In tailoring, as well as in weaving, human labour-power is expended. Both, therefore, possess the generalproperty of being human labour, and may, therefore, in certain cases, such as in the production of value,have to be considered under this aspect alone. There is nothing mysterious in this.

But in the expressionof value there is a complete turn of the tables. For instance, how is the fact to be expressed that weavingcreates the value of the linen, not by virtue of being weaving, as such, but by reason of its generalproperty of being human labour? Simply by opposing to weaving that other particular form of concretelabour(in this instance tailoring), which produces the equivalent of the product of weaving. Just as thecoat in its bodily form became a direct expression of value, so now does tailoring, a concrete form oflabour, appear as the direct and palpable embodiment of human labour generallyHence, the second peculiarity of the equivalent form is, that concrete labour becomes the form underhich its opposite, abstract human labour, manifests itself.But because this concrete labour, tailoring in our case, ranks as, and is directly identified with,undifferentiated human labour, it also ranks as identical with any other sort of labour, and therefore withthat embodied in the linen. Consequently, although, like all other commodity producing labour, it is thelabour of private individuals, yet, at the same time, it ranks as labour directly social in its character. Thisis the reason why it results in a product directly exchangeable with other commodities. We have then athird peculiarity of the equivalent form, namely, that the labour of private individuals takes the form ofIts opposite, labour directly social in its formThe two latter peculiarities of the equivalent form will become more intelligible if we go back to thegreat thinker who was the first to analyse so many forms, whether of thought, society, or Nature, andamongst them also the form of value. I mean aristotleIn the first place, he clearly enunciates that the money-form of commodities is only the furtherdevelopment of the simple form of value-i. e, of the expression of the value of one commodity in someother commodity taken at random; for he sayss beds l house(clinal pente anti rician)is not to be distinguished froms bedsmuch(clinal pente anti... dson ai pente clinal)He further sees that the value-relation which gives rise to this expression makes it necessary that thehouse should qualitatively be made the equal of the bed, and that, without such an equalisation, these twoclearly different things could not be compared with each other as commensurable quantities. Exchange,he says, "cannot take place without equality, and equality not without commensurability".(out isothV mhoushV snmmetria V). Here, however, he comes to a stop, and gives up the further analysis of the form ofvalue." It is, however, in reality, impossible(th men oun alhqeia adunaton), that such unlike things canbe commensurable"-i. e, qualitatively equal. Such an equalisation can only be something foreign totheir real nature, consequently only "a makeshift for practical purposes.

Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us, what barred the way to his further analysis; it was the absence of anyconcept of value. What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of thebeds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And why not?Compared with the beds, the house does represent something equal to them, in so far as it representswhat is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is-human labourcommodities, is merely a mode of expressing all labour as equal human labour, and consequent/.There was, however, an important fact which prevented Aristotle from seeing that, to attribute valuelabour of equal quality. Greek society was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its natural basis,the inequality of men and of their labour- powers. The secret of the expression of value, namely, that allkinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannotCatal vol I.Chapter onebe deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudiceThis, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes theform of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that ofowners of commodities. The brilliancy of Aristotle s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, inthe expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the societyin which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, "in truth, was at the bottom of thisequality

4 The Elenentary Fom of value considered as a wholeThe elementary form of value of a commodity is contained in the equation, expressing its value- relationto another commodity of a different kind, or in its exchange- relation to the-same. The value ofcommodity A, is qualitatively expressed, by the fact that commodity b is directly exchangeable with it.Its value is quantitatively expressed by the fact, that a definite quantity of B is exchangeable with adefinite quantity of A. In other words, the value of a commodity obtains independent and definiteexpression, by taking the form of exchange-value. When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said, incommon parlance, that a commodity is both a use -value and an exchange-value, we were, accuratelyspeaking, wrong. A commodity is a use-value or object of utility, and a value. It manifests itself as thistwo-fold thing, that it is, as soon as its value assumes an independent form-viz, the form ofexchange-value. It never assumes this form when isolated, but only when placed in a value or exchangerelation with another commodity of a different kind. When once we know this, such a mode ofexpression does no harm; it simply serves as an abbreviationOur analysis has shown, that the form or expression of the value of a commodity originates in the natureof value, and not that value and its magnitude originate in the mode of their expression asexchange-value. This, however, is the delusion as well of the mercantilists and their recent reviversFerrier, Ganilh, [23] and others, as also of their antipodes, the modern bagmen of Free- trade, such asBastiat. The mercantilists lay special stress on the qualitative aspect of the expression of value, andconsequently on the equivalent form of commodities, which attains its full perfection in money. Themodern hawkers of Free-trade, who must get rid of their article at any price, on the other hand, lay moststress on the quantitative aspect of the relative form of value. For them there consequently exists neithervalue, nor magnitude of value, anywhere except in its expression by means of the exchange relation ofcommodities, that is, in the daily list of prices current. Macleod, who has taken upon himself to dress upthe confused ideas of Lombard Street in the most learned finery, is a successful cross between thesuperstitious mercantilists, and the enlightened Free-trade bagmenA close scrutiny of the expression of the value of A in terms of B, contained in the equation expressingthe value-relation of A to B, has shown us that, within that relation, the bodily form of a figures only asa use-value, the bodily form of b only as the form or aspect of value. The opposition or contrast existingintemally in each commodity between use-value and value, is, therefore, made evident externally by twocommodities being placed in such relation to each other, that the commodity whose value it is sought toexpress, figures directly as a mere use-value, while the commodity in which that value is to be expressedfigures directly as mere exchange-value. Hence the elementary form of value of a commodity is theelementary form in which the contrast contained in that commodity, between use- value and value,becomes apparent