are expressions of the same unit, things of the same kind. Linen coat is the basis of the equation.But the two commodities whose identity of quality is thus assumed, do not play the same part. It is onlthe value of the linen that is expressed And how? By its reference to the coat as its equivalent,something that can be exchanged for it.

In this relation the coat is the mode of existence of value is valueembodied for only as such is it the same as the linen. On the other hand. the linen 's own value comes tothe front, receives independent expression, for it is only as being value that it is comparable with the coatas a thing of equal value, or exchangeable with the coat To borrow an illustration from chemistrybutyric acid is a different substance from propyl formate. Yet both are made up of the same chemicalsubstances, carbon(C), hydrogen(H), and oxygen(O), and that, too, in like proportions -- namely,CAHgO?. If now we equate butyric acid to propyl formate, then, in the first place, propyl formate wouldbe, in this relation, merely a form of existence of C4H8O2; and in the second place, we should be statingthat butyric acid also consists of C4H8O2. Therefore, by thus equating the two substances, expressionould be given to their chemical composition, while their different physical forms would be neglectedIf we say that, as values, commodities are mere congelation of human labour, we reduce them by ouranalysis, it is true, to the abstraction, value; but we ascribe to this value no form apart from their bodilyform. It is otherwise in the value-relation of one commodity to another. Here, the one stands forth in itscharacter of value by reason of its relation to the otherBy making the coat the equivalent of the linen, we equate the labour embodied in the former to that in theatter. Now, it is true that the tailoring, which makes the coat, is concrete labour of a different sort fromthe weaving which makes the linen. But the act of equating it to the weaving, reduces the tailoring to thatwhich is really equal in the two kinds of labour, to their common character of human labour. In thisroundabout way, then, the fact is expressed, that weaving also, in so far as it weaves value, has nothing todistinguish it from tailoring, and, consequently, is abstract human labour. It is theequivalence between different sorts of commodities that alone brings into relief the specific character ofvalue-creating labour, and this it does by actually reducing the different varieties of labour embodied inthe different kinds of commodities to their common quality of human labour in the abstract. 181There is, however, something else required beyond the expression of the specific character of the labourof which the value of the linen consists. Human labour-power in motion, or human labour, creates value,but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of someobject. In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation of human labour, that value must beexpressed as having objective existence, as being a something materially different from the linen itself,and yet a something common to the linen and all other commodities. The problem is already solved

When occupying the position of equivalent in the equation of value, the coat ranks qualitatively as theequal of the linen, as something of the same kind, because it is value. In this position it is a thing inwhich we see nothing but value, or whose palpable bodily form represents value. Yet the coat itself, thebody of the commodity, coat, is a mere use-value. A coat as such no more tells us it is value, than doesthe first piece of linen we take hold of. This shows that when placed in value-relation to the linen, thecoat signifies more than when out of that relation, just as many a man strutting about in a gorgeousuniform counts for more than when in muftiIn the production of the coat, human labour-power, in the shape of tailoring, must have been actuallyexpended. Human labour is therefore accumulated in it. In this aspect the coat is a depository of value.but though worn to a thread, it does not let this fact show through. And as equivalent of the linen in thealue equation, it exists under this aspect alone, counts therefore as embodied value, as a body that isvalue. A, for instance, cannot be"your majesty to B, unless at the same time majesty in B's eyesassumes the bodily form of A, and, what is more, with every new father of the people, changes itsfeatures, hair, and many other things besidesHence, in the value equation, in which the coat is the equivalent of the linen, the coat officiates as theform of value. The value of the commodity linen is expressed by the bodily form of the commodity coat,the value of one by the use-value of the other. As a use-value, the linen is something palpably differentfrom the coat; as value, it is the same as the coat, and now has the appearance of a coat Thus the linencquires a value-form different from its physical form. The fact that it is value, is made manifest by itsequality with the coat, just as the sheep's nature of a Christian is shown in his resemblance to the lamb