I've been advise
d that i should add a brief note to each section of Das Kapital
stating that this is my own translation
. It may seem pointless
, but i felt it was the only way to avoid copyright issues
. The original text is available at http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me23/me23_000.htm
THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES
AND THE SECRET THEREOF
A commodity appears at first sight a very trivial thing and easy to understand. Its analysis shows that it is in reality a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use there is nothing mysterious about it whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as the midday sun that man by his industry changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common everyday thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than "tableturning" ever was.
The mystical character of commodities does not originate therefore in their use-value. Just as little does it proceed from the nature of the determining factors of value. For, in the first place however varied the useful kinds of labour or productive activities may be, it is a physiological fact that they are functions of the human organism and that each such function whatever may be its nature or form is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, etc. Secondly, with regard to that which forms the groundwork for the quantitative determination of value namely the duration of that expenditure or the quantity of labour, it is quite clear that there is a palpable difference between its quantity and quality. In all states of society the labour-time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development. (27) And lastly, from the moment that men in any way work for one another, their labour assumes a social form.
From where then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from this form itself. The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour-power by the duration of that expenditure takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour; and finally the mutual relations of the producers within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products.
A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men's labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible to the senses. In the same way the light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye itself. But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to another from the external object to the eye. There is a physical relation between physical things. But it is different with commodities. There, the existence of the things that are commodities and the value-relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising from those. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things.
In order therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men's hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.
This Fetishism of commodities has its origin, as the above analysis has already shown, in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces them. As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because they are products of the labour of private individuals or groups of individuals who carry on their work independently of each other. The sum of the labour of all these private individuals forms the aggregate labour of society. Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer's labour does not show itself except in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society only by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the producers. To the latter therefore, the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things. It is only by being exchanged that the products of labour acquire as values one uniform social status distinct from their varied forms of existence as objects of utility. This division of a product into a useful thing and a value becomes practically important only when exchange has acquired such an extension that useful articles are produced for the purpose of being exchanged and their character as values has therefore to be taken into account beforehand during production. From this moment the labour of the individual producer acquires socially a twofold character. On the one hand it must, as a definite useful kind of labour, satisfy a definite social want and thus hold its place as part and parcel of the collective labour of all as a branch of a social division of labour that has sprung up spontaneously. On the other hand, it can satisfy the many wants of the individual producer himself only in so far as the mutual exchangeability of all kinds of useful private labour is an established social fact and therefore the private useful labour of each producer ranks on an equality with that of all others. The equalisation of the most different kinds of labour can be the result only of an abstraction from their inequalities or of reducing them to their common denominator, viz expenditure of human labour-power or human labour in the abstract. The twofold social character of the labour of the individual appears to him, when reflected in his brain, only under those forms which are impressed upon that labour in everyday practice by the exchange of products. In this way, the character that his own labour possesses of being socially useful takes the form of the condition that the product must be not only useful but useful for others, and the social character that his particular labour has of being the equal of all other particular kinds of labour takes the form that all the physically different articles that are the products of labour. have one common quality, viz., that of having value.
Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever by an exchange we equate as values our different products, by that very act we also equate as human labour the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.(28) Value therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products for to stamp an object of utility as a value is just as much a social product as language. The recent scientific discovery that the products of labour so far as they are values are but material expressions of the human labour spent in their production marks indeed an epoch in the history of the development of the human race but by no means dissipates the mist through which the social character of labour appears to us to be an objective character of the products themselves. The fact that in the particular form of production with which we are dealing i.e, the production of commodities, the specific social character of private labour carried on independently, consists in the equality of every kind of that labour by virtue of its being human labour which character therefore assumes in the product the form of value - this fact appears to the producers, notwithstanding the discovery above referred to to be just as real and final as the fact that after the discovery by science of the component gasses of air, the atmosphere itself remained unaltered.
What first of all practically concerns producers when they make an exchange, is the question how much of some other product do they get for their own? in what proportions are the products are exchangeable? When these proportions have by custom attained a certain stability they appear to result from the nature of the products so that for instance, one ton of iron and two ounces of gold appear as naturally to be of equal value as a pound of gold and a pound of iron in spite of their different physical and chemical qualities appear to be of equal weight. The character of having value when once impressed upon products obtains stasis only by reason of their acting and reacting upon each other as quantities of value. These quantities vary continually, independently of the will, foresight and action of the producers. To them, their own social action takes the form of the action of objects, which rule the producers instead of being ruled by them. It requires a fully developed production of commodities before from accumulated experience alone, the scientific conviction springs up that all the different kinds of private labour which are carried on independently of each other and yet as spontaneously developed branches of the social division of labour are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society requires them. And why? Because in the midst of all the accidental and ever fluctuating exchange-relations between the products, the labour-time socially necessary for their production forcibly asserts itself like an overriding law of Nature. The law of gravity thus asserts itself when a house falls about our ears.(29) The determination of the magnitude of value by labour-time is therefore a secret, hidden under the apparent fluctuations in the relative values of commodities. Its discovery, while removing all appearance of mere happenstance from the determination of the magnitude of the values of products yet in no way alters the mode in which that determination takes place.
Man's reflections on the forms of social life and consequently also, his scientific analysis of those forms take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development. He begins post festum with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him. The characters that stamp products as commodities, and whose establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of commodities have already acquired the stability of natural, self-understood forms of social life before man seeks to decipher not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning. Consequently it was the analysis of the prices of commodities that alone led to the determination of the magnitude of value, and it was the common expression of all commodities in money that alone led to the establishment of their characters as values. It is however, just this ultimate money-form of the world of commodities that actually conceals instead of disclosing the social character of private labour and the social relations between the individual producers. When I state that coats or boots stand in a relation to linen, because it is the universal incarnation of abstract human labour, the absurdity of the statement is self-evident. Nevertheless, when the producers of coats and boots compare those articles with linen, or, what is the same thing, with gold or silver, as the universal equivalent, they express the relation between their own private labour and the collective labour of society in the same absurd form.
The categories of bourgeois economy consist of such like forms. They are forms of thought expressing with social validity the conditions and relations of a definite, historically determined mode of production, viz, the production of commodities. The whole mystery of commodities, all the magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities vanishes therefore so soon as we come to other forms of production.
Since Robinson Crusoe's experiences are a favourite theme with political economists, (30) let us take a look at him on his island. Moderate though he is, yet some few wants he has to satisfy and must therefore do a little useful work of various sorts such as making tools and furniture, taming goats, fishing and hunting. Of his prayers and the like we take no account since they are a source of pleasure to him and he looks upon them as so much recreation. In spite of the variety of his work, he knows that his labour whatever its form, is but the activity of one and the same Robinson, and consequently that it consists of nothing but different modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to apportion his time accurately between his different kinds of work. Whether one kind occupies a greater space in his general activity than another depends on the difficulties, greater or less as the case may be, to be overcome in attaining the useful effect aimed at. This our friend Robinson soon learns by experience and having rescued a watch, ledger, and pen and ink from the wreck, commences like a true Briton, to keep a set of books. His stockbook contains a list of the objects of utility that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their production and lastly, of the labour-time that definite quantities of those objects have, on an average, cost him. All the relations between Robinson and the objects that form this wealth of his own creation, are here so simple and clear as to be intelligible without exertion, even to Mr. Sedley Taylor. And yet those relations contain all that is essential to the determination of value.
Let us now transport ourselves from Robinson's island bathed in light to the European middle ages shrouded in darkness. Here, instead of the independent man we find everyone dependent, serfs and lords, vassals and suzerains, laymen and clergy. Personal dependence here characterises the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organised on the basis of that production. But for the very reason that personal dependence forms the groundwork of society there is no necessity for labour and its products to assume a fantastic form different from their reality. They take the shape, in the transactions of society, of services in kind and payments in kind. Here the particular and natural form of labour and not as in a society based on production of commodities, its general abstract form is the immediate social form of labour. Compulsory labour is just as properly measured by time, as commodity-producing labour but every serf knows that what he expends in the service of his lord is a definite quantity of his own personal labour-power. The tithe to be rendered to the priest is more matter of fact than his blessing. No matter then, what we may think of the parts played by the different classes of people themselves in this society, the social relations between individuals in the performance of their labour appear at all events as their own mutual personal relations, and are not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of labour.
For an example of labour in common or directly associated labour, we have no occasion to go back to that spontaneously developed form which we find on the threshold of the history of all civilised races.(31) We have one close at hand in the patriarchal industries of a peasant family that produces corn, cattle, yarn, linen and clothing for home use. These different articles are as regards the family, so many products of its labou, but as between themselves, they are not commodities. The different kinds of labour, such as tillage, cattle tending, spinning, weaving and making clothes, which result in the various products are in themselves and such as they are direct social functions, because functions of the family which just as much as a society based on the production of commodities, possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of labour. The distribution of the work within the family, and the regulation of the labour-time of the several members depend as well upon differences of age and sex as upon natural conditions varying with the seasons. The labour-power of each individual by its very nature, operates in this case merely as a definite portion of the whole labour-power of the family and therefore, the measure of the expenditure of individual labour-power by its duration appears here by its very nature as a social character of their labour.
Let us now picture to ourselves by way of a change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson's labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time. Labour-time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution.
The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. And for a society based upon the production of commodities in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour - for such a society, Christianity with its cult of abstract man more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, etc, is the most fitting form of religion. In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of production we find that the conversion of products into commodities, and therefore the conversion of men into producers of commodities holds a subordinate place which however, increases in importance as the primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution. Trading nations, properly so called exist in the ancient world only in its interstices like the gods of Epicurus in the Intermundia or like Jews in the pores of Polish society. Those ancient social organisms of production are, as compared with bourgeois society, extremely simple and transparent. But they are founded either on the immature development of man individually who has not yet severed the umbilical cord that unites him with his fellowmen in a primitive tribal community or upon direct relations of subjection. They can arise and exist only when the development of the productive power of labour has not risen beyond a low stage and when therefore, the social relations within the sphere of material life, between man and man, and between man and Nature, are correspondingly narrow. This narrowness is reflected in the ancient worship of Nature, and in the other elements of the popular religions. The religious reflex of the real world can in any case, only then finally vanish when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.
The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. This, however, demands for society a certain material groundwork or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.
Political Economy has indeed analysed however incompletely,(32) value and its magnitude, and has discovered what lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour-time by the magnitude of that value. (33) These formulae which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man instead of being controlled by him such formulae appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself. Hence forms of social production that preceded the bourgeois form, are treated by the bourgeoisie in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions.(34)
To what extent some economists are misled by the Fetishism inherent in commodities, or by the objective appearance of the social characteristics of labour is shown amongst other ways, by the dull and tedious quarrel over the part played by Nature in the formation of exchange-value. Since exchange-value is a definite social manner of expressing the amount of labour bestowed upon an object, Nature has no more to do with it than it has in fixing the course of exchange.
The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. It therefore makes its appearance at an early date in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic manner as in the present. Hence its Fetish character is comparatively easy to be seen through. But when we come to more concrete forms, even this appearance of simplicity vanishes. From where did the illusions of the monetary system arise? To it gold and silver when serving as money did not represent a social relation between producers, but were natural objects with strange social properties. And modern economy, which looks down with such disdain on the monetary system does not its superstition come out as clear as noon-day, whenever it treats of capital? How long is it since economy discarded the physiocratic illusion, that rents grow out of the soil and not out of society?
But not to anticipate, we will content ourselves with yet another example relating to the commodity-form. Could commodities themselves speak, they would say: Our use-value may be a thing that interests men. It is no part of us as objects. What however, does belong to us as objects is our value. Our natural intercourse as commodities proves it. In the eyes of each other we are nothing but exchange-values. Now listen how those commodities speak through the mouth of the economist. "Value" - (i.e., exchange-value) "is a property of things, riches" - (i.e., use-value) "of man. Value, in this sense, necessarily implies exchanges, riches do not." (35) "Riches" (use-value) "are the attribute of men, value is the attribute of commodities. A man or a community is rich, a pearl or a diamond is valuable... A pearl or a diamond is valuable" as a pearl or a diamond. (36) So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange-value either in a pearl or a diamond. The economic discoverers of this chemical element, who by-the-by lay special claim to critical acumen, find however that the use-value of objects belongs to them independently of their material properties, while their value on the other hand, forms a part of them as objects. What confirms them in this view, is the peculiar circumstance that the use-value of objects is realised without exchange by means of a direct relation between the objects and man while, on the other hand, their value is realised only by exchange, that is by means of a social process. Who fails here to call to mind our good friend, Dogberry, who informs neighbour Seacoal, that, "To be a well-favoured man is the gift of fortune; but reading and writing comes by Nature." (37)