Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 383
  1. #276
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805
    In Scotland the manufacturers try all they can to do without the children that are obliged to attend school.

    “It requires no further argument to prove that the educational clauses of the Factory Act, being held in such disfavour among mill-owners, tend in a great measure to exclude that class of children alike from the employment and the benefit of education contemplated by this Act.” [58]

    Horribly grotesque does this appear in print works, which are regulated by a special Act. By that Act,

    “every child, before being employed in a print work must have attended school for at least 30 days, and not less than 150 hours, during the six months immediately preceding such first day of employment, and during the continuance of its employment in the print works, it must attend for a like period of 30 days, and 150 hours during every successive period of six months.... The attendance at school must be between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. No attendance of less than 2½ hours, nor more than 5 hours on any one day, shall be reckoned as part of the 150 hours. Under ordinary cir stances the children attend school morning and afternoon for 30 days, for at least 5 hours each day, and upon the expiration of the 30 days, the statutory total of 150 hours having been attained, having, in their language, made up their book, they return to the print work, where they continue until the six months have expired, when another instalment of school attendance becomes due, and they again seek the school until the book is again made up.... Many boys having attended school for the required number of hours, when they return to school after the expiration of their six months’ work in the print work, are in the same condition as when they first attended school as print-work boys, that they have lost all they gained by their previous school attendance.... In other print works the children’s attendance at school is made to depend altogether upon the exigencies of the work in the establishment. The requisite number of hours is made up each six months, by instalments consisting of from 3 to 5 hours at a time, spreading over, perhaps, the whole six months.... For instance, the attendance on one day might be from 8 to 11 a.m., on another day from I p.m. to 4 p.m., and the child might not appear at school again for several days, when it would attend from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.; then it might attend for 3 or 4 days consecutively, or for a week, then it would not appear in school for 3 weeks or a month, after that upon some odd days at some odd hours when the operative who employed it chose to spare it; and thus the child was, as it were, buffeted from school to work, from work to school, until the tale of 150 hours was told.” [59]

    By the excessive addition of women and children to the ranks of the workers, machinery at last breaks down the resistance which the male operatives in the manufacturing period continued to oppose to the despotism of capital. [60]

    B. Prolongation of the Working-Day

    If machinery be the most powerful means for increasing the productiveness of labour — i.e., for shortening the working-time required in the production of a commodity, it becomes in the hands of capital the most powerful means, in those industries first invaded by it, for lengthening the working-day beyond all bounds set by human nature. It creates, on the one hand, new conditions by which capital is enabled to give free scope to this its constant tendency, and on the other hand, new motives with which to whet capital’s appe e for the labour of others.

    In the first place, in the form of machinery, the implements of labour become automatic, things moving and working independent of the workman. They are thenceforth an industrial perpetuum mobile, that would go on producing forever, did it not meet with certain natural obstructions in the weak bodies and the strong wills of its human attendants. The automaton, as capital, and because it is capital, is endowed, in the person of the capitalist, with intelligence and will; it is therefore animated by the longing to reduce to a minimum the resistance offered by that repellent yet elastic natural barrier, man. [61] This resistance is moreover lessened by the apparent lightness of machine work, and by the more pliant and docile character of the women and children employed on it. [62]

    The productiveness of machinery is, as we saw, inversely proportional to the value transferred by it to the product. The longer the life of the machine, the greater is the mass of the products over which the value transmitted by the machine is spread, and the less is the portion of that value added to each single commodity. The active lifetime of a machine is, however, clearly dependent on the length of the working-day, or on the duration of the daily labour-process multiplied by the number of days for which the process is carried on.

    The wear and tear of a machine is not exactly proportional to its working-time. And even if it were so, a machine working 16 hours daily for 7½ years, covers as long a working period as, and transmits to the total product no more value than, the same machine would if it worked only 8 hours daily for 15 years. But in the first case the value of the machine would be reproduced twice as quickly as in the latter, and the capitalist would, by this use of the machine, absorb in 7½ years as much surplus-value as in the second case he would in 15.

    The material wear and tear of a machine is of two kinds. The one arises from use, as coins wear away by circulating, the other from non-use, as a sword rusts when left in its scabbard. The latter kind is due to the elements. The former is more or less directly proportional, the latter to a certain extent inversely proportional, to the use of the machine. [63]

    But in addition to the material wear and tear, a machine also undergoes, what we may call a moral depreciation. It loses exchange-value, either by machines of the same sort being produced cheaper than it, or by better machines entering into compe ion with it. [64] In both cases, be the machine ever so young and full of life, its value is no longer determined by the labour actually materialised in it, but by the labour-time requisite to reproduce either it or the better machine. It has, therefore, lost value more or less. The shorter the period taken to reproduce its total value, the less is the danger of moral depreciation; and the longer the working-day, the shorter is that period. When machinery is first introduced into an industry, new methods of reproducing it more cheaply follow blow upon blow, [65] and so do improvements, that not only affect individual parts and details of the machine, but its entire build. It is, therefore, in the early days of the life of machinery that this special incentive to the prolongation of the working-day makes itself felt most acutely. [66]

    Given the length of the working-day, all other cir stances remaining the same, the exploitation of double the number of workmen demands, not only a doubling of that part of constant capital which is invested in machinery and buildings, but also of that part which is laid out in raw material and auxiliary substances. The lengthening of the working-day, on the other hand, allows of production on an extended scale without any alteration in the amount of capital laid out on machinery and buildings. [67] Not only is there, therefore, an increase of surplus-value, but the outlay necessary to obtain it diminishes. It is true that this takes place, more or less, with every lengthening of the working-day; but in the case under consideration, the change is more marked, because the capital converted into the instruments of labour preponderates to a greater degree. [68] The development of the factory system fixes a constantly increasing portion of the capital in a form, in which, on the one hand, its value is capable of continual self-expansion, and in which, on the other hand, it loses both use-value and exchange-value whenever it loses contact with living labour. “When a labourer,” said Mr. Ashworth, a cotton magnate, to Professor Nassau W. Senior, “lays down his spade, he renders useless, for that period, a capital worth eighteen-pence. When one of our people leaves the mill, he renders useless a capital that has cost £100,000.” [69] Only fancy! making “useless” for a single moment, a capital that has cost £100,000! It is, in truth, monstrous, that a single one of our people should ever leave the factory! The increased use of machinery, as Senior after the instruction he received from Ashworth clearly perceives, makes a constantly increasing lengthening of the working-day “desirable.” [70]

    Machinery produces relative surplus-value; not only by directly depreciating the value of labour-power, and by indirectly cheapening the same through cheapening the commodities that enter into its reproduction, but also, when it is first introduced sporadically into an industry, by converting the labour employed by the owner of that machinery, into labour of a higher degree and greater efficacy, by raising the social value of the article produced above its individual value, and thus enabling the capitalist to replace the value of a day’s labour-power by a smaller portion of the value of a day’s product. During this transition period, when the use of machinery is a sort of monopoly, the profits are therefore exceptional, and the capitalist endeavours to exploit thoroughly “the sunny time of this his first love,” by prolonging the working-day as much as possible. The magnitude of the profit whets his appe e for more profit.

    As the use of machinery becomes more general in a particular industry, the social value of the product sinks down to its individual value, and the law that surplus-value does not arise from the labour-power that has been replaced by the machinery, but from the labour-power actually employed in working with the machinery, asserts itself. Surplus-value arises from variable capital alone, and we saw that the amount of surplus-value depends on two factors, viz., the rate of surplus-value and the number of the workmen simultaneously employed. Given the length of the working-day, the rate of surplus-value is determined by the relative duration of the necessary labour and of the surplus-labour in a day. The number of the labourers simultaneously employed depends, on its side, on the ratio of the variable to the constant capital. Now, however much the use of machinery may increase the surplus-labour at the expense of the necessary labour by heightening the productiveness of labour, it is clear that it attains this result, only by diminishing the number of workmen employed by a given amount of capital. It converts what was formerly variable capital, invested in labour-power, into machinery which, being constant capital, does not produce surplus-value. It is impossible, for instance, to squeeze as much surplus-value out of 2 as out of 24 labourers. If each of these 24 men gives only one hour of surplus-labour in 12, the 24 men give together 24 hours of surplus-labour, while 24 hours is the total labour of the two men. Hence, the application of machinery to the production of surplus-value implies a contradiction which is immanent in it, since of the two factors of the surplus-value created by a given amount of capital, one, the rate of surplus-value, cannot be increased, except by diminishing the other, the number of workmen. This contradiction comes to light, as soon as by the general employment of machinery in a given industry, the value of the machine-produced commodity regulates the value of all commodities of the same sort; and it is this contradiction, that in its turn, drives the capitalist, without his being conscious of the fact, [71] to excessive lengthening of the working-day, in order that he may compensate the decrease in the relative number of labourers exploited, by an increase not only of the relative, but of the absolute surplus-labour.

    If, then, the capitalistic employment of machinery, on the one hand, supplies new and powerful motives to an excessive lengthening of the working-day, and radically changes, as well the methods of labour, as also the character of the social working organism, in such a manner as to break down all opposition to this tendency, on the other hand it produces, partly by opening out to the capitalist new strata of the working-class, previously inaccessible to him, partly by setting free the labourers it supplants, a surplus working population, [72] which is compelled to submit to the dictation of capital. Hence that remarkable phenomenon in the history of modern industry, that machinery sweeps away every moral and natural restriction on the length of the working-day. Hence, too, the economic paradox, that the most powerful instrument for shortening labour-time, becomes the most unfailing means for placing every moment of the labourer’s time and that of his family, at the disposal of the capitalist for the purpose of expanding the value of his capital. “If,” dreamed Aristotle, the greatest thinker of antiquity, “if every tool, when summoned, or even of its own accord, could do the work that befits it, just as the creations of Daedalus moved of themselves, or the tripods of Hephaestos went of their own accord to their sacred work, if the weavers’ shuttles were to weave of themselves, then there would be no need either of apprentices for the master workers, or of slaves for the lords.” [73] And Antipatros, a Greek poet of the time of Cicero, hailed the invention of the water-wheel for grinding corn, an invention that is the elementary form of all machinery, as the giver of freedom to female slaves, and the bringer back of the golden age. [74] Oh! those heathens! They understood, as the learned Bastiat, and before him the still wiser MacCulloch have discovered, nothing of Political Economy and Christianity. They did not, for example, comprehend that machinery is the surest means of lengthening the working-day. They perhaps excused the slavery of one on the ground that it was a means to the full development of another. But to preach slavery of the masses, in order that a few crude and half-educated parvenus, might become “eminent spinners,” “extensive sausage-makers,” and “influential shoe-black dealers,” to do this, they lacked the bump of Christianity

  2. #277
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805
    Section 2.

    Relative Diminution of the Variable Part of Capital Simultaneously with the Progress of Ac ulation and of the Concentration that Accompanies it



    According to the economists themselves, it is neither the actual extent of social wealth, nor the magnitude of the capital already functioning, that lead to a rise of wages, but only the constant growth of ac ulation and the degree of rapidity of that growth. (Adam Smith, Book I., chapter 8.) So far, we have only considered one special phase of this process, that in which the increase of capital occurs along with a constant technical composition of capital. But the process goes beyond this phase.

    Once given the general basis of the capitalistic system, then, in the course of ac ulation, a point is reached at which the development of the productivity of social labour becomes the most powerful lever of ac ulation.

    “The same cause,” says Adam Smith, “which raises the wages of labour, the increase of stock, tends to increase its productive powers, and to make a smaller quan y of labour produce a greater quan y of work.” [11]

    Apart from natural conditions, such as fertility of the soil, &c., and from the skill of independent and isolated producers (shown rather qualitatively in the goodness than quan atively in the mass of their products), the degree of productivity of labour, in a given society, is expressed in the relative extent of the means of production that one labourer, during a given time, with the same tension of labour power, turns into products. The mass of the means of production which he thus transforms, increases with the productiveness of his labour. But those means of production play a double part. The increase of some is a consequence, that of the others a condition of the increasing productivity of labour. E.g., with the division of labour in manufacture, and with the use of machinery, more raw material is worked up in the same time, and, therefore, a greater mass of raw material and auxiliary substances enter into the labour process. That is the consequence of the increasing productivity of labour. On the other hand, the mass of machinery, beasts of burden, mineral manures, drain-pipes, &c., is a condition of the increasing productivity of labour. So also is it with the means of production concentrated in buildings, furnaces, means of transport, &c. But whether condition or consequence, the growing extent of the means of production, as compared with the labour power incorporated with them, is an expression of the growing productiveness of labour. The increase of the latter appears, therefore, in the diminution of the mass of labour in proportion to the mass of means of production moved by it, or in the diminution of the subjective factor of the labour process as compared with the objective factor.

    This change in the technical composition of capital, this growth in the mass of means of production, as compared with the mass of the labour power that vivifies them, is reflected again in its value composition, by the increase of the constant cons uent of capital at the expense of its variable cons uent. There may be, e.g., originally 50 per cent. of a capital laid out in means of production, and 50 per cent. in labour power; later on, with the development of the productivity of labour, 80 per cent. in means of production, 20 per cent. in labour power, and so on. This law of the progressive increase in constant capital, in proportion to the variable, is confirmed at every step (as already shown) by the comparative analysis of the prices of commodities, whether we compare different economic epochs or different nations in the same epoch. The relative magnitude of the element of price, which represents the value of the means of production only, or the constant part of capital consumed, is in direct, the relative magnitude of the other element of price that pays labour (the variable part of capital) is in inverse proportion to the advance of ac ulation.

    This diminution in the variable part of capital as compared with the constant, or the altered value-composition of the capital, however, only shows approximately the change in the composition of its material cons uents. If, e.g., the capital-value employed today in spinning is 7/8 constant and 1/8 variable, whilst at the beginning of the 18th century it was ½ constant and ½ variable, on the other hand, the mass of raw material, instruments of labour, &c., that a certain quan y of spinning labour consumes productively today, is many hundred times greater than at the beginning of the 18th century. The reason is simply that, with the increasing productivity of labour, not only does the mass of the means of production consumed by it increase, but their value compared with their mass diminishes. Their value therefore rises absolutely, but not in proportion to their mass. The increase of the difference between constant and variable capital, is, therefore, much less than that of the difference between the mass of the means of production into which the constant, and the mass of the labour power into which the variable, capital is converted. The former difference increases with the latter, but in a smaller degree.

    But, if the progress of ac ulation lessens the relative magnitude of the variable part of capital, it by no means, in doing this, excludes the possibility of a rise in its absolute magnitude. Suppose that a capital-value at first is divided into 50 per cent. of constant and 50 per cent. of variable capital; later into 80 per cent. of constant and 20 per cent. of variable. If in the meantime the original capital, say £6,000, has increased to £18,000, its variable cons uent has also increased. It was £3,000, it is now £3,600. But where as formerly an increase of capital by 20 per cent. would have sufficed to raise the demand for labour 20 per cent., now this latter rise requires a tripling of the original capital.

    In Part IV, it was shown, how the development of the productiveness of social labour presupposes co-operation on a large scale; how it is only upon this supposition that division and combination of labour can be organised, and the means of production economised by concentration on a vast scale; how instruments of labour which, from their very nature, are only fit for use in common, such as a system of machinery, can be called into being; how huge natural forces can be pressed into the service of production; and how the transformation can be effected of the process of production into a technological application of science. On the basis of the production of commodities, where the means of production are the property of private persons, and where the artisan therefore either produces commodities, isolated from and independent of others, or sells his labour power as a commodity, because he lacks the means for independent industry, co-operation on a large scale can realise itself only in the increase of individual capitals, only in proportion as the means of social production and the means of subsistence are transformed into the private property of capitalists. The basis of the production of commodities can admit of production on a large scale in the capitalistic form alone. A certain ac ulation of capital, in the hands of individual producers of commodities, forms therefore the necessary preliminary of the specifically capitalistic mode of production. We had, therefore, to assume that this occurs during the transition from handicraft to capitalistic industry. It may be called primitive ac ulation, because it is the historic basis, instead of the historic result of specifically capitalist production. How it itself originates, we need not here inquire as yet. It is enough that it forms the starting point. But all methods for raising the social productive power of labour that are developed on this basis, are at the same time methods for the increased production of surplus-value or surplus-product, which in its turn is the formative element of ac ulation. They are, therefore, at the same time methods of the production of capital by capital, or methods of its accelerated ac ulation. The continual re-transformation of surplus-value into capital now appears in the shape of the increasing magnitude of the capital that enters into the process of production. This in turn is the basis of an extended scale of production, of the methods for raising the productive power of labour that accompany it, and of accelerated production of surplus-value. If, therefore, a certain degree of ac ulation of capital appears as a condition of the specifically capitalist mode of production, the latter causes conversely an accelerated ac ulation of capital. With the ac ulation of capital, therefore, the specifically capitalistic mode of production develops, and with the capitalist mode of production the ac ulation of capital. Both these economic factors bring about, in the compound ratio of the impulses they reciprocally give one another, that change in the technical composition of capital by which the variable cons uent becomes always smaller and smaller as compared with the constant.

    Every individual capital is a larger or smaller concentration of means of production, with a corresponding command over a larger or smaller labour-army. Every ac ulation becomes the means of new ac ulation. With the increasing mass of wealth which functions as capital, ac ulation increases the concentration of that wealth in the hands of individual capitalists, and thereby widens the basis of production on a large scale and of the specific methods of capitalist production. The growth of social capital is effected by the growth of many individual capitals. All other cir stances remaining the same, individual capitals, and with them the concentration of the means of production, increase in such proportion as they form aliquot parts of the total social capital. At the same time portions of the original capitals disengage themselves and function as new independent capitals. Besides other causes, the division of property, within capitalist families, plays a great part in this. With the ac ulation of capital, therefore, the number of capitalists grows to a greater or less extent. Two points characterise this kind of concentration which grows directly out of, or rather is identical with, ac ulation. First: The increasing concentration of the social means of production in the hands of individual capitalists is, other things remaining equal, limited by the degree of increase of social wealth. Second: The part of social capital domiciled in each particular sphere of production is divided among many capitalists who face one another as independent commodity-producers competing with each other. Ac ulation and the concentration accompanying it are, therefore, not only scattered over many points, but the increase of each functioning capital is thwarted by the formation of new and the sub-division of old capitals. Ac ulation, therefore, presents itself on the one hand as increasing concentration of the means of production, and of the command over labour; on the other, as repulsion of many individual capitals one from another.

    This splitting-up of the total social capital into many individual capitals or the repulsion of its fractions one from another, is counteracted by their attraction. This last does not mean that simple concentration of the means of production and of the command over labour, which is identical with ac ulation. It is concentration of capitals already formed, destruction of their individual independence, expropriation of capitalist by capitalist, transformation of many small into few large capitals. This process differs from the former in this, that it only presupposes a change in the distribution of capital already to hand, and functioning; its field of action is therefore not limited by the absolute growth of social wealth, by the absolute limits of ac ulation. Capital grows in one place to a huge mass in a single hand, because it has in another place been lost by many. This is centralisation proper, as distinct from ac ulation and concentration.

    The laws of this centralisation of capitals, or of the attraction of capital by capital, cannot be developed here. A brief hint at a few facts must suffice. The battle of compe ion is fought by cheapening of commodities. The cheapness of commodities demands, caeteris paribus, on the productiveness of labour, and this again on the scale of production. Therefore, the larger capitals beat the smaller. It will further be remembered that, with the development of the capitalist mode of production, there is an increase in the minimum amount of individual capital necessary to carry on a business under its normal conditions. The smaller capitals, therefore, crowd into spheres of production which Modern Industry has only sporadically or incompletely got hold of. Here compe ion rages in direct proportion to the number, and in inverse proportion to the magnitudes, of the antagonistic capitals. It always ends in the ruin of many small capitalists, whose capitals partly pass into the hands of their conquerors, partly vanish. Apart from this, with capitalist production an altogether new force comes into play — the credit system, which in its first stages furtively creeps in as the humble assistant of ac ulation, drawing into the hands of individual or associated capitalists, by invisible threads, the money resources which lie scattered, over the surface of society, in larger or smaller amounts; but it soon becomes a new and terrible weapon in the battle of compe ion and is finally transformed into an enormous social mechanism for the centralisation of capitals.

    Commensurately with the development of capitalist production and ac ulation there develop the two most powerful levers of centralisation — compe ion and credit. At the same time the progress of ac ulation increases the material amenable to centralisation, i.e., the individual capitals, whilst the expansion of capitalist production creates, on the one hand, the social want, and, on the other, the technical means necessary for those immense industrial undertakings which require a previous centralisation of capital for their accomplishment. Today, therefore, the force of attraction, drawing together individual capitals, and the tendency to centralisation are stronger than ever before. But if the relative extension and energy of the movement towards centralisation is determined, in a certain degree, by the magnitude of capitalist wealth and superiority of economic mechanism already attained, progress in centralisation does not in any way depend upon a positive growth in the magnitude of social capital. And this is the specific difference between centralisation and concentration, the latter being only another name for reproduction on an extended scale. Centralisation may result from a mere change in the distribution of capitals already existing, from a simple alteration in the quan ative grouping of the component parts of social capital. Here capital can grow into powerful masses in a single hand because there it has been withdrawn from many individual hands. In any given branch of industry centralisation would reach its extreme limit if all the individual capitals invested in it were fused into a single capital. [12] In a given society the limit would be reached only when the entire social capital was united in the hands of either a single capitalist or a single capitalist company.

    Centralisation completes the work of ac ulation by enabling industrial capitalists to extend the scale of their operations. Whether this latter result is the consequence of ac ulation or centralisation, whether centralisation is accomplished by the violent method of annexation — when certain capitals become such preponderant centres of attraction for others that they shatter the individual cohesion of the latter and then draw the separate fragments to themselves — or whether the fusion of a number of capitals already formed or in process of formation takes place by the smoother process of organising joint-stock companies — the economic effect remains the same. Everywhere the increased scale of industrial establishments is the starting point for a more comprehensive organisation of the collective work of many, for a wider development of their material motive forces — in other words, for the progressive transformation of isolated processes of production, carried on by customary methods, into processes of production socially combined and scientifically arranged.

    But ac ulation, the gradual increase of capital by reproduction as it passes from the circular to the spiral form, is clearly a very slow procedure compared with centralisation, which has only to change the quan ative groupings of the cons uent parts of social capital. The world would still be without railways if it had had to wait until ac ulation had got a few individual capitals far enough to be adequate for the construction of a railway. Centralisation, on the contrary, accomplished this in the twinkling of an eye, by means of joint-stock companies. And whilst centralisation thus intensifies and accelerates the effects of ac ulation, it simultaneously extends and speeds those revolutions in the technical composition of capital which raise its constant portion at the expense of its variable portion, thus diminishing the relative demand for labour.

    The masses of capital fused together overnight by centralisation reproduce and multiply as the others do, only more rapidly, thereby becoming new and powerful levers in social ac ulation. Therefore, when we speak of the progress of social ac ulation we tacitly include — today — the effects of centralisation.

    The additional capitals formed in the normal course of ac ulation (see Chapter XXIV, Section 1) serve particularly as vehicles for the exploitation of new inventions and discoveries, and industrial improvements in general. But in time the old capital also reaches the moment of renewal from top to toe, when it sheds its skin and is reborn like the others in a perfected technical form, in which a smaller quan y of labour will suffice to set in motion a larger quan y of machinery and raw materials. The absolute reduction in the demand for labour which necessarily follows from this is obviously so much the greater the higher the degree in which the capitals undergoing this process of renewal are already massed together by virtue of the centralisation movement.

    On the one hand, therefore, the additional capital formed in the course of ac ulation attracts fewer and fewer labourers in proportion to its magnitude. On the other hand, the old capital periodically reproduced with change of composition, repels more and more of the labourers formerly employed by it

  3. #278
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,139

  4. #279
    Veteran
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,615
    Another good video...

    Noam Chomsky on Haiti 11/19/94
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCofljeYC2s


    Let's see if the shills try to bury this.

  5. #280
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805
    II. Total or Expanded Value-form

    ‘20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 pounds of tea or = 40 pounds of coffee or = 1 quarter of wheat or = 2 ounces of gold or = ½ ton of iron or = etc.’

    §1. Endlessness of the series

    This series of simple relative expressions of value is in its nature constantly extendible or never concludes. For there constantly occur new types of commodities and each new type of commodity forms the material of a new expression of value.

    §2. The expanded relative value-form

    The value of a commodity, for example linen, is now represented in all other elements of the world of commodities. The body of each other commodity becomes the mirror of the value of the linen. Thus only now does this value itself appear truly as a jelly of undifferentiated human labour. For the labour which cons utes the value of the linen is now expressly represented as labour which counts equally with any other human labour whatever natural form at all it possesses and hence whether it is objectified in coat or wheat or iron or gold, etc. Hence by virtue of its value-form the linen now stands also in a social relation no longer to only a single other type of commodity, but to the world of commodities. As a commodity it is a citizen of this world. At the same time there is inherent in the endless series of its expressions the fact that the value of commodities is irrelevant with regard to each particular form of use-value in which it appears.

    §3. The particular equivalent form

    Each commodity – coat, tea, wheat, iron, etc. – counts in the expression of value of linen as equivalent and hence as a body of value. The definite natural form of each of these commodities is now a particular equivalent form beside many others. Similarly the manifold definite, concrete, useful types of labour contained in the different bodies of commodities now count as similarly many particular forms of realisation or appearance of human labour as such.

    §4. Deficiencies of the expanded or total value-form

    First, the relative expression of value of linen is incomplete (unfertig) because the series which represents it never concludes. Second, it consists of a motley mosaic of different (verschiedenartige) expressions of value. Finally, if as must happen, the relative value of each commodity is expressed in this expanded form, the relative value-form of each commodity is an endless series of expressions of value, different from the relative value-form of each other commodity. The deficiencies of the expanded relative value-form are reflected in the equivalent-form corresponding to it. Since the natural form of each single type of commodity is here a particular equivalent-form beside innumerable other particular equivalent-forms there exist only limited equivalent-forms of which each excludes the other. Similarly the definite, concrete, useful type of labour contained in each particular commodity-equivalent is only a particular and thus not exhaustive form of appearance of human labour. The latter certainly possesses its complete or total form of appearance in the complete range (Gesamtumkreis) of those particular forms of appearance. But thus it possesses no unified form of appearance.

    §5. Transition from the total value-form to the general value-form

    The total or expanded relative value-form consists however only in a sum of simple relative expressions of value or equations of the first form, like:

    20 yards of linen = 1 coat
    20 yards of linen = 10 pounds of tea, etc.

    But each of these equations contains, conversely, also the identical equation:

    1 coat = 20 yards of linen
    10 pounds of tea = 20 yards of linen, etc.

    In fact, if the possessor of the linen exchanges his commodity with many other commodities and hence expresses the value of his commodity in a series of other commodities, then necessarily the many other possessors of commodities must also exchange their commodities with linen and hence express the values of their different commodities in the same third commodity, the linen. Therefore, if we reverse the series ‘20 yards of linen = 1 coat’ or ‘10 pounds of tea’ or ‘= etc.’, i.e. if we express the converse relation which is already contained ‘in itself’ (an sich), implicitly in the series, we obtain:

    III. General Value-form

    1 coat = )
    10 pounds of tea = )
    40 pounds of coffee = )
    1 quarter of wheat = ) 20 yards of linen
    2 ounces of gold = )
    ½ ton of iron = )
    x commodity A = )
    etc., commodity = )
    §1. The changed shape (Gestalt) of the relative value-form

    The relative value-form now possesses a completely changed shape. All commodities express their value:

    1. simply, namely in the body of one other single commodity,
    2. in a unified manner, i.e. in the same other body of a commodity.

    Their value-form is simple and common, i.e. general. The linen now counts for the bodies of all the different sorts of commodities as their common and general shape of value. The value-form of a commodity, i.e. the expression of its value in linen, now distinguishes the commodity not only as value from its own existence (Dasein) as a useful object, i.e. from its own natural form, but at the same time relates it as value to all other commodities, to all commodities as equal to it (als ihresgleichen). Hence in this value-form it possesses general social form.

    Only through this general character does the value-form correspond to the concept of value (entspricht dem Wertbegriff). The value-form had to be a form in which commodities appear for one another as a mere jelly of undifferentiated, genous human labour, i.e. as expressions in the form of things of the same labour-substance. This is now attained. For they are all material expressions (Materiatur) of the same labour, of the labour contained in the linen or as the same material expression of labour, namely as linen. Thus they are qualitatively equated.

    At the same time they are quan atively compared or represented as definite magnitudes of value for one another (für einander dargestellt), i.e.:

    10 pounds of tea = 20 yards of linen
    and
    40 pounds of coffee = 20 yards of linen

    Therefore

    10 pounds of tea = 40 pounds of coffee.

    Or in 1 pound of coffee there hides only a quarter as much of the substance of value, labour, as in 1 pound of tea.

    §2. The changed shape of the equivalent-form

    The particular equivalent-form is now developed further to the general equivalent-form; or the commodity in equivalent-form is now general equivalent. By counting as the form of value of all other commodities the natural form of the body of the commodity linen is the form of its property of counting equally (Gleichgültigkeit) or immediate exchangeability with all elements of the world of commodities. Its natural form is therefore at the same time its general social form.

    For all other commodities, although they are products of the most different sorts of labour, the linen counts as the form of appearance of the labours contained in them, hence as the embodiment of genous undifferentiated human labour. Weaving – this particular concrete type of labour – counts now by virtue of the value-relation of the world of commodities to linen as the general and immediately exhaustive form of realisation of abstract human labour, i.e. of the expenditure of human labour-power as such.

    For precisely this reason the private labour contained in linen also counts as labour which is immediately in general social form or in the form of equality with all other labours. If a commodity thus possesses the general equivalent-form or functions as general equivalent, its natural or bodily form counts as the visible incarnation, the general social chrysalis of all human labour.

    §3. Corresponding development (Gleichmässiges Entwicklungverhältnis) between relative value-form and equivalent-form

    To the degree of development of the relative value-form there corresponds the degree of development of the equivalent-form. But – and this is to be noted carefully – the development of the equivalent-form is only the expression and result of the development of the relative value-form. The initiative proceeds from the latter.

    The simple relative value-form expresses the value of a commodity only in a single other type of commodity, no matter in which. The commodity thus only acquires value-form in distinction from its own use-value form or natural form. Its equivalent also acquires only the singular equivalent-form. The expanded relative value-form expresses the value of a commodity in all other commodities. Hence the latter acquire the form of many particular equivalents or particular equivalent-form. Finally, the world of commodities gives itself a unified, general, relative value-form, by excluding from itself one single type of commodity in which all other commodities express their value in common. Thereby the excluded commodity becomes general equivalent or the equivalent-form becomes the general equivalent-form.

    §4.Development of the polarity of relative value-form and equivalent-form

    The polar opposition or the inseparable interconnection (Zusammengehörigkeit) and at the same time constant exclusion of relative value-form and equivalent-form implies:

    1. that a commodity cannot be in one form without another commodity being in the opposite form; and
    2. that as soon as a commodity is in the one form it cannot at the same time, within the same expression of value, be in the other form.

    Now this polar opposition of the two moments (Momente) of the expression of value develops and hardens (entwickelt und verhärtet sich) in the same measure as the value-form as such is developed or built up (ausgebildet).

    In form I the two forms already exclude one another, but only formally (formell). According to whether the same equation is read forwards or backwards, each of the two commodities in the extreme positions (Warenextreme) like linen and coat, are similarly now in the relative value-form, now in the equivalent. At this point it still takes some effort to hold fast to the polar opposition.

    In form II only one type of commodity at a time can totally expand its relative value, i.e. it itself possesses expanded relative value-form only because and insofar as all other commodities are in the equivalent-form with regard to it.

    Finally, in form III the world of commodities possesses general social relative value-form only because and insofar as all the commodities belonging to it are excluded from the equivalent-form or the form of immediate exchangeability. Conversely, the commodity which is in the general equivalent form or figures as general equivalent is excluded from the unified and hence general relative value-form of the world of commodities. If the linen – i.e. any commodity in general equivalent-form – were also to participate at the same time in the general relative value-form, then it would have had to have been related to itself as equivalent. We then obtain:

    20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen

    a tautology in which neither value nor magnitude of value is expressed. In order to express the relative value of the general equivalent, we must reverse form III. It does not possess any relative value-form in common with other commodities; rather, its value expresses itself relatively in the endless series of the bodies of all other commodities. Thus the expanded relative value-form or form II now appears as the specific relative value-form of the commodity which plays the role of the general equivalent.

    §5. Transition from the general value-form to the money-form

    The general equivalent-form is a form of value as such. It can therefore pertain to any commodity, but always only by exclusion from all other commodities.

    However the mere distinction in form between form II and form III already points to something peculiar, which does not distinguish forms I and II. This is that in the expanded value-form (form II) one commodity excludes all the others in order to express its own value in them. This exclusion can be a purely subjective process, for example a process traced out by the possessor of linen (z.B ein Prozess des Leinwandbesitzers) who assesses the value of his own commodity in many other commodities. As opposed to this a commodity is in general equivalent-form (form III) only because and insofar as it itself is excluded as equivalent by all other commodities. The exclusion is here an objective (objektiver) process independent of the excluded commodity. Hence in the historical development of the value-form the general equivalent-form may pertain now to this now to that commodity in turn. But a commodity never functions in fact (wirklich) as general equivalent except insofar as its exclusion and hence its equivalent-form is a result of an objective social process.

    The general value-form is the developed value-form and hence the developed commodity-form. The materially quite different products of labour cannot possess the finished commodity-form, and hence also cannot function in the process of exchange as a commodity, without being represented as expressions in the form of things (dingliche Ausdrüche) of the same equal human labour. That means that in order to acquire the finished commodity-form they must acquire the unified general relative value-form. But they can only acquire this unified relative value-form by excluding from its own series a definite type of commodity as general equivalent. And it is only from the moment when this exclusion is definitely limited to a specific type of commodity that the unified relative value-form has won objective stability and general social validity.

    Now the specific type of commodity with whose natural form the equivalent form coalesces (verwächst) socially becomes the money-commodity or functions as money. It specific social function and hence its social monopoly becomes the playing of the role of general equivalent within the world of commodities. A definite commodity, gold, has historically conquered this privileged place amongst the commodities which figure in form II as particular equivalents of linen and in form III express commonly (gemeinsam ausdrücken) their relative value in linen. Hence, if we put in form III the commodity gold in the place of the commodity linen, we obtain:

    IV. The Money-form

    20 yards of linen = )
    1 coat = )
    10 pounds of tea = )
    40 pounds of coffee = )
    1 quarter of wheat = ) 2 ounces of gold
    ½ ton of iron = )
    x commodity A = )
    etc., commodity = )
    §1. Difference between the transition from the general value-form to the money-form and the earlier developmental transitions

    Essential changes occur at the transition from form I to form II and from form II to form III. As opposed to this, form IV is distinguished from form III by nothing except the fact that now gold instead of linen possesses the general equivalent-form. Gold remains in form IV what linen was in form III – general equivalent. The progress consists only in the fact that the form of immediate general exchangeability or the general equivalent-form has now, by virtue of social custom, definitely coalesced with the specific natural form of the body of the commodity gold. Gold confronts the other commodities as money only because it already confronted them before as a commodity. Like all other commodities it also functions as equivalent, either as singular equivalent in isolated acts of exchange, or as particular equivalent beside other commodity-equivalents. Little by little it functioned in narrower or wider circles as general equivalent. Once it has conquered the monopoly of this position in the expression of value of the world of commodities it becomes the money-commodity (wird es Geldware), and from the moment when it has already become the money-commodity, form IV distinguishes itself from form III, or the general form of value is transformed into the money-form.

    §2. Transformation (Verwandlung) of the general relative value-form into the price-form

    The simple relative expression of value of a commodity, e.g. linen, in the commodity which is already functioning as the money-commodity, for example gold, is the price-form. The price-form of linen is hence:

    20 yards of linen = 2 ounces of gold
    or, when 2 Pounds Sterling is the currency name for 2 ounces of gold,
    20 yards of linen = 2 Pounds Sterling

    §3. The simple commodity-form is the secret of the money-form

    We see that the money-form proper offers in itself no difficulty at all. Once we have seen through the general equivalent-form it does not require the least brain- to understand that this equivalent-form fastens on to (festhaftet) a specific type of commodity like gold, and still less insofar as the general equivalent-form in its very nature requires the social exclusion of a definite commodity by all other commodities. It is now only a matter of this exclusion winning an objectively (objektiv) social consistency and general validity, and hence does not concern different commodities in turn nor possesses a merely local reach (Tragweite) in only particular areas of the world of commodities. The difficulty in the concept of the money-form is limited to comprehending the general equivalent-form as such, form III. However, form III in turn (rückbezüglich) resolves itself into form II, and the cons utive element of form II is form I:

    20 yards of linen = 1 coat
    or
    x commodity A = y commodity B.

    Now if we know what use-value and exchange-value are, then we find out that this form I is the simplest, most undeveloped manner of representing any product of labour, like linen for example, as a commodity, i.e. as a unity of the opposites use-value and exchange-value. At the same time we easily find the series of metamorphoses which the simplest commodity-form

    20 yards of linen = 1 coat
    must run through in order to win its finished shape

    20 yards of linen = 2 Pounds Sterling

    i.e. the money-form.

  6. #281
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805
    II. Total or Expanded Value-form

    ‘20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 pounds of tea or = 40 pounds of coffee or = 1 quarter of wheat or = 2 ounces of gold or = ½ ton of iron or = etc.’

    §1. Endlessness of the series

    This series of simple relative expressions of value is in its nature constantly extendible or never concludes. For there constantly occur new types of commodities and each new type of commodity forms the material of a new expression of value.

    §2. The expanded relative value-form

    The value of a commodity, for example linen, is now represented in all other elements of the world of commodities. The body of each other commodity becomes the mirror of the value of the linen. Thus only now does this value itself appear truly as a jelly of undifferentiated human labour. For the labour which cons utes the value of the linen is now expressly represented as labour which counts equally with any other human labour whatever natural form at all it possesses and hence whether it is objectified in coat or wheat or iron or gold, etc. Hence by virtue of its value-form the linen now stands also in a social relation no longer to only a single other type of commodity, but to the world of commodities. As a commodity it is a citizen of this world. At the same time there is inherent in the endless series of its expressions the fact that the value of commodities is irrelevant with regard to each particular form of use-value in which it appears.

    §3. The particular equivalent form

    Each commodity – coat, tea, wheat, iron, etc. – counts in the expression of value of linen as equivalent and hence as a body of value. The definite natural form of each of these commodities is now a particular equivalent form beside many others. Similarly the manifold definite, concrete, useful types of labour contained in the different bodies of commodities now count as similarly many particular forms of realisation or appearance of human labour as such.

    §4. Deficiencies of the expanded or total value-form

    First, the relative expression of value of linen is incomplete (unfertig) because the series which represents it never concludes. Second, it consists of a motley mosaic of different (verschiedenartige) expressions of value. Finally, if as must happen, the relative value of each commodity is expressed in this expanded form, the relative value-form of each commodity is an endless series of expressions of value, different from the relative value-form of each other commodity. The deficiencies of the expanded relative value-form are reflected in the equivalent-form corresponding to it. Since the natural form of each single type of commodity is here a particular equivalent-form beside innumerable other particular equivalent-forms there exist only limited equivalent-forms of which each excludes the other. Similarly the definite, concrete, useful type of labour contained in each particular commodity-equivalent is only a particular and thus not exhaustive form of appearance of human labour. The latter certainly possesses its complete or total form of appearance in the complete range (Gesamtumkreis) of those particular forms of appearance. But thus it possesses no unified form of appearance.

    §5. Transition from the total value-form to the general value-form

    The total or expanded relative value-form consists however only in a sum of simple relative expressions of value or equations of the first form, like:

    20 yards of linen = 1 coat
    20 yards of linen = 10 pounds of tea, etc.

    But each of these equations contains, conversely, also the identical equation:

    1 coat = 20 yards of linen
    10 pounds of tea = 20 yards of linen, etc.

    In fact, if the possessor of the linen exchanges his commodity with many other commodities and hence expresses the value of his commodity in a series of other commodities, then necessarily the many other possessors of commodities must also exchange their commodities with linen and hence express the values of their different commodities in the same third commodity, the linen. Therefore, if we reverse the series ‘20 yards of linen = 1 coat’ or ‘10 pounds of tea’ or ‘= etc.’, i.e. if we express the converse relation which is already contained ‘in itself’ (an sich), implicitly in the series, we obtain:

    III. General Value-form

    1 coat = )
    10 pounds of tea = )
    40 pounds of coffee = )
    1 quarter of wheat = ) 20 yards of linen
    2 ounces of gold = )
    ½ ton of iron = )
    x commodity A = )
    etc., commodity = )
    §1. The changed shape (Gestalt) of the relative value-form

    The relative value-form now possesses a completely changed shape. All commodities express their value:

    1. simply, namely in the body of one other single commodity,
    2. in a unified manner, i.e. in the same other body of a commodity.

    Their value-form is simple and common, i.e. general. The linen now counts for the bodies of all the different sorts of commodities as their common and general shape of value. The value-form of a commodity, i.e. the expression of its value in linen, now distinguishes the commodity not only as value from its own existence (Dasein) as a useful object, i.e. from its own natural form, but at the same time relates it as value to all other commodities, to all commodities as equal to it (als ihresgleichen). Hence in this value-form it possesses general social form.

    Only through this general character does the value-form correspond to the concept of value (entspricht dem Wertbegriff). The value-form had to be a form in which commodities appear for one another as a mere jelly of undifferentiated, genous human labour, i.e. as expressions in the form of things of the same labour-substance. This is now attained. For they are all material expressions (Materiatur) of the same labour, of the labour contained in the linen or as the same material expression of labour, namely as linen. Thus they are qualitatively equated.

    At the same time they are quan atively compared or represented as definite magnitudes of value for one another (für einander dargestellt), i.e.:

    10 pounds of tea = 20 yards of linen
    and
    40 pounds of coffee = 20 yards of linen

    Therefore

    10 pounds of tea = 40 pounds of coffee.

    Or in 1 pound of coffee there hides only a quarter as much of the substance of value, labour, as in 1 pound of tea.

    §2. The changed shape of the equivalent-form

    The particular equivalent-form is now developed further to the general equivalent-form; or the commodity in equivalent-form is now general equivalent. By counting as the form of value of all other commodities the natural form of the body of the commodity linen is the form of its property of counting equally (Gleichgültigkeit) or immediate exchangeability with all elements of the world of commodities. Its natural form is therefore at the same time its general social form.

    For all other commodities, although they are products of the most different sorts of labour, the linen counts as the form of appearance of the labours contained in them, hence as the embodiment of genous undifferentiated human labour. Weaving – this particular concrete type of labour – counts now by virtue of the value-relation of the world of commodities to linen as the general and immediately exhaustive form of realisation of abstract human labour, i.e. of the expenditure of human labour-power as such.

    For precisely this reason the private labour contained in linen also counts as labour which is immediately in general social form or in the form of equality with all other labours. If a commodity thus possesses the general equivalent-form or functions as general equivalent, its natural or bodily form counts as the visible incarnation, the general social chrysalis of all human labour.

    §3. Corresponding development (Gleichmässiges Entwicklungverhältnis) between relative value-form and equivalent-form

    To the degree of development of the relative value-form there corresponds the degree of development of the equivalent-form. But – and this is to be noted carefully – the development of the equivalent-form is only the expression and result of the development of the relative value-form. The initiative proceeds from the latter.

    The simple relative value-form expresses the value of a commodity only in a single other type of commodity, no matter in which. The commodity thus only acquires value-form in distinction from its own use-value form or natural form. Its equivalent also acquires only the singular equivalent-form. The expanded relative value-form expresses the value of a commodity in all other commodities. Hence the latter acquire the form of many particular equivalents or particular equivalent-form. Finally, the world of commodities gives itself a unified, general, relative value-form, by excluding from itself one single type of commodity in which all other commodities express their value in common. Thereby the excluded commodity becomes general equivalent or the equivalent-form becomes the general equivalent-form.

    §4.Development of the polarity of relative value-form and equivalent-form

    The polar opposition or the inseparable interconnection (Zusammengehörigkeit) and at the same time constant exclusion of relative value-form and equivalent-form implies:

    1. that a commodity cannot be in one form without another commodity being in the opposite form; and
    2. that as soon as a commodity is in the one form it cannot at the same time, within the same expression of value, be in the other form.

    Now this polar opposition of the two moments (Momente) of the expression of value develops and hardens (entwickelt und verhärtet sich) in the same measure as the value-form as such is developed or built up (ausgebildet).

    In form I the two forms already exclude one another, but only formally (formell). According to whether the same equation is read forwards or backwards, each of the two commodities in the extreme positions (Warenextreme) like linen and coat, are similarly now in the relative value-form, now in the equivalent. At this point it still takes some effort to hold fast to the polar opposition.

    In form II only one type of commodity at a time can totally expand its relative value, i.e. it itself possesses expanded relative value-form only because and insofar as all other commodities are in the equivalent-form with regard to it.

    Finally, in form III the world of commodities possesses general social relative value-form only because and insofar as all the commodities belonging to it are excluded from the equivalent-form or the form of immediate exchangeability. Conversely, the commodity which is in the general equivalent form or figures as general equivalent is excluded from the unified and hence general relative value-form of the world of commodities. If the linen – i.e. any commodity in general equivalent-form – were also to participate at the same time in the general relative value-form, then it would have had to have been related to itself as equivalent. We then obtain:

    20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen

    a tautology in which neither value nor magnitude of value is expressed. In order to express the relative value of the general equivalent, we must reverse form III. It does not possess any relative value-form in common with other commodities; rather, its value expresses itself relatively in the endless series of the bodies of all other commodities. Thus the expanded relative value-form or form II now appears as the specific relative value-form of the commodity which plays the role of the general equivalent.

    §5. Transition from the general value-form to the money-form

    The general equivalent-form is a form of value as such. It can therefore pertain to any commodity, but always only by exclusion from all other commodities.

    However the mere distinction in form between form II and form III already points to something peculiar, which does not distinguish forms I and II. This is that in the expanded value-form (form II) one commodity excludes all the others in order to express its own value in them. This exclusion can be a purely subjective process, for example a process traced out by the possessor of linen (z.B ein Prozess des Leinwandbesitzers) who assesses the value of his own commodity in many other commodities. As opposed to this a commodity is in general equivalent-form (form III) only because and insofar as it itself is excluded as equivalent by all other commodities. The exclusion is here an objective (objektiver) process independent of the excluded commodity. Hence in the historical development of the value-form the general equivalent-form may pertain now to this now to that commodity in turn. But a commodity never functions in fact (wirklich) as general equivalent except insofar as its exclusion and hence its equivalent-form is a result of an objective social process.

    The general value-form is the developed value-form and hence the developed commodity-form. The materially quite different products of labour cannot possess the finished commodity-form, and hence also cannot function in the process of exchange as a commodity, without being represented as expressions in the form of things (dingliche Ausdrüche) of the same equal human labour. That means that in order to acquire the finished commodity-form they must acquire the unified general relative value-form. But they can only acquire this unified relative value-form by excluding from its own series a definite type of commodity as general equivalent. And it is only from the moment when this exclusion is definitely limited to a specific type of commodity that the unified relative value-form has won objective stability and general social validity.

    Now the specific type of commodity with whose natural form the equivalent form coalesces (verwächst) socially becomes the money-commodity or functions as money. It specific social function and hence its social monopoly becomes the playing of the role of general equivalent within the world of commodities. A definite commodity, gold, has historically conquered this privileged place amongst the commodities which figure in form II as particular equivalents of linen and in form III express commonly (gemeinsam ausdrücken) their relative value in linen. Hence, if we put in form III the commodity gold in the place of the commodity linen, we obtain:

    IV. The Money-form

    20 yards of linen = )
    1 coat = )
    10 pounds of tea = )
    40 pounds of coffee = )
    1 quarter of wheat = ) 2 ounces of gold
    ½ ton of iron = )
    x commodity A = )
    etc., commodity = )
    §1. Difference between the transition from the general value-form to the money-form and the earlier developmental transitions

    Essential changes occur at the transition from form I to form II and from form II to form III. As opposed to this, form IV is distinguished from form III by nothing except the fact that now gold instead of linen possesses the general equivalent-form. Gold remains in form IV what linen was in form III – general equivalent. The progress consists only in the fact that the form of immediate general exchangeability or the general equivalent-form has now, by virtue of social custom, definitely coalesced with the specific natural form of the body of the commodity gold. Gold confronts the other commodities as money only because it already confronted them before as a commodity. Like all other commodities it also functions as equivalent, either as singular equivalent in isolated acts of exchange, or as particular equivalent beside other commodity-equivalents. Little by little it functioned in narrower or wider circles as general equivalent. Once it has conquered the monopoly of this position in the expression of value of the world of commodities it becomes the money-commodity (wird es Geldware), and from the moment when it has already become the money-commodity, form IV distinguishes itself from form III, or the general form of value is transformed into the money-form.

    §2. Transformation (Verwandlung) of the general relative value-form into the price-form

    The simple relative expression of value of a commodity, e.g. linen, in the commodity which is already functioning as the money-commodity, for example gold, is the price-form. The price-form of linen is hence:

    20 yards of linen = 2 ounces of gold
    or, when 2 Pounds Sterling is the currency name for 2 ounces of gold,
    20 yards of linen = 2 Pounds Sterling

    §3. The simple commodity-form is the secret of the money-form

    We see that the money-form proper offers in itself no difficulty at all. Once we have seen through the general equivalent-form it does not require the least brain- to understand that this equivalent-form fastens on to (festhaftet) a specific type of commodity like gold, and still less insofar as the general equivalent-form in its very nature requires the social exclusion of a definite commodity by all other commodities. It is now only a matter of this exclusion winning an objectively (objektiv) social consistency and general validity, and hence does not concern different commodities in turn nor possesses a merely local reach (Tragweite) in only particular areas of the world of commodities. The difficulty in the concept of the money-form is limited to comprehending the general equivalent-form as such, form III. However, form III in turn (rückbezüglich) resolves itself into form II, and the cons utive element of form II is form I:

    20 yards of linen = 1 coat
    or
    x commodity A = y commodity B.

    Now if we know what use-value and exchange-value are, then we find out that this form I is the simplest, most undeveloped manner of representing any product of labour, like linen for example, as a commodity, i.e. as a unity of the opposites use-value and exchange-value. At the same time we easily find the series of metamorphoses which the simplest commodity-form

    20 yards of linen = 1 coat
    must run through in order to win its finished shape

    20 yards of linen = 2 Pounds Sterling

    i.e. the money-form

  7. #282
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805






























  8. #283
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805





























    .

  9. #284
    Veteran
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,615

  10. #285
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805
    Sorry son, this is much more important































  11. #286
    Veteran
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,615
    I've only watched the first fifteen minutes of this but it looks promising.

    To Awaken A Sleeping Giant - The Truth About America
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LA0xGSAw_Y


    This is good too.

    All America's Wars Begin with False Flags (and WWIII Will Too)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snwl4zxDNGY


    Let's see how long it takes the shills to try to bury this info to reduce the number of young viewers who see it.

  12. #287
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805
    LOL Cosmored's spam































  13. #288
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805






























  14. #289
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805






























  15. #290
    Veteran
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,615
    Here's another good article. I'm going to copy and paste it in that hope that it can be seen amid all of these trash posts. Small posts can't be found by scrolling.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/...-we-are-fools/
    ----------------------------------------
    My Fellow Americans: We Are Fools

    by Margot Kidder
    There is something I am going to try and explain here after watching the Democratic National Convention this evening that will invite the scorn of many of my friends. But the words are gagging my throat and my stomach is twisted and sick and I have to vomit this out. The anti-americanism in me is about to explode and land god knows where as my rage is well beyond reason. And I, by heritage, half American in a way that makes me “more” American than almost anyone else in this country except for the true Americans, the American Indians, am in utter denial tonight that I am, as you are, American as well.
    I am half Canadian, I was brought up there, with very different values than you Americans hold, and tonight — after the endless spit ups and boasts and rants about the greatness of American militarism, and praise for American military strength, and boasts about wiping out ISIS, and America being the strongest country on earth, and an utterly inane story from a woman whose son died in Obama’s war, about how she got to cry in gra ude on Obama’s shoulder — tonight I feel deeply Canadian. Every subtle lesson I was ever subliminally given about the bullies across the border and their rudeness and their lack of education and their self-given right to bomb whoever they wanted in the world for no reason other than that they wanted something the people in the other country had, and their greed, came oozing to the surface of my psyche.
    I just got back from a rather fierce walk beside the Yellowstone River here in Montana, trying to let the mountains in the distance reconnect me to some place of goodness in my soul, but I couldn’t find it. The scenery was as exquisite as ever, but it just couldn’t touch the rage in my heart. The visions of all the dead children in Syria that Hillary Clinton helped to kill; the children bombed to bits in Afghanistan and Pakistan from Obama’s drones, the grisly chaos of Libya, the utter wasteland of Iraq, the death and destruction everywhere caused by American military intervention. The Ukraine, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, you name it — your country has bombed it or destroyed its civilian life in some basic way.
    When I heard all the Americans cheering for the military and the pronouncements of might coming from the speakers in the Wells Fargo Centre, I loathed you. I loathed every single one of you. I knew in my gut that what I was taught as a child was true, which is that YOU are the enemy. YOU are the country to be feared. YOU are the country to be disgusted by. YOU are ignorant. And your greed and self-satisfaction and unearned pride knows no bounds.
    I am not an American tonight. I reject my Puritan ancestors who landed in this country in 1648. I reject the words I voiced at my citizenship ceremony. I reject every moment of thrilling discovery I ever had in this country.
    You people have no idea what it is like for people from other countries to hear you boast and cheer for your guns and your bombs and your soldiers and your murderous military leaders and your war criminals and your murdering and conscienceless Commander in Chief. All those soaring words are received by the rest of us, by us non-Americans, by all the cells in our body, as absolutely repugnant and obscene.
    And there you all are tonight, glued to your TVs and your computers, your hearts swelled with pride because you belong to the strongest country on Earth, cheering on your Murderer President. Ignorant of the entire world’s repulsion. You kill and you kill and you kill, and still you remain proud.
    We are fools.

  16. #291
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805






























  17. #292
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805





























    .

  18. #293
    Veteran
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,615
    I haven't listened to this yet but I've never seen anything by Mark Weber that I didn't like so I'm going to post it anyway.
    http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2011-12-07

  19. #294
    Veteran
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,615
    Here's something I just came across.
    https://archive.org/details/AV_048-J...E_CIA-PART_III

  20. #295
    Veteran
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,615
    Here's Chomsky's latest.

    History of US Rule in Latin America by Noam Chomsky
    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...y+Noam+Chomsky
    Last edited by Cosmored; 03-26-2017 at 07:00 AM.

  21. #296
    Veteran
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,615
    Here's some info on what's going on with the Philippines right now.


    Genocide and the Philippines-American War. President Rodrigo Duterte and Neocolonialism
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/genocid...ialism/5578125


    Here's some background info.

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...evolution.html
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Nearly 100 years ago, U.S. Marines invaded the newly independent Philippines and killed anywhere from a quarter of a million (U.S. military estimates) to a half million Filipinos in the course of colonizing the archipelago. The legacy of 50 years of U.S. colonial rule is palpable in the slums and streets of Manila, the misery and poverty of the countryside, and the three million Filipinos forged to migrate abroad in search of a livelihood.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/As...Emergency.html
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    The Philippines was a US colony until 1946, but even thereafter Washington regularly intervened politically by financing preferred candidates and groups, conducting widespread covert operations, and helping to stage-manage elections. In 1950, a US National Security Council do ent stated that among the United States' goals in the country was the maintenance of "an effective government which will preserve and strengthen the pro-US orientation." In 1972, the US supported the declaration of martial law because, as a US Senate report put it, "Military bases and a familiar government in the Philippines are more important than the preservation of democratic ins utions."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Am...LongHx_PA.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many in the United States, including President McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, welcomed Kipling's rousing call for the United States to engage in "savage wars," beginning in the Philippines. Senator Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana declared: "God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle selfcontemplation and self-admiration .... He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples." In the end, more than 126,000 officers and men were sent to the Philippines to put down the Filipino resistance during a war that lasted officially from 1899 to 1902 but actually continued much longer, with sporadic resistance continuing for most of a decade. U.S. troops logged 2,800 engagements with the Filipino resistance. At least a quarter of a million Filipinos, most of them civilians, were killed along with 4,200 U.S. soldiers (more than ten times the number of U.S. fatalities in the Spanish-American War).5
    From the beginning it was clear that the Filipino forces were unable to match the United States in conventional warfare. They therefore quickly switched to guerrilla warfare. U.S. troops boasted in a popular marching song that they would "civilize them with the Krag" (referring to the Norwegian-designed gun with which the U.S. forces were outfitted). Yet they found themselves facing interminable small attacks and ambushes by Filipinos, who often carried long knives known as bolos. These guerrilla attacks resulted in combat deaths of U.S. soldiers in small numbers on a regular basis. As in all prolonged guerrilla wars, the strength of the Filipino resistance was due to the fact that it had the support of the Filipino population. As General Arthur MacArthur (the father of Douglas MacArthur), who became military governor of the Philippines in 1900, confided to a reporter in 1899:
    When I first started in against these rebels, I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzonthe native population that is-was opposed to us and our offers of aid and good government. But after having come this far, after having occupied several towns and cities in succession... I have been reluctantly compelled to believe that the Filipino masses are loyal to Aguinaldo and the government which he heads.
    Faced with a guerrilla struggle supported by the vast majority of the population, the U.S. military responded by resettling populations in concentration camps, burning down villages (Filipinos were sometimes forced to carry the petrol used to burn down their own homes), and engaging in mass hangings and bayonetings of suspects, systematic rape of women and girls, and torture. The most infamous torture technique, used repeatedly in the war, was the so-called water cure. Vast quan ies of water were forced down the throats of prisoners. Their stomachs were then stepped on so that the water shot out three feet in the air "like an artesian well." Most victims died not long afterwards. General Frederick Funston did not hesitate to announce that he had personally strung up a group of thirty-five Filipino civilians suspected of supporting the revolutionaries. Major Edwin Glenn saw no reason to deny the charge that he had made a group of forty-seven Filipino prisoners kneel and "repent of their sins" before bayoneting and clubbing them to death. General Jacob Smith ordered his troops to "kill and burn," to target "everything over ten," and to turn the island of Samar into "a howling wilderness." General William Shafter in California declared that it might be necessary to kill half the Filipino population to bring "perfect justice" to the other half. During the Philippine War the United States reversed the normal casualty statistics of war-usually many more are wounded than killed. According to official statistics (discussed in Congressional hearings on the war) U.S. troops killed fifteen times as many Filipinos as they wounded. This fit with frequent reports by U.S. soldiers that wounded and captured Filipino combatants were summarily executed.
    --------------------------------------------------------------


    Enter "Philippines" in this search feature for more objective info.
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/htdig/search.html

    Let's see if the forces of ignorance try to bury this to keep people from getting informed.

  22. #297
    Veteran
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,615

  23. #298
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    70,989

  24. #299
    アイムカウボーイ田中 baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,805
    Cosmo got his conspiracy theory president, so I wanted to let him enjoy his victory.

  25. #300
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    46,945
    Gotta agree the African rape is probably one of the worst events in the history of all the galaxies of the world.

    When galaxy historians write the galactic enciclopedia of the history of millions of alien races including human. The rape of Africa IMO will be a top 10 worst horrific disaster.

    Humanity should be completely ended just because of that holocaust IMo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •