004-Section 3 The Form of Value or Exchange-Value

Section 3: The Form of Value or Exchange-Value

Value的形式（即交换价值）

Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods,
such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They
are, however, commodities, only because they are something two-fold, both
objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest
themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so
far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.

所谓的商品，以铁、麻布、小麦等使用价值的形象，来到世间。此为其自然形式。请注意，它们是商品，是因为它们是一种二重物，也就是说，它们既是使用价值，又承载着价值。它们表现为商品，或者具有商品的形式，只因为它们具有二重的形式，即自然形式和社会形式。

The reality of the value of commodities differs in this respect from Dame
Quickly, that we don’t know “where to have it.” The value of commodities is the
very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of
matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by
itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems
impossible to grasp it. If, however, we bear in mind that the value of
commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only
in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social
substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can
only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity. In fact
we started from exchange value, or the exchange relation of commodities, in
order to get at the value that lies hidden behind it. We must now return to this
form under which value first appeared to us.

商品的Value不含有任何自然界的原子，它只在商品与商品之间的社会关系中显露出来。实际上，我们是从交换价值（即商品的交换关系）开始，来探寻躲在背后的Value的。现在我们要回到这个Value形式上来。

Every one knows, if he knows nothing else, that commodities have a value form
common to them all, and presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily
forms of their use values. I mean their money form. Here, however, a task is set
us, the performance of which has never yet even been attempted by bourgeois
economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money form, of developing the
expression of value implied in the value relation of commodities, from its
simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money-form. By doing
this we shall, at the same time, solve the riddle presented by money.

商品的使用价值五花八门，但它们具有一个共同的Value形式，即货币形式。【所有商品都可以用货币表现它们的Value，这就叫做商品Value的货币形式。如果商品可以用其他东西表现它们的Value，商品Value也就具有其他表现形式】这里，我们要做资产阶级经济学从未打算做的一件事：我们要追溯货币形式的起源。也就是说，我们要从最不起眼的Value形式探究到最炫目的货币形式。这样，就可以破解货币的神秘。

The simplest value-relation is evidently that of one commodity to some one other
commodity of a different kind. Hence the relation between the values of two
commodities supplies us with the simplest expression of the value of a single
commodity.

商品之间最简单的Value关系显然是一种商品与另一种商品的Value关系。因此，两种商品之间的Value关系提供了最简单的Value表现形式。

A. Elementary or Accidental Form Of Value

Value的基本形式

x commodity A = y commodity B, or x commodity A is worth y commodity B.

x商品A=y商品B，即x商品A值y商品B。

20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 Yards of linen are worth 1 coat.

20尺麻布=1件衣服，即20尺麻布值1件衣服。
【2个小麦=1个薄荷，即2个小麦值1个薄荷】
【这种简单形式的例子仍旧存在。以某网络游戏为例，游戏中可以通过种植、钓鱼、打猎、挖矿等方式收集各种材料（小麦、薄荷、红粉白珠、青蟹、白肌银鱼、羚羊肉、铜矿、铁矿、金矿等），可以通过打怪收集低级宝石、寒鸦草等，假设某玩家（为方便叙述，我们称呼他为FarmerA）经常采集薄荷，然后通过与其他玩家交换，将他的薄荷小麦换成小麦，交换比例为2:1，那么对他来说，有“2个薄荷=1个小麦，即2个薄荷值1个小麦”这个Value形式。玩玩游戏，再记住这个例子，下面的分析就不难了。】

1. The two poles of the expression of value. Relative form and Equivalent form

Value表达式的两端：相对形式和等价形式

The whole mystery of the form of value lies hidden in this elementary form. Its
analysis, therefore, is our real difficulty.

Value形式的全部秘密都隐藏在这个基本形式中。对它的分析，是很难的。
【Marx在这里用各种说法翻来覆去地讲述了使用价值、交换价值、Value、表现形式等等的含义。所以篇幅很长，但内容并不多。只要看到某一段时理解了，就算成功。】

Here two different kinds of commodities (in our example the linen and the coat),
evidently play two different parts. The linen expresses its value in the coat;
the coat serves as the material in which that value is expressed. The former
plays an active, the latter a passive, part. The value of the linen is
represented as relative value, or appears in relative form. The coat officiates
as equivalent, or appears in equivalent form.

等式里的两种商品扮演了不同的角色。左侧（FarmerA自己的薄荷）用右侧（他人的小麦）表达了它的Value（即2个薄荷值1个小麦），右侧充当了表达Value的物质材料。左侧的Value用一个相对值描述出来了，或者说，左侧的Value呈现出一种相对的形式。右侧起等价物的作用，或者说，呈现出等价形式。

The relative form and the equivalent form are two intimately connected, mutually
dependent and inseparable elements of the expression of value; but, at the same
time, are mutually exclusive, antagonistic extremes – i.e., poles of the same
expression. They are allotted respectively to the two different commodities
brought into relation by that expression. It is not possible to express the
value of linen in linen. 20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen is no expression
of value. On the contrary, such an equation merely says that 20 yards of linen
are nothing else than 20 yards of linen, a definite quantity of the use value
linen. The value of the linen can therefore be expressed only relatively –
i.e., in some other commodity. The relative form of the value of the linen
presupposes, therefore, the presence of some other commodity – here the coat –
under the form of an equivalent. On the other hand, the commodity that figures
as the equivalent cannot at the same time assume the relative form. That second
commodity is not the one whose value is expressed. Its function is merely to
serve as the material in which the value of the first commodity is expressed.

相对形式和等价形式是表达Value的两个紧密联系、相互依赖、不可分离的要素；但同时，它们也是表达Value的互相排斥、互相对立的两极。【对立统一律来了】任意一次商品交换行为，都在人的头脑中将两种商品分别放在了相对形式和等价形式上。不会有人用薄荷交换薄荷（除非极度无聊的两个玩家在打发时间，但这并无经济意义）。“2个薄荷=2个薄荷”并没有表达出Value，它只不过在说，2个薄荷就是2个薄荷，2个薄荷能起到2个薄荷的效用。因此，薄荷的Value只能用其他商品表达，即相对地表达。薄荷Value的相对形式，以另一种商品（此例为小麦）处于等价形式为前提。另一方面，这个处于等价形式的商品，不能同时处于相对形式。这个处于等价形式的商品，其Value没有被表达出来。它的作用仅仅是表达其他商品的Value，即充当表达其他商品Value的材料。

No doubt, the expression 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen are
worth 1 coat, implies the opposite relation. 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, or 1
coat is worth 20 yards of linen. But, in that case, I must reverse the equation,
in order to express the value of the coat relatively; and so soon as I do that
the linen becomes the equivalent instead of the coat. A single commodity cannot,
therefore, simultaneously assume, in the same expression of value, both forms.
The very polarity of these forms makes them mutually exclusive.

诚然，“2个薄荷=1个小麦”意味着相反的关系，即“1个小麦=2个薄荷”。但这就不是FarmerA的表达式，而是交易对方的表达式了。

Whether, then, a commodity assumes the relative form, or the opposite equivalent
form, depends entirely upon its accidental position in the expression of value –
that is, upon whether it is the commodity whose value is being expressed or the
commodity in which value is being expressed.

【FarmerA用自己的薄荷交换别人的小麦时，在FarmerA的头脑中，别人获得1小麦所付出的社会必要劳动时间等于自己获得2薄荷所付出的社会必要劳动时间。试想，如果能更快速地获得1小麦（例如游戏运营公司将小麦产出率提高1倍，即相当于人类社会的生产力提高），那么FarmerA用2薄荷就换1小麦就觉得亏了，他只会用2薄荷换2小麦。
在交换过程中，1小麦值得FarmerA付出自己的2薄荷，这2薄荷的Value就用1小麦表现出来了。对于FarmerA，2薄荷是相对形式，1小麦就是等价形式。】

2. The Relative Form of value

Value的相对形式

(a.) The nature and import of this form 这个形式的性质

In order to discover how the elementary expression of the value of a commodity
lies hidden in the value relation of two commodities, we must, in the first
place, consider the latter entirely apart from its quantitative aspect. The
usual mode of procedure is generally the reverse, and in the value relation
nothing is seen but the proportion between definite quantities of two different
sorts of commodities that are considered equal to each other. It is apt to be
forgotten that the magnitudes of different things can be compared
quantitatively, only when those magnitudes are expressed in terms of the same
unit. It is only as expressions of such a unit that they are of the same
denomination, and therefore commensurable.

【1米与1秒，这两者无法比较。】如何从2个商品的Value关系中挖出商品Value的基本表达式？为了探究这个问题，我们必须先考虑性质，后考虑数量。人们通常的做法恰好相反，他们只看到薄荷与小麦是2:1的关系，而不在乎其是否有相同的单位。单位不同，是不能比较的。

Whether 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 20 coats or = x coats – that is, whether
a given quantity of linen is worth few or many coats, every such statement
implies that the linen and coats, as magnitudes of value, are expressions of the
same unit, things of the same kind. Linen = coat is the basis of the equation.

无论2薄荷能换到1小麦还是2小麦还是10小麦，薄荷和小麦都在说：“我们有一个相同的单位”。

But the two commodities whose identity of quality is thus assumed, do not play
the same part. It is only the value of the linen that is expressed. And how? By
its reference to the coat as its equivalent, as something that can be exchanged
for it. In this relation the coat is the mode of existence of value, is value
embodied, for only as such is it the same as the linen. On the other hand, the
linen’s own value comes to the front, receives independent expression, for it is
only as being value that it is comparable with the coat as a thing of equal
value, or exchangeable with the coat. To borrow an illustration from chemistry,
butyric acid is a different substance from propyl formate. Yet both are made up
of the same chemical substances, carbon (C), hydrogen (H), and oxygen (O), and
that, too, in like proportions – namely, C4H8O2. If now we equate butyric acid
to propyl formate, then, in the first place, propyl formate would be, in this
relation, merely a form of existence of C4H8O2; and in the second place, we
should be stating that butyric acid also consists of C4H8O2. Therefore, by thus
equating the two substances, expression would be given to their chemical
composition, while their different physical forms would be neglected.

这2种商品的单位相同，但角色不同。只有左侧（薄荷）的Value被表达出来了。如何表达的呢？右侧（小麦）可以与左侧（薄荷）交换，即右侧（小麦）是左侧（薄荷）的等价物，通过这件事表达出来了。在这个关系中，右侧（小麦）是Value的存在形式，是表现Value的物，也只在这个角度上，它与左侧（薄荷）有相同的单位。同时，左侧（薄荷）的Value被表现出来了，因为它与右侧（小麦）有相同的单位。借用化学类比一下，丁酸和甲酸丙酯是不同的东西，但它们都是由碳C氢H氧O构成，且构成比例相同，即C4H8O2。当我们说“丁酸和甲酸丙酯的某种属性相同”，我们的意思是：甲酸丙酯是C4H8O2的存在形式，丁酸也是由C4H8O2构成的。因此，通过在丁酸和甲酸丙酯之间划等号，我们将丁酸的C4H8O2这个化学构成表达出来了。

If we say that, as values, commodities are mere congelations of human labour, we
reduce them by our analysis, it is true, to the abstraction, value; but we
ascribe to this value no form apart from their bodily form. It is otherwise in
the value relation of one commodity to another. Here, the one stands forth in
its character of value by reason of its relation to the other.

By making the coat the equivalent of the linen, we equate the labour embodied in
the former to that in the latter. Now, it is true that the tailoring, which
makes the coat, is concrete labour of a different sort from the weaving which
makes the linen. But the act of equating it to the weaving, reduces the
tailoring to that which is really equal in the two kinds of labour, to their
common character of human labour. In this roundabout way, then, the fact is
expressed, that weaving also, in so far as it weaves value, has nothing to
distinguish it from tailoring, and, consequently, is abstract human labour. It
is the expression of equivalence between different sorts of commodities that
alone brings into relief the specific character of value-creating labour, and
this it does by actually reducing the different varieties of labour embodied in
the different kinds of commodities to their common quality of human labour in
the abstract.

右侧是左侧的等价物，那么，右侧的劳动也就与左侧的劳动具有相同的性质。这意思是说，此情此景，我们只从抽象劳动的角度考虑它们。

There is, however, something else required beyond the expression of the specific
character of the labour of which the value of the linen consists. Human labour
power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It
becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some
object. In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation of human
labour, that value must be expressed as having objective existence, as being a
something materially different from the linen itself, and yet a something common
to the linen and all other commodities. The problem is already solved.

劳动是在运转中的劳动力，劳动创造Value，但劳动本身不是Value。劳动凝结在产品上，才成为Value。

When occupying the position of equivalent in the equation of value, the coat
ranks qualitatively as the equal of the linen, as something of the same kind,
because it is value. In this position it is a thing in which we see nothing but
value, or whose palpable bodily form represents value. Yet the coat itself, the
body of the commodity, coat, is a mere use value. A coat as such no more tells
us it is value, than does the first piece of linen we take hold of. This shows
that when placed in value-relation to the linen, the coat signifies more than
when out of that relation, just as many a man strutting about in a gorgeous
uniform counts for more than when in mufti.

同一个人，穿着制服的时候，就比穿着便服的时候，多了一种东西。右侧（小麦）本身是小麦这种物质，但在FarmerA的交换过程中，即在“2个薄荷=1个小麦”这个表达式中，小麦作为小麦，即小麦以自己的自然形式，表现着Value。

In the production of the coat, human labour power, in the shape of tailoring,
must have been actually expended. Human labour is therefore accumulated in it.
In this aspect the coat is a depository of value, but though worn to a thread,
it does not let this fact show through. And as equivalent of the linen in the
value equation, it exists under this aspect alone, counts therefore as embodied
value, as a body that is value. A, for instance, cannot be “your majesty” to B,
unless at the same time majesty in B’s eyes assumes the bodily form of A, and,
what is more, with every new father of the people, changes its features, hair,
and many other things besides.

只有当B认为国王是长着A那个样子的时候，B看到A来了，才会将A视为国王。如果A突然毁容了、秃顶了、肥胖了、截肢了，那么B对国王的印象，必须改为毁容了、秃顶了、肥胖了、截肢了的样子，之后，B看到A来了，才会将A视为国王。在生产右侧产品的时候，人类劳动力以“种植”的方式耗费了。人类劳动累积在小麦中。小麦承载着Value，但即使烧成灰，肉眼也看不到Value的身影。在“2个薄荷=1个小麦”这个表达式描述的交换过程中，FarmerA在乎的是小麦是否有充足的Value，这显然是在乎小麦的Value方面。

Hence, in the value equation, in which the coat is the equivalent of the linen,
the coat officiates as the form of value. The value of the commodity linen is
expressed by the bodily form of the commodity coat, the value of one by the use
value of the other. As a use value, the linen is something palpably different
from the coat; as value, it is the same as the coat, and now has the appearance
of a coat. Thus the linen acquires a value form different from its physical
form. The fact that it is value, is made manifest by its equality with the coat,
just as the sheep’s nature of a Christian is shown in his resemblance to the
Lamb of God.

因此，在“2个薄荷=1个小麦”这个表达式中，小麦充当Value的表现形式，薄荷的Value用小麦的身体表达，即右侧商品的使用价值表达出左侧商品的Value。从使用价值的角度看，薄荷和小麦性质不同；从Value的角度看，薄荷和小麦性质相同，且Value呈现为小麦的样子。左侧（薄荷）得到了与其物理形式不同的Value形式。左侧（薄荷）与右侧（小麦）能划等号（能交换），显露出了薄荷的Value属性。正如，基督徒与上帝的羔羊划等号，显露出了基督徒的羊性。

We see, then, all that our analysis of the value of commodities has already told
us, is told us by the linen itself, so soon as it comes into communication with
another commodity, the coat. Only it betrays its thoughts in that language with
which alone it is familiar, the language of commodities. In order to tell us
that its own value is created by labour in its abstract character of human
labour, it says that the coat, in so far as it is worth as much as the linen,
and therefore is value, consists of the same labour as the linen. In order to
inform us that its sublime reality as value is not the same as its buckram body,
it says that value has the appearance of a coat, and consequently that so far as
the linen is value, it and the coat are as like as two peas. We may here remark,
that the language of commodities has, besides Hebrew, many other more or less
correct dialects. The German “Wertsein,” to be worth, for instance, expresses in
a less striking manner than the Romance verbs “valere,” “valer,” “valoir,” that
the equating of commodity B to commodity A, is commodity A’s own mode of
expressing its value. Paris vaut bien une messe. [Paris is certainly worth a
mass]

在商品交换过程中，商品用商品的语言吐露了商品Value的性质。为了告诉我们，商品的Value是人类劳动的抽象性质创造的，商品开口道：“右侧（小麦）只要与左侧（薄荷）能划等号（能交换），右侧就与左侧含有同种性质的劳动”。为了告诉我们，左侧（薄荷）的高贵的Value属性与它寒碜的样子不同，商品开口道：“左侧（薄荷）的Value有着右侧（小麦）的外观，从Value的角度看，左侧和右侧是一模一样的”。顺便说一句，除了希伯来语，商品的语言有各种确切程度不同的方言。例如，要表达“商品A=商品B，这是商品A的Value的表现形式”，德语“Wertsein”就不如罗曼语动词“valere,”
“valer,” “valoir,”确切。巴黎确实值一次弥撒（感恩祭）！

By means, therefore, of the value-relation expressed in our equation, the bodily
form of commodity B becomes the value form of commodity A, or the body of
commodity B acts as a mirror to the value of commodity A. By putting itself in
relation with commodity B, as value in propriâ personâ, as the matter of which
human labour is made up, the commodity A converts the value in use, B, into the
substance in which to express its, A’s, own value. The value of A, thus
expressed in the use value of B, has taken the form of relative value.

在“2个薄荷=1个小麦”这个等式表达的交换过程中，右侧商品的身体成为左侧商品的Value的表现形式，或者说，右侧商品的身体充当左侧商品的Value的镜子，或者说，右侧商品的身体反映出左侧商品的Value，或者说，左侧商品的Value用右侧商品的使用价值表达出来了。左侧商品在面对右侧商品时，显露出它的Value，此时我们说，左侧商品的Value呈现出一种相对形式，即“相对价值形式”。

从某种角度看，人与商品有异曲同工之妙。我是如何知道我是“人”的？张三是“人”，我和张三雷同，所以我是“人”。对我来说，张三是“人”的表现形式，“人”表现为张三。

(b.) Quantitative determination of Relative value 相对Value的数量

Every commodity, whose value it is intended to express, is a useful object of
given quantity, as 15 bushels of corn, or 100 lbs of coffee. And a given
quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour. The
value form must therefore not only express value generally, but also value in
definite quantity. Therefore, in the value relation of commodity A to commodity
B, of the linen to the coat, not only is the latter, as value in general, made
the equal in quality of the linen, but a definite quantity of coat (1 coat) is
made the equivalent of a definite quantity (20 yards) of linen.

在“2个薄荷=1个小麦”这个等式表达的交换过程中，左侧和右侧不仅有相同的性质（即都被视为Value），而且都凝结着相同数量的抽象劳动，即含有相同数量的Value。

The equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen are worth one
coat, implies that the same quantity of value substance (congealed labour) is
embodied in both; that the two commodities have each cost the same amount of
labour of the same quantity of labour time. But the labour time necessary for
the production of 20 yards of linen or 1 coat varies with every change in the
productiveness of weaving or tailoring. We have now to consider the influence of
such changes on the quantitative aspect of the relative expression of value.

商品的Value是由社会必要劳动时间决定的，社会必要劳动时间是随着生产力的变化而变化的。因此，一种商品的生产力提高，意味着此商品的单位Value就降低。反之亦然。

【下面几段就是描述各种提高降低的情形，当做课后阅读吧。】

I. Let the value of the linen vary, that of the coat remaining constant. If, say
in consequence of the exhaustion of flax-growing soil, the labour time necessary
for the production of the linen be doubled, the value of the linen will also be
doubled. Instead of the equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, we should have 20
yards of linen = 2 coats, since 1 coat would now contain only half the labour
time embodied in 20 yards of linen. If, on the other hand, in consequence, say,
of improved looms, this labour time be reduced by one-half, the value of the
linen would fall by one-half. Consequently, we should have 20 yards of linen = ½
coat. The relative value of commodity A, i.e., its value expressed in
commodity B, rises and falls directly as the value of A, the value of B being
supposed constant.

II. Let the value of the linen remain constant, while the value of the coat
varies. If, under these circumstances, in consequence, for instance, of a poor
crop of wool, the labour time necessary for the production of a coat becomes
doubled, we have instead of 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, 20 yards of linen = ½
coat. If, on the other hand, the value of the coat sinks by one-half, then 20
yards of linen = 2 coats. Hence, if the value of commodity A remain constant,
its relative value expressed in commodity B rises and falls inversely as the
value of B.

If we compare the different cases in I and II, we see that the same change of
magnitude in relative value may arise from totally opposite causes. Thus, the
equation, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, becomes 20 yards of linen = 2 coats,
either, because the value of the linen has doubled, or because the value of the
coat has fallen by one-half; and it becomes 20 yards of linen = ½ coat, either,
because the value of the linen has fallen by one-half, or because the value of
the coat has doubled.

III. Let the quantities of labour time respectively necessary for the production
of the linen and the coat vary simultaneously in the same direction and in the
same proportion. In this case 20 yards of linen continue equal to 1 coat,
however much their values may have altered. Their change of value is seen as
soon as they are compared with a third commodity, whose value has remained
constant. If the values of all commodities rose or fell simultaneously, and in
the same proportion, their relative values would remain unaltered. Their real
change of value would appear from the diminished or increased quantity of
commodities produced in a given time.

IV. The labour time respectively necessary for the production of the linen and
the coat, and therefore the value of these commodities may simultaneously vary
in the same direction, but at unequal rates or in opposite directions, or in
other ways. The effect of all these possible different variations, on the
relative value of a commodity, may be deduced from the results of I, II, and
III.

Thus real changes in the magnitude of value are neither unequivocally nor
exhaustively reflected in their relative expression, that is, in the equation
expressing the magnitude of relative value. The relative value of a commodity
may vary, although its value remains constant. Its relative value may remain
constant, although its value varies; and finally, simultaneous variations in the
magnitude of value and in that of its relative expression by no means
necessarily correspond in amount.

3. The Equivalent form of value

Value的等价形式

We have seen that commodity A (the linen), by expressing its value in the use
value of a commodity differing in kind (the coat), at the same time impresses
upon the latter a specific form of value, namely that of the equivalent. The
commodity linen manifests its quality of having a value by the fact that the
coat, without having assumed a value form different from its bodily form, is
equated to the linen. The fact that the latter therefore has a value is
expressed by saying that the coat is directly exchangeable with it. Therefore,
when we say that a commodity is in the equivalent form, we express the fact that
it is directly exchangeable with other commodities.

当我们说“一个商品处于等价形式（即此商品位于等式右侧）”时，我们说的是“他人可以拿着此商品与我的商品交换”这件事。

When one commodity, such as a coat, serves as the equivalent of another, such as
linen, and coats consequently acquire the characteristic property of being
directly exchangeable with linen, we are far from knowing in what proportion the
two are exchangeable. The value of the linen being given in magnitude, that
proportion depends on the value of the coat. Whether the coat serves as the
equivalent and the linen as relative value, or the linen as the equivalent and
the coat as relative value, the magnitude of the coat’s value is determined,
independently of its value form, by the labour time necessary for its
production. But whenever the coat assumes in the equation of value, the position
of equivalent, its value acquires no quantitative expression; on the contrary,
the commodity coat now figures only as a definite quantity of some article.

左侧（薄荷）与右侧（小麦）交换的比例，取决于左侧和右侧商品Value的比例，即生产左侧和右侧商品的社会必要劳动时间的比例。这个比例与Value的表现形式无关。在“2个薄荷=1个小麦”这个等式表达的交换过程中，左侧（薄荷）的Value通过右侧（小麦）的使用价值的形式表达出来了，但右侧（小麦）的Value没有被任何形式表达出来。右侧的商品只是充当一定量的某物。

For instance, 40 yards of linen are worth – what? 2 coats. Because the commodity
coat here plays the part of equivalent, because the use-value coat, as opposed
to the linen, figures as an embodiment of value, therefore a definite number of
coats suffices to express the definite quantity of value in the linen. Two coats
may therefore express the quantity of value of 40 yards of linen, but they can
never express the quantity of their own value. A superficial observation of this
fact, namely, that in the equation of value, the equivalent figures exclusively
as a simple quantity of some article, of some use value, has misled Bailey, as
also many others, both before and after him, into seeing, in the expression of
value, merely a quantitative relation. The truth being, that when a commodity
acts as equivalent, no quantitative determination of its value is expressed.

例如，2个薄荷值“什么”呢？哦，值1个小麦。右侧（小麦）表达了左侧（薄荷）的Value，因此右侧（小麦）的一定数量就表达了左侧（薄荷）的Value的一定数量。2个小麦可以表示4个薄荷的Value，但无法表示2个小麦自己的Value。贝利（Bailey）及其先驱者后继者，对此的了解很肤浅，他们认为“2个薄荷=1个小麦”只含有使用价值的数量关系。

The first peculiarity that strikes us, in considering the form of the
equivalent, is this: use value becomes the form of manifestation, the phenomenal
form of its opposite, value.

等价形式的第一个特点是：使用价值成为Value的表现形式、现象形式。

The bodily form of the commodity becomes its value form. But, mark well, that
this quid pro quo exists in the case of any commodity B, only when some other
commodity A enters into a value relation with it, and then only within the
limits of this relation. Since no commodity can stand in the relation of
equivalent to itself, and thus turn its own bodily shape into the expression of
its own value, every commodity is compelled to choose some other commodity for
its equivalent, and to accept the use value, that is to say, the bodily shape of
that other commodity as the form of its own value.

One of the measures that we apply to commodities as material substances, as use
values, will serve to illustrate this point. A sugar-loaf being a body, is
heavy, and therefore has weight: but we can neither see nor touch this weight.
We then take various pieces of iron, whose weight has been determined
beforehand. The iron, as iron, is no more the form of manifestation of weight,
than is the sugar-loaf. Nevertheless, in order to express the sugar-loaf as so
much weight, we put it into a weight-relation with the iron. In this relation,
the iron officiates as a body representing nothing but weight. A certain
quantity of iron therefore serves as the measure of the weight of the sugar, and
represents, in relation to the sugar-loaf, weight embodied, the form of
manifestation of weight. This part is played by the iron only within this
relation, into which the sugar or any other body, whose weight has to be
determined, enters with the iron. Were they not both heavy, they could not enter
into this relation, and the one could therefore not serve as the expression of
the weight of the other. When we throw both into the scales, we see in reality,
that as weight they are both the same, and that, therefore, when taken in proper
proportions, they have the same weight. Just as the substance iron, as a measure
of weight, represents in relation to the sugar-loaf weight alone, so, in our
expression of value, the material object, coat, in relation to the linen,
represents value alone.

举个例子。棒棒糖有重量，但我们看不到也摸不到“重量”。所以我们找来几个小铁块，这些铁块的重量是预先确定了的。铁块与棒棒糖一样，都不是重量的表现形式。但为了展现棒棒糖有多少重量，我们把它和铁块放到天平上，这就使两者建立了重量方面的关系。一定量的铁块可以度量棒棒糖的重量，可以在重量关系中表达棒棒糖的重量，可以成为棒棒糖的重量的表现形式。铁块只在它与棒棒糖有重量关系的时候，才扮演“重量的表现形式”这个角色。如果它们都没有“重”这个属性，他们就无法建立重量关系。把它们放在天平上，我们会在现实中看到，它们在“重”方面是相同的，在某个比例下，它们的重量相等。铁块这个物体，作为重量的标尺，对于棒棒糖来说，只表示棒棒糖的重量。类似的，右侧（小麦）这个物体，对左侧（薄荷）来说，只代表Value。

Here, however, the analogy ceases. The iron, in the expression of the weight of
the sugar-loaf, represents a natural property common to both bodies, namely
their weight; but the coat, in the expression of value of the linen, represents
a non-natural property of both, something purely social, namely, their value.

类比到此为止。铁块在表示棒棒糖的重量时，表示的是一种双方共有的自然属性，即它们的重量。但在“2个薄荷=1个小麦”这个等式中，小麦表示的是一种双方共有的非自然属性，一种纯社会的属性，即Value。

Since the relative form of value of a commodity – the linen, for example –
expresses the value of that commodity, as being something wholly different from
its substance and properties, as being, for instance, coat-like, we see that
this expression itself indicates that some social relation lies at the bottom of
it. With the equivalent form it is just the contrary. The very essence of this
form is that the material commodity itself – the coat – just as it is, expresses
value, and is endowed with the form of value by Nature itself. Of course this
holds good only so long as the value relation exists, in which the coat stands
in the position of equivalent to the linen. Since, however, the properties of a
thing are not the result of its relations to other things, but only manifest
themselves in such relations, the coat seems to be endowed with its equivalent
form, its property of being directly exchangeable, just as much by Nature as it
is endowed with the property of being heavy, or the capacity to keep us warm.
Hence the enigmatical character of the equivalent form which escapes the notice
of the bourgeois political economist, until this form, completely developed,
confronts him in the shape of money. He then seeks to explain away the mystical
character of gold and silver, by substituting for them less dazzling
commodities, and by reciting, with ever renewed satisfaction, the catalogue of
all possible commodities which at one time or another have played the part of
equivalent. He has not the least suspicion that the most simple expression of
value, such as 20 yds of linen = 1 coat, already propounds the riddle of the
equivalent form for our solution.

一种商品（薄荷）Value的相对形式，用另一种完全不同的商品（小麦）来表达。这个表达式就说明其背后有某种非自然界的关系，即社会关系。而等价形式恰恰相反。小麦能表示Value，因而小麦具有Value形式。物与物的关系显露出物的属性，但物的属性不是这些关系的结果。【然而人们常常看到物与物的某种关系，就认为物具有某种属性】小麦似乎是天然地具有“可与其他商品交换”的属性，就像小麦天然地具有“可以充饥”的属性一样。因此，资产阶级政治经济学家没有注意到这个谜题，直到等价形式发展为完全体（即货币形态）时，才被他们注意到。用不那么耀眼的商品，用曾经在某个时期充当过等价物的商品，代替耀眼的金银，他们以此来解释金银的神秘。【唉，找一些资产阶级经济学家的书看看，方知Marx是集大成者】他们就从没认识到，Value的基本表现形式（例如“2个薄荷=1个小麦”），就已经提出等价形式的谜题了。

The body of the commodity that serves as the equivalent, figures as the
materialisation of human labour in the abstract, and is at the same time the
product of some specifically useful concrete labour. This concrete labour
becomes, therefore, the medium for expressing abstract human labour. If on the
one hand the coat ranks as nothing but the embodiment of abstract human labour,
so, on the other hand, the tailoring which is actually embodied in it, counts as
nothing but the form under which that abstract labour is realised. In the
expression of value of the linen, the utility of the tailoring consists, not in
making clothes, but in making an object, which we at once recognise to be Value,
and therefore to be a congelation of labour, but of labour indistinguishable
from that realised in the value of the linen. In order to act as such a mirror
of value, the labour of tailoring must reflect nothing besides its own abstract
quality of being human labour generally.

充当等价物的小麦，是物化的抽象人类劳动，同时是某种具体劳动。这个具体劳动成为了表达抽象劳动的媒介。例如，将“小麦”视为物化的抽象人类劳动，就是将“种植”视为实现抽象人类劳动的形式。

In tailoring, as well as in weaving, human labour power is expended. Both,
therefore, possess the general property of being human labour, and may,
therefore, in certain cases, such as in the production of value, have to be
considered under this aspect alone. There is nothing mysterious in this. But in
the expression of value there is a complete turn of the tables. For instance,
how is the fact to be expressed that weaving creates the value of the linen, not
by virtue of being weaving, as such, but by reason of its general property of
being human labour? Simply by opposing to weaving that other particular form of
concrete labour (in this instance tailoring), which produces the equivalent of
the product of weaving. Just as the coat in its bodily form became a direct
expression of value, so now does tailoring, a concrete form of labour, appear as
the direct and palpable embodiment of human labour generally.

Hence, the second peculiarity of the equivalent form is, that concrete labour
becomes the form under which its opposite, abstract human labour, manifests
itself.

等价形式的第二个特点：具体劳动成为抽象劳动的表现形式。

But because this concrete labour, tailoring in our case, ranks as, and is
directly identified with, undifferentiated human labour, it also ranks as
identical with any other sort of labour, and therefore with that embodied in the
linen. Consequently, although, like all other commodity-producing labour, it is
the labour of private individuals, yet, at the same time, it ranks as labour
directly social in its character. This is the reason why it results in a product
directly exchangeable with other commodities. We have then a third peculiarity
of the equivalent form, namely, that the labour of private individuals takes the
form of its opposite, labour directly social in its form.

具体劳动是个人的劳动，抽象劳动是社会的劳动。等价形式的第三个特点：个人劳动成为它的对立面的形式，成为直接社会形式的劳动。【小麦是我种植的，“种植小麦”是我的个人劳动。将小麦卖给社会，换取我需要的其他商品，这是我的目的，“种植小麦”是我作为社会一份子的劳动。】

The two latter peculiarities of the equivalent form will become more
intelligible if we go back to the great thinker who was the first to analyse so
many forms, whether of thought, society, or Nature, and amongst them also the
form of value. I mean Aristotle.

如果我们回顾一位伟大思想家，等价形式的后2个特点就更好理解了。他分析了很多形式，包括思想的形式、社会的形式、自然的形式、Value的形式。我说的是亚里士多德（Aristotle）。【这个回顾特别精彩】

In the first place, he clearly enunciates that the money form of commodities is
only the further development of the simple form of value – i.e., of the
expression of the value of one commodity in some other commodity taken at
random; for he says:

5 beds = 1 house
is not to be distinguished from
5 beds = so much money.

首先，他说，商品的货币形式是Value的简单形式的进一步发展。他说：
“5张床=1间屋”无异于“5张床=若干货币”。

He further sees that the value relation which gives rise to this expression
makes it necessary that the house should qualitatively be made the equal of the
bed, and that, without such an equalisation, these two clearly different things
could not be compared with each other as commensurable quantities. “Exchange,”
he says, “cannot take place without equality, and equality not without
commensurability". Here, however, he comes to
a stop, and gives up the further analysis of the form of value. “It is, however,
in reality, impossible, that such unlike things
can be commensurable” – i.e., qualitatively equal. Such an equalisation can
only be something foreign to their real nature, consequently only “a makeshift
for practical purposes.”

他看到，两个商品的Value关系要求“床”和“屋”有相同的性质，否则两者无法划等号。他说：“没有相等的数量，就无法交换；没有相同的性质，就不可能有相同的数量”。但他就此打住，放弃继续分析Value形式。他说：“但实际上，这些不同的物不可能有相同的性质”。按他的说法，这种相同只能是物本性之外的东西，即“应付实际需要的权宜之计”。

Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us what barred the way to his further
analysis; it was the absence of any concept of value. What is that equal
something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being
expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And
why not? Compared with the beds, the house does represent something equal to
them, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both in the beds and the
house. And that is – human labour.

亚里士多德自己告诉了我们，是什么挡住了他进一步分析的去路。那就是缺少Value的概念。那个相等的东西是什么？在这个等式中“屋”和“床”等同的实体是什么？亚里士多德说，这种东西不可能存在。为什么不呢？只要“屋”代表着“床”和“屋”二者体内真正等同的东西，对“床”来说，“屋”就代表了一种等同的东西。那就是人类劳动。

There was, however, an important fact which prevented Aristotle from seeing
that, to attribute value to commodities, is merely a mode of expressing all
labour as equal human labour, and consequently as labour of equal quality. Greek
society was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its natural basis, the
inequality of men and of their labour powers. The secret of the expression of
value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and
so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the
notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice.
This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the
produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the
dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities. The
brilliancy of Aristotle’s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in
the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar
conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from
discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality.

有一个重要的事实，阻碍了亚里士多德的分析。将所有劳动都视为平等的人类劳动，即性质相同的劳动，这是商品的Value属性的实质。希腊社会建立在奴隶制基础上，人和人的劳动力自然是不平等的。只有在“人人平等”已经是社会牢固的见解的时候，Value表现的秘密，即“各种劳动都是人类劳动，因而具有等同性和同等意义”，才能被揭示出来。【精彩，力透千年】只有在那种社会，即在“劳动产品大都是商品，人与人的主导关系是商品所有者之间的关系”的社会里，这种见解才能固定。亚里士多德的天才闪光点在于，他发现了，在商品的Value表达式中有一种相等关系。他所生活的社会条件，阻碍了他发现这种相等关系“实际上”是什么。

4. The Elementary Form of value considered as a whole

整体考虑Value的基本形式

The elementary form of value of a commodity is contained in the equation,
expressing its value relation to another commodity of a different kind, or in
its exchange relation to the same. The value of commodity A, is qualitatively
expressed, by the fact that commodity B is directly exchangeable with it. Its
value is quantitatively expressed by the fact, that a definite quantity of B is
exchangeable with a definite quantity of A. In other words, the value of a
commodity obtains independent and definite expression, by taking the form of
exchange value. When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said, in common
parlance, that a commodity is both a use value and an exchange value, we were,
accurately speaking, wrong. A commodity is a use value or object of utility, and
a value. It manifests itself as this two-fold thing, that it is, as soon as its
value assumes an independent form – viz., the form of exchange value. It never
assumes this form when isolated, but only when placed in a value or exchange
relation with another commodity of a different kind. When once we know this,
such a mode of expression does no harm; it simply serves as an abbreviation.

“2个薄荷=1个小麦”就是商品Value的基本形式。左侧（薄荷）的Value的性质，通过“右侧（小麦）可与左侧（薄荷）交换”表现出来；左侧（薄荷）的Value的数量，通过“右侧（小麦）的一定数量可与左侧（薄荷）的一定数量交换”表现出来。换句话说，商品的Value通过采用“交换价值”的形式，获得了独立的确定的表达。本章开始时，我们通俗地说，商品是使用价值和交换价值的结合。准确地说，这是错的。商品是使用价值（有用物）和Value的结合。当商品的Value呈现为交换价值的某种形式时，商品就显露出它的二重性。孤立的商品显不出这些形式，只有在与另一种商品的交换过程中（即处于Value关系中，或者说，处于交换关系中）才能显露出来。清楚了这些，“商品是使用价值和交换价值的结合”这个通俗说法就无伤大雅，它只是个简略写法。【后文我就用“商品是使用价值和Value”这个写法了。】

Our analysis has shown, that the form or expression of the value of a commodity
originates in the nature of value, and not that value and its magnitude
originate in the mode of their expression as exchange value. This, however, is
the delusion as well of the mercantilists and their recent revivers, Ferrier,
Ganilh, and others, as also of their antipodes, the modern bagmen of Free-trade,
such as Bastiat. The mercantilists lay special stress on the qualitative aspect
of the expression of value, and consequently on the equivalent form of
commodities, which attains its full perfection in money. The modern hawkers of
Free-trade, who must get rid of their article at any price, on the other hand,
lay most stress on the quantitative aspect of the relative form of value. For
them there consequently exists neither value, nor magnitude of value, anywhere
except in its expression by means of the exchange relation of commodities, that
is, in the daily list of prices current. Macleod, who has taken upon himself to
dress up the confused ideas of Lombard Street in the most learned finery, is a
successful cross between the superstitious mercantilists, and the enlightened
Free-trade bagmen.

我们的分析表明，商品Value的表现形式源于Value的本质。而重商主义者（mercantilist）及其现代复兴者费里埃（Ferrier）、加尼尔（Ganilh）等，还有他们的反对者即自由贸易论者巴师夏（Bastiat）等，对此感到迷惑。他们看到商品可交换，就认为交换价值是商品的Value。重商主义者强调Value表达式中质的方面，从而强调商品的等价形式，这等价形式在货币形式上到达完美。现代自由贸易论者，他们必须以任何价格卖掉他们手上的货物，他们强调Value的相对形式的量的方面。对他们来说，只在商品交换关系（即每日行情表）中才有Value和Value的量。麦克劳德（Macleod）铁肩担大任，用博学的外表粉饰伦八特街（Lombard
Street）的混乱观念，成功地糅合了迷信的重商主义者和开明的自由贸易论者。

A close scrutiny of the expression of the value of A in terms of B, contained in
the equation expressing the value relation of A to B, has shown us that, within
that relation, the bodily form of A figures only as a use value, the bodily form
of B only as the form or aspect of value. The opposition or contrast existing
internally in each commodity between use value and value, is, therefore, made
evident externally by two commodities being placed in such relation to each
other, that the commodity whose value it is sought to express, figures directly
as a mere use value, while the commodity in which that value is to be expressed,
figures directly as mere exchange value. Hence the elementary form of value of a
commodity is the elementary form in which the contrast contained in that
commodity, between use value and value, becomes apparent.

仔细观察“2个薄荷=1个小麦”这个表达式，左侧商品的Value要被表现出来，它只扮演使用价值，右侧商品表现Value，它只扮演交换价值。【通过研究2个商品的左（使用价值）右（交换价值）对立，我们发现了1个商品内部的使用价值和Value的对立。】【前方高能】使用价值和Value在1个商品内部的对立，通过2个商品的对立关系（即交换关系）外部地表现出来了。因此，1个商品的Value的基本形式【即“2个薄荷=1个小麦”】，就是商品【薄荷】内部使用价值和Value相互对立的基本形式。很明显了。【oh Marx】

Every product of labour is, in all states of society, a use value; but it is
only at a definite historical epoch in a society’s development that such a
product becomes a commodity, viz., at the epoch when the labour spent on the
production of a useful article becomes expressed as one of the objective
qualities of that article, i.e., as its value. It therefore follows that the
elementary value form is also the primitive form under which a product of labour
appears historically as a commodity, and that the gradual transformation of such
products into commodities, proceeds pari passu with the development of the
value form.

一切社会状态里，劳动产品都是使用价值；但只在社会发展的某些历史阶段里，劳动产品才成为商品。哪些阶段呢？就是凝结在有用物上的生产劳动被视为物的Value的阶段。因此，商品Value的基本形式也是劳动产品表现为商品的基本形式，劳动产品转化为商品的过程与Value的形式的发展过程相一致。

We perceive, at first sight, the deficiencies of the elementary form of value:
it is a mere germ, which must undergo a series of metamorphoses before it can
ripen into the price form.

一看就知道，商品Value的基本形式只是一个胚芽，它要经历一系列变形，才能达到成熟的价格形式。

The expression of the value of commodity A in terms of any other commodity B,
merely distinguishes the value from the use value of A, and therefore places A
merely in a relation of exchange with a single different commodity, B; but it is
still far from expressing A’s qualitative equality, and quantitative
proportionality, to all commodities. To the elementary relative value form of a
commodity, there corresponds the single equivalent form of one other commodity.
Thus, in the relative expression of value of the linen, the coat assumes the
form of equivalent, or of being directly exchangeable, only in relation to a
single commodity, the linen.

Nevertheless, the elementary form of value passes by an easy transition into a
more complete form. It is true that by means of the elementary form, the value
of a commodity A, becomes expressed in terms of one, and only one, other
commodity. But that one may be a commodity of any kind, coat, iron, corn, or
anything else. Therefore, according as A is placed in relation with one or the
other, we get for one and the same commodity, different elementary expressions
of value. The number of such possible expressions is limited only by the number
of the different kinds of commodities distinct from it. The isolated expression
of A’s value, is therefore convertible into a series, prolonged to any length,
of the different elementary expressions of that value.

商品Value的基本形式会轻松地过渡到更完全的形式。基本形式中，左侧商品的Value用右侧商品表现出来了。但右侧商品可以是任何一种（衣服、铁、米等）。【左侧商品可以与各种商品交换】因此，在右侧分别放入不同的商品，我们就得到了左侧商品Value的不同的基本形式。有N种商品，就有（N-1）种基本形式。这样，左侧商品Value的表现形式，就转化为一个可延长的、各种基本形式的系列。

B. Total or Expanded Form of value

z Com. A = u Com. B or = v Com. C or = w Com. D or =x Com. E or = &c.
(20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lbs tea or = 40 lbs. coffee or
= 1 quarter corn or = 2 ounces gold or = ½ ton iron or = &c.)

Value的总和形式或扩展形式
z量商品A=u量商品B，或=v量商品C，或=w量商品D，或=x量商品E，或=其他
（2薄荷=1小麦，或=2铜矿，或=3铁矿，或=5柏木，或=1草鱼，或=其他）