The People's Marx, Abridged Popular Edition of the the Three Volumes of Capital, Borchardt 1921

Chapter 3


Value in use and Exchange Value. The Socially Necessary Labour.

(Extracted from vol. 1. Ch. 1 & 2.)

A commodity is primarily an external object, which by reason of its qualities satisfies some sort of human want. Every useful thing, such as iron, paper etc., must be considered from a double point of view - according to quality, and according to quantity. Every such tiling has numerous qualities, and can thus be useful in many ways. The usefulness of the thing implies that it is a value in use. But this usefulness is not, so to speak, something hanging indefinitely in the air. Conditioned by the physical qualities of the commodity, it cannot exist apart from the latter. The substance itself of the commodity - such as iron, wheat, diamond etc. possesses therefore a value in use.

Exchange Value appears primarily as the quantitative relation in which values in use of one kind are exchanged against values in use of another kind. A definite quantity of one commodity is regularly exchanged for a specific quantity of another: that constitutes its exchange value - a relation which changes constantly according to time and locality. Thus does exchange value seem to be something accidental and purely relative, i. e. (as Condillac expressed it) it seems to consist solely in the relation of the commodities to our wants. A value in exchange inherent in commodities appears thus an impossibility. Let us consider the question more closely.

A given commodity, let us say a ton of wheat, is exchanged for a specific amount of boot-blacking, silk, or gold etc., in a word, for other commodities in varying proportions. Corn has thus a number of different exchange values. But as those specific amounts of boot-blacking, silk, gold etc. represent the exchange value of a ton of wheat, they must themselves possess an equal exchange value. It ensues therefore, first of all, that the valid exchange values of the same commodity express something identical; and, secondly, there must be something behind the exchange value - something of which the latter is bill the mode of expression.

Let us further take two commodities, e.g. wheat and iron. Whatever the proportions in which these commodities are exchangeable, it is always possible to express them by means of an equation, in which a given quantity of corn is equal to a certain quantity of iron. For instance, let us suppose a ion of wheat to be equivalent to two tons of iron. What does this equation mean? It means that a common property of the same dimension exists in two different things - in a ton of wheat and also in two tons of iron. The two things are thus equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. So far as constituting exchange values, each of the two must therefore be reducible to the third in question.

This property possessed in common cannot be a natural quality inherent in commodities. Their natural physical qualities only come under consideration at all in so far as such qualities render these commodities useful, i. e. in so far as they confer on the latter a value in use. In the exchange of commodities, abstraction is to all intents and purposes made of the value in use of such commodities. In this case one value in use is worth just as much as any other, if only it be available in the proper proportion. Or as the old economist Barbon wrote in 1696: "The one kind of commodity is as good as the other, if the respective exchange values are equal. There is no difference, and no possibility of differentiation, between things of equal exchange value ....£ 5 worth of lead or iron have the same exchange value as £ 5 worth of silver and gold." Heterogeneity of quality is the main characteristic of commodities, when we regard the matter from the point of view of their value in use; when we consider their value in exchange, there can only be heterogeneity of quantity.

If we make abstraction of the value in use of commodities, they appear henceforth under one single aspect, namely as products of labour. But the product of labour also undergoes a change as soon as it is finished. If we leave out of consideration its value in use, we likewise make abstraction of the material elements and shapes which confer on it a value in use. It is no longer a table or house or yarn, or, indeed, a useful object of any kind. All its concrete qualities have been put out of sight. Neither is it any Conger the product of the labour of a carpenter or stonemason or spinner, or of any other definite productive worker. It is, on the contrary, henceforth merely the product of human labour per se, abstract human labour, i. e. a product of the expenditure of human labour power considered independently of the shape assumed by such expenditure. I mean that it is quite indifferent whether the labour power in question was expended by a carpenter, a stonemason, or a spinner. All products of labour - considered from this point of view - merely demonstrate that human labour power has been expended in their production and that labour is accumulated in them.

The exchange value of a commodity thus only exists because, and in so far as abstract human labour is embodied in that commodity. How are we to measure the amount of such value? According to the quantity of "value-creating substance", i. e. of labour, contained in it. The quantity of labour will itself be measured by its duration, and working- time is, in turn, measured according to definite time-standards, such as hours, days, etc.

If the value of a commodity be determined by the quantity of labour expended in its production, it might seem that the lazier and more unskilful a man is, the more valuable the commodity produced by him would be, seeing that more time was required for its manufacture. But the labour which constitutes the substance of the values is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of the same uniform human labour power. The total labour power of society which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities existing at any given moment, is to be considered as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, although it consists in the labour power of innumerable individuals. The labour power of each of these individuals is the same, in so far as it constitutes the average labour power of society, and operates as such - i. e. in so far as it needs the working-time necessary on an average, or socially necessary, for the production of a commodity. Socially necessary is only such working-time as is required for producing a value in use under existing normal conditions of production and with the average amount of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. After the introduction of steam weaving-looms in England, for instance, perhaps only half the labour needed previously was henceforth necessary in order to transform a given quantity of yarn into a textile fabric. The English hand-weaver still needed the same amount of time for effecting such a transformation; but the product of his individual hour?s work represented henceforth only half an hour's social labour, and lost in consequence half its former value.

Thus it is only the quantity of labour or of working-time socially necessary for its production, which determines the exchange value of a commodity. The individual commodity is in this case merely an average sample of its kind. Therefore those commodities which represent an equal sum of labour, or which can be produced in the same amount of working-time, possess the same value. The value of a commodity is to the value of every other commodity as the working-time necessary for the production of one commodity to the working-time necessary for the production of the others. "Considered in terms of value, all commodities are but a definite quantity of congealed working-time". [1]

Thus the total value of a commodity would remain unchanged, if the working-time necessary for its production were to remain the same. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. The productiveness of labour is determined by various circumstances amongst others by the average amount of skill of the labourers, by the degree in which science is developed and applicable for technical purposes, the manner in which the process of production is organized, the extent and efficiency of the means of production, and by natural conditions. For instance, the same quantity of labour is, in the favourable season of the year, embodied in double the quantity of wheat obtained in the unfavourable season. The same quantity of labour extracts greater quantities of metal from rich mines than from poor ones. And so forth. Diamonds are seldom to be found on the earth's surface, and their discovery requires therefore, as a general rule, much working-time. Consequently they represent a large amount of labour in but a small compass. In the case of richer mines the same quantity of labour would be embodied in a larger quantity of diamonds, and the value of the latter would fall. If it were possible to transform carbon into diamonds with but a slight expenditure of labour, the value of such diamonds might fall below that of bricks. In general we may say that the greater the productiveness of labour, the shorter will be the working- time necessary for the production of an article, the smaller will be the mass of labour contained in it, and the smaller will be its value. Conversely, the less the productiveness of labour, the longer will be the working-time necessary for the production of an article, and the greater will be the value of that article.

A thing can possess value in use, without having value. This is the case when no labour is required in order to make it useful to mankind. Such are air, virgin soil, natural pastures, wild-growing wood, etc. A thing can be both useful and the product of human labour, without constituting a commodity. Whoever satisfies his own wants by the produce of his own labour creates, it is true, values in use, but no commodity. In order to produce commodities he must not only create values in use per se, but values in use for others, i. e. social values in use. Lastly, nothing can have value without being an object of utility. If it be useless, the labour contained in it is useless, cannot be reckoned as labour, and cannot therefore create value.

[1] Karl Marx: Zur Kritik der politischien Oekonomie, Berlin, 1859. New edition, Stuttgart 1897. p. 5.

Back to Chapter 2  To Chapter 4