magnitude of its value. This antagonistic movement has its origin in the
two-fold character of labour. Productive power has reference, of course, only to
labour of some useful concrete form, the efficacy of any special productive
activity during a given time being dependent on its productiveness. Useful
labour becomes, therefore, a more or less abundant source of products, in
proportion to the rise or fall of its productiveness. On the other hand, no
change in this productiveness affects the labour represented by value. Since
productive power is an attribute of the concrete useful forms of labour, of
course it can no longer have any bearing on that labour, so soon as we make
abstraction from those concrete useful forms. However then productive power may
vary, the same labour, exercised during equal periods of time, always yields
equal amounts of value. But it will yield, during equal periods of time,
different quantities of values in use; more, if the productive power rise,
fewer, if it fall. The same change in productive power, which increases the
fruitfulness of labour, and, in consequence, the quantity of use values produced
by that labour, will diminish the total value of this increased quantity of use
values, provided such change shorten the total labour time necessary for their
production; and vice versâ.

使用价值增加，就是物质财富增加，但Value却可能下降。使用价值与Value的对立运动源于劳动的二重性。生产力只是具体劳动的生产力，因此只与使用价值成正比。生产力不会影响抽象劳动，因此不能影响Value。无论生产力如何变化，在同一劳动时间提供的Value是不变的。同样是1日的社会必要劳动，在较低生产力下会得到10尺麻布，在较高生产力下会得到20尺麻布，此时，这20尺麻布仍旧只凝结着1日的劳动，因此较高生产力下的1尺麻布凝结的社会必要劳动时间就减少了一半，即其Value减少了一半。

On the one hand all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human
labour power, and in its character of identical abstract human labour, it
creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the
expenditure of human labour power in a special form and with a definite aim, and
in this, its character of concrete useful labour, it produces use values.^[4]16

从生理学角度看，一切劳动都是人类劳动力的耗费。具体劳动的耗费形式各不相同，这创造使用价值；各种具体劳动的相同点是，它们都是劳动，这创造Value。

---

1. 13 Tutti i fenomeni dell’universo, sieno essi prodotti della mano
   dell’uomo, ovvero delle universali leggi della fisica, non ci danno idea di
   attuale creazione, ma unicamente di una modificazione della materia.
   Accostare e separare sono gli unici elementi che l’ingegno umano ritrova
   analizzando l’idea della riproduzione: e tanto e riproduzione di valore
   (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his controversy with the
   Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of value he is speaking
   of) e di ricchezze se la terra, l’aria e l’acqua ne’ campi si trasmutino in
   grano, come se colla mano dell’uomo il glutine di un insetto si trasmuti in
   velluto ovvero alcuni pezzetti di metalio si organizzino a formare una
   ripetizione.” [“All the phenomena of the universe, whether produced by the
   hand of man or through the universal laws of physics, are not actual new
   creations, but merely a modification of matter. Joining together and
   separating are the only elements which the human mind always finds on
   analysing the concept of reproduction and it is just the same with the
   reproduction of value” (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his
   controversy with the Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of
   value he is speaking of) “and of wealth, when earth, air and water in the
   fields are transformed into corn, or when the hand of man transforms the
   secretions of an insect into silk, or some pieces of metal are arranged to
   make the mechanism of a watch.”] – Pietro Verri, “Meditazioni sulla Economia
   Politica” [first printed in 1773] in Custodi’s edition of the Italian
   Economists, Parte Moderna, t. XV., p. 22. ↩︎

2. 13 Tutti i fenomeni dell’universo, sieno essi prodotti della mano
   dell’uomo, ovvero delle universali leggi della fisica, non ci danno idea di
   attuale creazione, ma unicamente di una modificazione della materia.
   Accostare e separare sono gli unici elementi che l’ingegno umano ritrova
   analizzando l’idea della riproduzione: e tanto e riproduzione di valore
   (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his controversy with the
   Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of value he is speaking
   of) e di ricchezze se la terra, l’aria e l’acqua ne’ campi si trasmutino in
   grano, come se colla mano dell’uomo il glutine di un insetto si trasmuti in
   velluto ovvero alcuni pezzetti di metalio si organizzino a formare una
   ripetizione.” [“All the phenomena of the universe, whether produced by the
   hand of man or through the universal laws of physics, are not actual new
   creations, but merely a modification of matter. Joining together and
   separating are the only elements which the human mind always finds on
   analysing the concept of reproduction and it is just the same with the
   reproduction of value” (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his
   controversy with the Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of
   value he is speaking of) “and of wealth, when earth, air and water in the
   fields are transformed into corn, or when the hand of man transforms the
   secretions of an insect into silk, or some pieces of metal are arranged to
   make the mechanism of a watch.”] – Pietro Verri, “Meditazioni sulla Economia
   Politica” [first printed in 1773] in Custodi’s edition of the Italian
   Economists, Parte Moderna, t. XV., p. 22. ↩︎

3. 13 Tutti i fenomeni dell’universo, sieno essi prodotti della mano
   dell’uomo, ovvero delle universali leggi della fisica, non ci danno idea di
   attuale creazione, ma unicamente di una modificazione della materia.
   Accostare e separare sono gli unici elementi che l’ingegno umano ritrova
   analizzando l’idea della riproduzione: e tanto e riproduzione di valore
   (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his controversy with the
   Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of value he is speaking
   of) e di ricchezze se la terra, l’aria e l’acqua ne’ campi si trasmutino in
   grano, come se colla mano dell’uomo il glutine di un insetto si trasmuti in
   velluto ovvero alcuni pezzetti di metalio si organizzino a formare una
   ripetizione.” [“All the phenomena of the universe, whether produced by the
   hand of man or through the universal laws of physics, are not actual new
   creations, but merely a modification of matter. Joining together and
   separating are the only elements which the human mind always finds on
   analysing the concept of reproduction and it is just the same with the
   reproduction of value” (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his
   controversy with the Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of
   value he is speaking of) “and of wealth, when earth, air and water in the
   fields are transformed into corn, or when the hand of man transforms the
   secretions of an insect into silk, or some pieces of metal are arranged to
   make the mechanism of a watch.”] – Pietro Verri, “Meditazioni sulla Economia
   Politica” [first printed in 1773] in Custodi’s edition of the Italian
   Economists, Parte Moderna, t. XV., p. 22. ↩︎

4. 13 Tutti i fenomeni dell’universo, sieno essi prodotti della mano
   dell’uomo, ovvero delle universali leggi della fisica, non ci danno idea di
   attuale creazione, ma unicamente di una modificazione della materia.
   Accostare e separare sono gli unici elementi che l’ingegno umano ritrova
   analizzando l’idea della riproduzione: e tanto e riproduzione di valore
   (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his controversy with the
   Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of value he is speaking
   of) e di ricchezze se la terra, l’aria e l’acqua ne’ campi si trasmutino in
   grano, come se colla mano dell’uomo il glutine di un insetto si trasmuti in
   velluto ovvero alcuni pezzetti di metalio si organizzino a formare una
   ripetizione.” [“All the phenomena of the universe, whether produced by the
   hand of man or through the universal laws of physics, are not actual new
   creations, but merely a modification of matter. Joining together and
   separating are the only elements which the human mind always finds on
   analysing the concept of reproduction and it is just the same with the
   reproduction of value” (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his
   controversy with the Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of
   value he is speaking of) “and of wealth, when earth, air and water in the
   fields are transformed into corn, or when the hand of man transforms the
   secretions of an insect into silk, or some pieces of metal are arranged to
   make the mechanism of a watch.”] – Pietro Verri, “Meditazioni sulla Economia
   Politica” [first printed in 1773] in Custodi’s edition of the Italian
   Economists, Parte Moderna, t. XV., p. 22. ↩︎