SECTION 2THE TWO-FOLD CHAR ACTER OFTHE LABOUR EMBODIED IN COMMODITIES

At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things-use-value andexchange-value. Later on, we saw also that labour, too, possesses the same two-fold nature; for, so far asit finds expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator ofuse-values.

I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two-fold nature of the labourcontained in commodities. As this point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of PoliticalEconomy turns, we must go more into detailLet us take two commodities such as a coat and 10 yards of linen, and let the former be double the valueof the latter, so that, if 10 yards of linen- W, the coat-2WThe coat is a use-value that satisfies a particular want. Its existence is the result of a special sort ofproductive activity, the nature of which is determined by its aim, mode of operation, subject, means, andresult. The labour, whose utility is thus represented by the value in use of its product, or which manifestsitself by making its product a use-value, we call useful labour In this connexion we consider only itsuseful effect

As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use-values, so also are the two forms of labourthat produce them, tailoring and weaving. Were these two objects not qualitatively different, notproduced respectively by labour of different quality, they could not stand to each other in the relation ofcommodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use-value is not exchanged for another of the sameTo all the different varieties of values in use there correspond as many different kinds of useful labour,classified according to the order, genus, species, and variety to which they belong in the social divisionof labour. This division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it doesnot follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division oflabour. In the primitive Indian community there is social division of labour, without production ofcommodities. Or, to take an example nearer home, in every factory the labour is divided according to asystem, but this division is not brought about by the operatives mutually exchanging their individualproducts. Only such products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from differentkinds of labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private individualsTo resume, then: In the use-value of each commodity there is contained useful labour, t.e., productiveactivity of a definite kind and exercised with a definite aim. Use-values cannot confront each other ascommodities, unless the useful labour embodied in them is qualitatively different in each of them. In acommunity, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, te, in a community ofcommodity producers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of labour that are carried onindependently of individual producers, each on their own account, develops into a complex system, asocial division of labourAnyhow, whether the coat be worn by the tailor or by his customer, in either case it operates as ause-value. Nor is the relation between the coat and the labour that produced it altered by the circumstancethat tailoring may have become a special trade, an independent branch of the social division of labourWherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made clothes for thousands of years,without a single man becoming a tailor. But coats and linen, like every other element of material wealthactivity, exercised with a definite aim, an activity that appropriates particular nature-given materal vethat is not the spontaneous produce of Nature, must invariably owe their existence to a special productivparticular human wants. So far therefore as labour is a creator of use-value, is useful labour, it is anecessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is ankernal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man andNature, and therefore no lifeThe use-values, coat, linen, &c, t.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elementsmatter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum isalways left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Naturedoes, that is by changing the form of matter. [13] Nay more, in this work of changing the form he isconstantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, ofuse-values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its motherLet us now pass from the commodity considered as a use-value to the value of commoditiesBy our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the linen. But this is a mere quantitativedifference, which for the present does not concern us. We bear in mind, however, that if the value of thecoat is double that of 10 yds. of linen, 20 yds. of lnen must have the same value as one coat. So far asthey are values, the coat and the linen are things of a like substance, objective expressions of essentiallyIdentical labour. But tailoring and weaving are, qualitatively, different kinds of labour. There arehowever, states of society in which one and the same man does tailoring and weaving altenately. inwhich case these two forms of labour are mere modifications of the labour of the same individual, and nospecial and fixed functions of different persons, just as the coat which our tailor makes one day, and thetrousers which he makes another day, imply only a variation in the labour of one and the same individualMoreover, we see at a glance that, in our capitalist society, a given portion of human labour is,inaccordance with the varying demand, at one time supplied in the form of tailoring, at another in the formof weaving. This change may possibly not take place without friction, but take place it must.