018-Chapter-5-Contradictions-in-the-General-Formula-of-Capital

Chapter 5: Contradictions in the General Formula of Capital

资本的一般公式中的矛盾

The form which circulation takes when money becomes capital, is opposed to all
the laws we have hitherto investigated bearing on the nature of commodities,
value and money, and even of circulation itself. What distinguishes this form
from that of the simple circulation of commodities, is the inverted order of
succession of the two antithetical processes, sale and purchase. How can this
purely formal distinction between these processes change their character as it
were by magic?

But that is not all. This inversion has no existence for two out of the three
persons who transact business together. As capitalist, I buy commodities from A
and sell them again to B, but as a simple owner of commodities, I sell them to B
and then purchase fresh ones from A. A and B see no difference between the two
sets of transactions. They are merely buyers or sellers. And I on each occasion
meet them as a mere owner of either money or commodities, as a buyer or a
seller, and, what is more, in both sets of transactions, I am opposed to A only
as a buyer and to B only as a seller, to the one only as money, to the other
only as commodities, and to neither of them as capital or a capitalist, or as
representative of anything that is more than money or commodities, or that can
produce any effect beyond what money and commodities can. For me the purchase
from A and the sale to B are part of a series. But the connexion between the two
acts exists for me alone. A does not trouble himself about my transaction with
B, nor does B about my business with A. And if I offered to explain to them the
meritorious nature of my action in inverting the order of succession, they would
probably point out to me that I was mistaken as to that order of succession, and
that the whole transaction, instead of beginning with a purchase and ending with
a sale, began, on the contrary, with a sale and was concluded with a purchase.
In truth, my first act, the purchase, was from the standpoint of A, a sale, and
my second act, the sale, was from the standpoint of B, a purchase. Not content
with that, A and B would declare that the whole series was superfluous and
nothing but Hokus Pokus; that for the future A would buy direct from B, and B
sell direct to A. Thus the whole transaction would be reduced to a single act
forming an isolated, non-complemented phase in the ordinary circulation of
commodities, a mere sale from A’s point of view, and from B’s, a mere purchase.
The inversion, therefore, of the order of succession, does not take us outside
the sphere of the simple circulation of commodities, and we must rather look,
whether there is in this simple circulation anything permitting an expansion of
the value that enters into circulation, and, consequently, a creation of
surplus-value.

Let us take the process of circulation in a form under which it presents itself
as a simple and direct exchange of commodities. This is always the case when two
owners of commodities buy from each other, and on the settling day the amounts
mutually owing are equal and cancel each other. The money in this case is money
of account and serves to express the value of the commodities by their prices,
but is not, itself, in the shape of hard cash, confronted with them. So far as
regards use-values, it is clear that both parties may gain some advantage. Both
part with goods that, as use-values, are of no service to them, and receive
others that they can make use of. And there may also be a further gain. A, who
sells wine and buys corn, possibly produces more wine, with given labour-time,
than farmer B could, and B on the other hand, more corn than wine-grower A
could. A, therefore, may get, for the same exchange-value, more corn, and B more
wine, than each would respectively get without any exchange by producing his own
corn and wine. With reference, therefore, to use-value, there is good ground for
saying that “exchange is a transaction by which both sides gain.” It is
otherwise with exchange-value. “A man who has plenty of wine and no corn treats
with a man who has plenty of corn and no wine; an exchange takes place between
them of corn to the value of 50, for wine of the same value. This act produces
no increase of exchange-value either for the one or the other; for each of them
already possessed, before the exchange, a value equal to that which he acquired
by means of that operation.” The result is not altered by introducing money, as
a medium of circulation, between the commodities, and making the sale and the
purchase two distinct acts. The value of a commodity is expressed in its price
before it goes into circulation, and is therefore a precedent condition of
circulation, not its result.

Abstractedly considered, that is, apart from circumstances not immediately
flowing from the laws of the simple circulation of commodities, there is in an
exchange nothing (if we except the replacing of one use-value by another) but a
metamorphosis, a mere change in the form of the commodity. The same
exchange-value, i.e., the same quantity of incorporated social labour, remains
throughout in the hands of the owner of the commodity, first in the shape of his
own commodity, then in the form of the money for which he exchanged it, and
lastly, in the shape of the commodity he buys with that money. This change of
form does not imply a change in the magnitude of the value. But the change,
which the value of the commodity undergoes in this process, is limited to a
change in its money-form. This form exists first as the price of the commodity
offered for sale, then as an actual sum of money, which, however, was already
expressed in the price, and lastly, as the price of an equivalent commodity.
This change of form no more implies, taken alone, a change in the quantity of
value, than does the change of a £5 note into sovereigns, half sovereigns and
shillings. So far therefore as the circulation of commodities effects a change
in the form alone of their values, and is free from disturbing influences, it
must be the exchange of equivalents. Little as Vulgar-Economy knows about the
nature of value, yet whenever it wishes to consider the phenomena of circulation
in their purity, it assumes that supply and demand are equal, which amounts to
this, that their effect is nil. If therefore, as regards the use-values
exchanged, both buyer and seller may possibly gain something, this is not the
case as regards the exchange-values. Here we must rather say, “Where equality
exists there can be no gain.” It is true, commodities may be sold at prices
deviating from their values, but these deviations are to be considered as
infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities, which in its normal
state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing
value.

就使用价值看，交易双方都能得到利益，但在交换价值上，双方都不能得到利益。商品交换就其纯粹形态来说是等价物的交换，因此，不是增大Value的手段。

Hence, we see that behind all attempts to represent the circulation of
commodities as a source of surplus-value, there lurks a quid pro quo, a mixing
up of use-value and exchange-value. For instance, Condillac says: “It is not
true that on an exchange of commodities we give value for value. On the
contrary, each of the two contracting parties in every case, gives a less for a
greater value. ... If we really exchanged equal values, neither party could make
a profit. And yet, they both gain, or ought to gain. Why? The value of a thing
consists solely in its relation to our wants. What is more to the one is less to
the other, and vice versâ. ... It is not to be assumed that we offer for sale
articles required for our own consumption. ... We wish to part with a useless
thing, in order to get one that we need; we want to give less for more. ... It
was natural to think that, in an exchange, value was given for value, whenever
each of the articles exchanged was of equal value with the same quantity of
gold. ... But there is another point to be considered in our calculation. The
question is, whether we both exchange something superfluous for something
necessary.” We see in this passage, how Condillac not only confuses use-value
with exchange-value, but in a really childish manner assumes, that in a society,
in which the production of commodities is well developed, each producer produces
his own means of subsistence, and throws into circulation only the excess over
his own requirements Still, Condillac’s argument is frequently used by modern
economists, more especially when the point is to show, that the exchange of
commodities in its developed form, commerce, is productive of surplus-value. For
instance, “Commerce ... adds value to products, for the same products in the
hands of consumers, are worth more than in the hands of producers, and it may
strictly be considered an act of production.” But commodities are not paid for
twice over, once on account of their use-value, and again on account of their
value. And though the use-value of a commodity is more serviceable to the buyer
than to the seller, its money-form is more serviceable to the seller. Would he
otherwise sell it? We might therefore just as well say that the buyer performs
“strictly an act of production,” by converting stockings, for example, into
money.

因此，那些试图把商品流通说成是剩余价值的源泉的人，大多是把使用价值与交换价值混淆了。例如孔狄亚克（Condillac）说：“认为在商品交换中是等量的价值交换等量的价值，那是错误的。恰恰相反，契约当事人双方总是用较小的价值去换取较大的价值……如果真的总是等量的价值交换，那么契约当事人的任何一方都不会得到利益。但双方都得到利益，或都应该得到利益。为什么呢？物的价值只在于物和我们的需要的关系。某物对一个人来说是多了，对另一个人来说则是少了，或者相反……不能设想，我们会把自己消费所必需的物拿去卖……我们是要把自己用不着的东西拿去卖，以取得自己需要的东西；我们是要以少换多……人们自然会认为，只要每个被交换的物在价值上等于同一货币量，那就是等量的价值交换等量的价值……但还必须考虑到另一方面；试问：我们双方不是都用剩余物来交换需要物吗？”我们看到，孔狄亚克不但把使用价值和交换价值混在一起，而且十分幼稚地把商品生产发达的社会硬说成是这样一种状态：生产者自己生产自己的生产资料，而只把满足自己需要以后的余额即剩余物投入流通。然而，孔狄亚克的论据经常被现代经济学家重复，特别是当他们要说明商品交换的发达形态即贸易会产生剩余价值的时候。例如，有人说：“贸易使产品增添价值，因为同一产品在消费者手里比在生产者手里具有更大的价值，因此，严格来说，贸易应看做是一种生产活动。”但是，
人们不会为购买商品付2次钱：一次为它的使用价值，一次为它的Value。如果说商品的使用价值对买者比对卖者更有用，那么商品的货币形式对卖者比对买者就更有用。不然他何必出卖商品呢？因此，我们同样可以说，例如，买者把商人的袜子转化为货币，严格来说，就是完成一种“生产活动”。

If commodities, or commodities and money, of equal exchange-value, and
consequently equivalents, are exchanged, it is plain that no one abstracts more
value from, than he throws into, circulation. There is no creation of
surplus-value. And, in its normal form, the circulation of commodities demands
the exchange of equivalents. But in actual practice, the process does not retain
its normal form. Let us, therefore, assume an exchange of non-equivalents.

如果交换的商品Value相等，
就不会产生剩余价值。但实际上，事情并不是纯粹地进行的。因此，交换的商品Value可能是不等的。【但交换前后，商品的总Value不会增加，因而社会总体上不会产生剩余价值。】

In any case the market for commodities is only frequented by owners of
commodities, and the power which these persons exercise over each other, is no
other than the power of their commodities. The material variety of these
commodities is the material incentive to the act of exchange, and makes buyers
and sellers mutually dependent, because none of them possesses the object of his
own wants, and each holds in his hand the object of another’s wants. Besides
these material differences of their use-values, there is only one other
difference between commodities, namely, that between their bodily form and the
form into which they are converted by sale, the difference between commodities
and money. And consequently the owners of commodities are distinguishable only
as sellers, those who own commodities, and buyers, those who own money.

Suppose then, that by some inexplicable privilege, the seller is enabled to sell
his commodities above their value, what is worth 100 for 110, in which case the
price is nominally raised 10%. The seller therefore pockets a surplus-value of
10. But after he has sold he becomes a buyer. A third owner of commodities comes
to him now as seller, who in this capacity also enjoys the privilege of selling
his commodities 10% too dear. Our friend gained 10 as a seller only to lose it
again as a buyer. The net result is, that all owners of commodities sell their
goods to one another at 10% above their value, which comes precisely to the same
as if they sold them at their true value. Such a general and nominal rise of
prices has the same effect as if the values had been expressed in weight of
silver instead of in weight of gold. The nominal prices of commodities would
rise, but the real relation between their values would remain unchanged.

Let us make the opposite assumption, that the buyer has the privilege of
purchasing commodities under their value. In this case it is no longer necessary
to bear in mind that he in his turn will become a seller. He was so before he
became buyer; he had already lost 10% in selling before he gained 10% as buyer.
Everything is just as it was.

The creation of surplus-value, and therefore the conversion of money into
capital, can consequently be explained neither on the assumption that
commodities are sold above their value, nor that they are bought below their
value.

因此，剩余价值不是由于高于Value出售商品或低于Value购买商品而产生的。

The problem is in no way simplified by introducing irrelevant matters after the
manner of Col. Torrens: “Effectual demand consists in the power and inclination
(!), on the part of consumers, to give for commodities, either by immediate or
circuitous barter, some greater portion of ... capital than their production
costs.” In relation to circulation, producers and consumers meet only as buyers
and sellers. To assert that the surplus-value acquired by the producer has its
origin in the fact that consumers pay for commodities more than their value, is
only to say in other words: The owner of commodities possesses, as a seller, the
privilege of selling too dear. The seller has himself produced the commodities
or represents their producer, but the buyer has to no less extent produced the
commodities represented by his money, or represents their producer. The
distinction between them is, that one buys and the other sells. The fact that
the owner of the commodities, under the designation of producer, sells them over
their value, and under the designation of consumer, pays too much for them, does
not carry us a single step further.

To be consistent therefore, the upholders of the delusion that surplus-value has
its origin in a nominal rise of prices or in the privilege which the seller has
of selling too dear, must assume the existence of a class that only buys and
does not sell, i.e., only consumes and does not produce. The existence of such a
class is inexplicable from the standpoint we have so far reached, viz., that of
simple circulation. But let us anticipate. The money with which such a class is
constantly making purchases, must constantly flow into their pockets, without
any exchange, gratis, by might or right, from the pockets of the
commodity-owners themselves. To sell commodities above their value to such a
class, is only to crib back again a part of the money previously given to it.
The towns of Asia Minor thus paid a yearly money tribute to ancient Rome. With
this money Rome purchased from them commodities, and purchased them too dear.
The provincials cheated the Romans, and thus got back from their conquerors, in
the course of trade, a portion of the tribute. Yet, for all that, the conquered
were the really cheated. Their goods were still paid for with their own money.
That is not the way to get rich or to create surplus-value.

Let us therefore keep within the bounds of exchange where sellers are also
buyers, and buyers, sellers. Our difficulty may perhaps have arisen from
treating the actors as personifications instead of as individuals.

A may be clever enough to get the advantage of B or C without their being able
to retaliate. A sells wine worth £40 to B, and obtains from him in exchange corn
to the value of £50. A has converted his £40 into £50, has made more money out
of less, and has converted his commodities into capital. Let us examine this a
little more closely. Before the exchange we had £40 worth of wine in the hands
of A, and £50 worth of corn in those of B, a total value of £90. After the
exchange we have still the same total value of £90. The value in circulation has
not increased by one iota, it is only distributed differently between A and B.
What is a loss of value to B is surplus-value to A; what is “minus” to one is
“plus” to the other. The same change would have taken place, if A, without the
formality of an exchange, had directly stolen the £10 from B. The sum of the
values in circulation can clearly not be augmented by any change in their
distribution, any more than the quantity of the precious metals in a country by
a Jew selling a Queen Anne’s farthing for a guinea. The capitalist class, as a
whole, in any country, cannot over-reach themselves.

流通中的Value没有增大一个原子，只是在交易双方之间的分配改变了。一方的增加，是另一方的减少。显然，流通中的Value总量无论其分配情况如何都不会增大。一个国家的整个资本家阶级无法靠欺骗自己来发财致富。

Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are
exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still
no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value.

可见，流通（商品交换）不能创造Value。

The reason is now therefore plain why, in analysing the standard form of
capital, the form under which it determines the economic organisation of modern
society, we entirely left out of consideration its most popular, and, so to say,
antediluvian forms, merchants’ capital and money-lenders’ capital.

The circuit M-C-M, buying in order to sell dearer, is seen most clearly in
genuine merchants’ capital. But the movement takes place entirely within the
sphere of circulation. Since, however, it is impossible, by circulation alone,
to account for the conversion of money into capital, for the formation of
surplus-value, it would appear, that merchants’ capital is an impossibility, so
long as equivalents are exchanged; that, therefore, it can only have its origin
in the two-fold advantage gained, over both the selling and the buying
producers, by the merchant who parasitically shoves himself in between them. It
is in this sense that Franklin says, “war is robbery, commerce is generally
cheating.” If the transformation of merchants’ money into capital is to be
explained otherwise than by the producers being simply cheated, a long series of
intermediate steps would be necessary, which, at present, when the simple
circulation of commodities forms our only assumption, are entirely wanting.

What we have said with reference to merchants’ capital, applies still more
to money-lenders’ capital. In merchants’ capital, the two extremes, the
money that is thrown upon the market, and the augmented money that is
withdrawn from the market, are at least connected by a purchase and a sale,
in other words by the movement of the circulation. In money-lenders’ capital
the form M-C-M is reduced to the two extremes without a mean, M-M , money
exchanged for more money, a form that is incompatible with the nature of
money, and therefore remains inexplicable from the standpoint of the
circulation of commodities. Hence Aristotle: “since chrematistic is a double
science, one part belonging to commerce, the other to economic, the latter
being necessary and praiseworthy, the former based on circulation and with
justice disapproved (for it is not based on Nature, but on mutual cheating),
therefore the usurer is most rightly hated, because money itself is the
source of his gain, and is not used for the purposes for which it was
invented. For it originated for the exchange of commodities, but interest
makes out of money, more money. Hence its name (τοκος interest and
offspring). For the begotten are like those who beget them. But interest is
money of money, so that of all modes of making a living, this is the most
contrary to Nature.”

In the course of our investigation, we shall find that both merchants’ capital
and interest-bearing capital are derivative forms, and at the same time it will
become clear, why these two forms appear in the course of history before the
modern standard form of capital.

在我们的研究进程中，我们会发现，商业资本和生息资本都是派生的形式，也会发现，为什么它们在历史上的出现早于资本的现代基本形式。

We have shown that surplus-value cannot be created by circulation, and,
therefore, that in its formation, something must take place in the background,
which is not apparent in the circulation itself. But can surplus-value possibly
originate anywhere else than in circulation, which is the sum total of all the
mutual relations of commodity-owners, as far as they are determined by their
commodities? Apart from circulation, the commodity-owner is in relation only
with his own commodity. So far as regards value, that relation is limited to
this, that the commodity contains a quantity of his own labour, that quantity
being measured by a definite social standard. This quantity is expressed by the
value of the commodity, and since the value is reckoned in money of account,
this quantity is also expressed by the price, which we will suppose to be £10.
But his labour is not represented both by the value of the commodity, and by a
surplus over that value, not by a price of 10 that is also a price of 11, not by
a value that is greater than itself. The commodity owner can, by his labour,
create value, but not self-expanding value. He can increase the value of his
commodity, by adding fresh labour, and therefore more value to the value in
hand, by making, for instance, leather into boots. The same material has now
more value, because it contains a greater quantity of labour. The boots have
therefore more value than the leather, but the value of the leather remains what
it was; it has not expanded itself, has not, during the making of the boots,
annexed surplus-value. It is therefore impossible that outside the sphere of
circulation, a producer of commodities can, without coming into contact with
other commodity-owners, expand value, and consequently convert money or
commodities into capital.

It is therefore impossible for capital to be produced by circulation, and it is
equally impossible for it to originate apart from circulation. It must have its
origin both in circulation and yet not in circulation.

因此，资本不能从流通中产生，也不能不从流通中产生。它必须既在流通中又不在流通中产生。【资本无法从流通中产生，也无法离开流通而产生。Max说话怎么这么别扭。】

We have, therefore, got a double result.

这样，我们就得到一个双重的结果。

The conversion of money into capital has to be explained on the basis of the
laws that regulate the exchange of commodities, in such a way that the
starting-point is the exchange of equivalents. Our friend, Moneybags, who as yet
is only an embryo capitalist, must buy his commodities at their value, must sell
them at their value, and yet at the end of the process must withdraw more value
from circulation than he threw into it at starting. His development into a
full-grown capitalist must take place, both within the sphere of circulation and
without it. These are the conditions of the problem. Hic Rhodus, hic salta.

总结一下，货币成为资本，必须以商品交换规律为基础、以等价交换为起点进行说明。那个只是资本家幼虫阶段的大款，按Value买商品，按Value卖商品，而且最终取得的Value大于最初投入的Value。他成为成熟的资本家，必须在商品流通内而又不【仅仅】在商品流通内。这就是问题的条件。万事俱备，鼓起东风吧！