Butalongsidethisprocessofformationofclassesanotherwasalsotakingplace。Thespontaneouslyevolveddivisionoflabourwithinthefamilycultivatingthesoilmadepossible，atacertainlevelofwell-being，theincorporationofoneormorestrangersasadditionallabourforces。
Thiswasespeciallythecaseincountrieswheretheoldcommonownershipofthelandhadalreadydisintegratedoratleasttheformerjointcultivationhadgivenplacetotheseparatecultivationofparcelsoflandbytherespectivefamilies。Productionhaddevelopedsofarthatthelabour-powerofamancouldnowproducemorethanwasnecessaryforitsmeremaintenance;themeansofmaintainingadditionallabourforcesexisted;likewisethemeansofemployingthem;labour-poweracquiredavalue。Butthecommunityitselfandtheassociationtowhichitbelongedyieldednoavailable，superfluouslabourforces。Ontheotherhand，suchforceswereprovidedbywar，andwarwasasoldasthesimultaneousexistencealongsideeachotherofseveralgroupsofcommunities。Uptothattimeonehadnotknownwhattodowithprisonersofwar，andhadthereforesimplykilledthem;atanevenearlierperiod，eatenthem。Butatthestageof“economicsituation“whichhadnowbeenattained，theprisonersacquiredvalue;onethereforeletthemliveandmadeuseoftheirlabour。Thusforce，insteadofcontrollingtheeconomicsituation，wasonthecontrarypressedintotheserviceoftheeconomicsituation。Slaveryhadbeeninvented。Itsoonbecamethedominantformofproductionamongallpeopleswhoweredevelopingbeyondtheoldcommunity，butintheendwasalsooneofthechiefcausesoftheirdecay。Itwasslaverythatfirstmadepossiblethedivisionoflabourbetweenagricultureandindustryonalargerscale，andtherebyalsoHellenism，thefloweringoftheancientworld。Withoutslavery，noGreekstate，noGreekartandscience，withoutslavery，noRomanEmpire。ButwithoutthebasislaidbyHellenismandtheRomanEmpire，alsonomodernEurope。Weshouldneverforgetthatourwholeeconomic，politicalandintellectualdevelopmentpresupposesastateofthingsinwhichslaverywasasnecessaryasitwasuniversallyrecognised。Inthissenseweareentitledtosay:
Withouttheslaveryofantiquitynomodernsocialism。
Itisveryeasytoinveighagainstslaveryandsimilarthingsingeneralterms，andtogiveventtohighmoralindignationatsuchinfamies。
Unfortunatelyallthatthisconveysisonlywhateveryoneknows，namely，thattheseinstitutionsofantiquityarenolongerinaccordwithourpresentconditionsandoursentiments，whichtheseconditionsdetermine。Butitdoesnottellusonewordastohowtheseinstitutionsarose，whytheyexisted，andwhatroletheyplayedinhistory。Andwhenweexaminethesequestions，wearecompelledtosay——howevercontradictoryandhereticalitmaysound——thattheintroductionofslaveryundertheconditionsprevailingatthattimewasagreatstepforward。Foritisafactthatmansprangfromthebeasts，andhadconsequentlytousebarbaricandalmostbestialmeanstoextricatehimselffrombarbarism。Wheretheancientcommunitieshavecontinuedtoexist，theyhaveforthousandsofyearsformedthebasisofthecruellestformofstate，Orientaldespotism，fromIndiatoRussia。
Itwasonlywherethesecommunitiesdissolvedthatthepeoplesmadeprogressofthemselves，andtheirnexteconomicadvanceconsistedintheincreaseanddevelopmentofproductionbymeansofslavelabour。Itisclearthatsolongashumanlabourwasstillsolittleproductivethatitprovidedbutasmallsurplusoverandabovethenecessarymeansofsubsistence，anyincreaseoftheproductiveforces，extensionoftrade，developmentofthestateandoflaw，orfoundationofartandscience，waspossibleonlybymeansofagreaterdivisionoflabour。Andthenecessarybasisforthiswasthegreatdivisionoflabourbetweenthemassesdischargingsimplemanuallabourandthefewprivilegedpersonsdirectinglabour，conductingtradeandpublicaffairs，and，atalaterstage，occupyingthemselveswithartandscience。Thesimplestandmostnaturalformofthisdivisionoflabourwasinfactslavery。Inthehistoricalconditionsoftheancientworld，andparticularlyofGreece，theadvancetoasocietybasedonclassantagonismscouldbeaccomplishedonlyintheformofslavery。Thiswasanadvanceevenfortheslaves;theprisonersofwar，fromwhomthemassoftheslaveswasrecruited，nowatleastsavedtheirlives，insteadofbeingkilledastheyhadbeenbefore，orevenroasted，asatastillearlierperiod。
Wemayaddatthispointthatallhistoricalantagonismsbetweenexploitingandexploited，rulingandoppressedclassestothisverydayfindtheirexplanationinthissamerelativelyundevelopedhumanlabour。
Solongasthereallyworkingpopulationweresomuchoccupiedwiththeirnecessarylabourthattheyhadnotimeleftforlookingafterthecommonaffairsofsociety——thedirectionoflabour，affairsofstate，legalmatters，art，science，etc——solongwasitnecessarythatthereshouldconstantlyexistaspecialclass，freedfromactuallabour，tomanagetheseaffairs;andthisclassneverfailed，foritsownadvantage，toimposeagreaterandgreaterburdenoflabourontheworkingmasses。Onlytheimmenseincreaseoftheproductiveforcesattainedbymodernindustryhasmadeitpossibletodistributelabouramongallmembersofsocietywithoutexception，andtherebytolimitthelabour-timeofeachindividualmembertosuchanextentthatallhaveenoughfreetimelefttotakepartinthegeneral——boththeoreticalandpractical——affairsofsociety。Itisonlynow，therefore，thateveryrulingandexploitingclasshasbecomesuperfluousandindeedahindrancetosocialdevelopment，anditisonlynow，too，thatitwillbeinexorablyabolished，howevermuchitmaybeinpossessionof“directforce“。
When，therefore，HerrDühringturnsuphisnoseatHellenismbecauseitwasfoundedonslavery，hemightwithequaljusticereproachtheGreekswithhavinghadnosteam-enginesorelectrictelegraphs。Andwhenheassertsthatourmodernwagebondagecanonlybeexplainedasasomewhattransformedandmitigatedheritageofslavery，andnotbyitsownnature(thatis，bytheeconomiclawsofmodernsociety)，thiseithermeansonlythatbothwage-labourandslaveryareformsofbondageandclassdomination，whicheverychildknowstobeso，orisfalse。Forwithequaljusticewemightsaythatwage-labourcouldonlybeexplainedasamitigatedformofcannibalism，which，itisnowestablished，wastheuniversalprimitiveformofutilisationofdefeatedenemies。
Theroleplayedinhistorybyforceascontrastedwitheconomicdevelopmentisthereforeclear。Inthefirstplace，allpoliticalpowerisorganicallybasedonaneconomic，socialfunction，andincreasesinproportionasthemembersofsociety，throughthedissolutionoftheprimitivecommunity，becometransformedintoprivateproducers，andthusbecomemoreandmoredivorcedfromtheadministratorsofthecommonfunctionsofsociety。
Secondly，afterthepoliticalforcehasmadeitselfindependentinrelationtosociety，andhastransformeditselffromitsservantintoitsmaster，itcanworkintwodifferentdirections。Eitheritworksinthesenseandinthedirectionofthenaturaleconomicdevelopment，inwhichcasenoconflictarisesbetweenthem，theeconomicdevelopmentbeingaccelerated。
Oritworksagainsteconomicdevelopment，inwhichcase，asarule，withbutfewexceptions，forcesuccumbstoit。Thesefewexceptionsareisolatedcasesofconquest，inwhichthemorebarbarianconquerorsexterminatedordroveoutthepopulationofacountryandlaidwasteorallowedtogotoruinproductiveforceswhichtheydidnotknowhowtouse。ThiswaswhattheChristiansinMoorishSpaindidwiththemajorpartoftheirrigationworksonwhichthehighlydevelopedagricultureandhorticultureoftheMoorsdepended。Everyconquestbyamorebarbarianpeopledisturbsofcoursetheeconomicdevelopmentanddestroysnumerousproductiveforces。Butintheimmensemajorityofcaseswheretheconquestispermanent，themorebarbarianconquerorhastoadapthimselftothehigher“economicsituation“
{D。K。G。231}asitemergesfromtheconquest;heisassimilatedbythevanquishedandinmostcaseshehaseventoadopttheirlanguage。Butwhere——apartfromcasesofconquest——theinternalstatepowerofacountrybecomesantagonistictoitseconomicdevelopmentasatacertainstageoccurredwithalmosteverypoliticalpowerinthepast，thecontestalwaysendedwiththedownfallofthepoliticalpower。Inexorablyandwithoutexceptiontheeconomicdevelopmenthasforceditswaythrough——wehavealreadymentionedthelatestandmoststrikingexampleofthis:thegreatFrenchRevolution。If，inaccordancewithHerrDühring’stheory，theeconomicsituationandwithittheeconomicstructureofagivencountryweredependentsimplyonpoliticalforce，itisabsolutelyimpossibletounderstandwhyFrederickWilliamIVafter1848couldnotsucceed，inspiteofhis“magnificentarmy“，[85]ingraftingthemediaevalguildsandotherromanticodditiesontotherailways，thesteam-enginesandthelarge-scaleindustrywhichwasjustthendevelopinginhiscountry;
orwhythetsarofRussia，whoispossessedofevenmuchmoreforciblemeans，isnotonlyunabletopayhisdebts，butcannotevenmaintainhis“force“withoutcontinuallyborrowingfromthe“economicsituation“ofWesternEurope。
ToHerrDühringforceistheabsoluteevil;thefirstactofforceistohimtheoriginalsin;hiswholeexpositionisajeremiadonthecontaminationofallsubsequenthistoryconsummatedbythisoriginalsin;ajeremiadontheshamefulperversionofallnaturalandsociallawsbythisdiabolicalpower，force。Thatforce，however，playsyetanotherroleinhistory，arevolutionaryrole;that，inthewordsofMarx，itisthemidwifeofeveryoldsocietypregnantwithanewone，thatitistheinstrumentwiththeaidofwhichsocialmovementforcesitswaythroughandshattersthedead，fossilisedpoliticalforms——ofthisthereisnotawordinHerrDühring。Itisonlywithsighsandgroansthatheadmitsthepossibilitythatforcewillperhapsbenecessaryfortheoverthrowofaneconomicsystemofexploitation——unfortunately，becausealluseofforcedemoralisesthepersonwhousesit。Andthisinspiteoftheimmensemoralandspiritualimpetuswhichhasbeengivenbyeveryvictoriousrevolution！
AndthisinGermany，whereaviolentcollision——whichmay，afterall，beforcedonthepeople——wouldatleasthavetheadvantageofwipingouttheservilitywhichhaspenetratedthenation’smentalityfollowingthehumiliationoftheThirtyYears’War。Andthisparson’smodeofthought——dull，insipidandimpotent——presumestoimposeitselfonthemostrevolutionarypartythathistoryhasknown！
V。
THEORYOFVALUETItisnowaboutahundredyearssincethepublicationinLeipzigofabookwhichbythebeginningofthenineteenthcenturyhadrunthroughoverthirtyeditions;itwascirculatedanddistributedintownandcountrybytheauthorities，bypreachersandphilanthropistsofallkinds，andwasgenerallyprescribedasareaderforuseintheelementaryschools。ThisbookwasRochow’sKinderfreund。Itspurposewastoteachtheyouthfuloffspringofthepeasantsandartisanstheirvocationinlifeandtheirdutiestotheirsuperiorsinsocietyandinthestate，andlikewisetoinspireinthemabeneficentcontentmentwiththeirlotonearth，withblackbreadandpotatoes，serflabour，lowwages，paternalthrashingsandotherdelectationsofthissort，andallthatbymeansofthesystemofenlightenmentwhichwastheninvogue。Withthisaiminviewtheyouthofthetownsandofthecountrysidewasadmonishedhowwiselynaturehadordainedthatmanmustwinhislivelihoodandhispleasuresbylabour，andhowhappythereforethepeasantorartisanshouldfeelthatitwasgrantedtohimtoseasonhismealwithbitterlabour，insteadof，liketherichglutton，sufferingthepangsofindigestionorconstipation，andhavingtogulpdownthechoicesttit-bitswithrepugnance。ThesesameplatitudesthatoldRochowthoughtgoodenoughforthepeasantboysandgirlsoftheelectorateofSaxonyofhistime，areserveduptousbyHerrDühringonpage14andthefollowingpagesofhisCursusasthe“absolutelyfundamental“{D。Ph。150}basisofthemostup-to-datepoliticaleconomy“Humanwantsassuchhavetheirnaturallaws，andtheirexpansionisconfinedwithinlimitswhichcanbetransgressedonlybyunnaturalactsandonlyforatime，untiltheseactsresultinnausea，wearinessoflife，decrepitude，socialmutilationandfinallysalutaryannihilation……Agameoflifeconsistingpurelyofpleasureswithoutanyfurtherseriousaimsoonmakesoneblasé，or，whatamountstothesamethingexhaustsallcapacitytofeel。Reallabour，insomeformorother，isthereforethenaturalsociallawofhealthybeings……Ifinstinctsandwantswerenotprovidedwithcounterbalancestheycouldhardlybringuseveninfantileexistence，letaloneahistoricallyintensifieddevelopmentoflife。Iftheycouldfindsatisfactionwithoutlimitandwithoutefforttheywouldsoonexhaustthemselves，leavinganemptyexistenceintheformofboringintervalslastinguntilthewantswerefeltagain……Ineveryrespect，therefore，thefactthatthesatisfactionoftheinstinctsandpassionsdependsonthesurmountingofeconomicobstaclesisasalutarybasiclawofboththeexternalarrangementofnatureandtheinnerconstitutionofman“{D。C。14，15，16}——andsoon，andsoforth。
ItcanbeseenthatthecommonestcommonplacesoftheworthyRochowarecelebratingtheircentenaryinHerrDühring，anddoso，moreover，asthe“deeperfoundation“{11}oftheoneandonlyreallycriticalandscientific“socialitariansystem“{IV}。
Withthefoundationsthuslaid，HerrDühringcanproceedtobuild。Applyingthemathematicalmethod，hefirstgivesus，followingtheancientEuclid’sexample，aseriesofdefinitions。Thisisallthemoreconvenientbecauseitenableshimatoncetocontrivehisdefinitionsinsuchawaythatwhatistobeprovedwiththeirhelpisalreadypartiallycontainedinthem。Andsowelearnattheoutsetthatthegoverningconceptinallpriorpoliticaleconomyhasbeenwealthandthatwealth，asitreallyhasbeenunderstoodhithertoandasithasdevelopeditsswayinworldhistory，is“economicpowerovermenandthings“
{16-17}。
Thisisdoublywrong。Inthefirstplacethewealthoftheancienttribalandvillagecommunitieswasinnosenseadominationovermen。Andsecondly，eveninsocietiesmovinginclassantagonisms，wealth，insofarasitincludesdominationovermen，ismainlyandalmostexclusivelyadominationovermenexercisedbyvirtueof，andthroughtheagencyof，thedominationoverthings。Fromtheveryearlyperiodwhenthecaptureofslavesandtheexploitationofslavesbecameseparatebranchesofbusiness，theexploitersofslave-labourhadtobuytheslaves，acquiringcontrolovermenonlythroughtheirpriorcontrolofthings，ofthepurchasepriceoftheslaveandofhismeansofsubsistenceandinstrumentsoflabour。
ThroughouttheMiddleAgeslargelandedpropertywastheprerequisitebymeansofwhichthefeudalnobilitycametohavequit-rentpeasantsandcorvéepeasants。Andnowadaysevenasix-year-oldchildseesthatwealthdominatesmenexclusivelybymeansofthethingswhichithasatitsdisposal。
ButwhatisitthatmakesHerrDühringconcoctthisfalsedefinitionofwealth，andwhyhashetosevertheactualconnectionwhichexistedinallformerclasssocieties？Inordertodragwealthfromthedomainofeconomicsoverintothatofmorals。Dominationoverthingsisquiteallright，butdominationovermenisanevilthing;andasHerrDühringhasforbiddenhimselftoexplaindominationovermenbydominationoverthings，hecanonceagaindoanaudacioustrickandexplaindominationovermenoffhandbyhisbelovedforce。Wealth，asdominationovermen，is“robbery“{17}——andwiththiswearebackagainatacorruptedversionofProudhon’sancientformula:“Propertyistheft。”
Andsowehavenowsafelybroughtwealthundertwoessentialaspects，productionanddistribution:wealthasdominationoverthings——productionwealth，thegoodside;wealthasdominationovermen——distributionwealthuptothepresentday，badsideawaywithit！Appliedtotheconditionsoftoday，thismeans:Thecapitalistmodeofproductionisquitegoodandmayremain，butthecapitalistmodeofdistributionisnogoodandmustbeabolished。Suchisthenonsensewhichcomesofwritingoneconomicswithoutevenhavinggraspedtheconnectionbetweenproductionanddistribution。
Afterwealth，valueisdefinedasfollows:
“Valueistheworthwhicheconomicthingsandserviceshaveincommerce。”
Thisworthcorrespondsto“thepriceoranyotherequivalentname，forexamplewages“{D。C。19}。
Inotherwords，valueistheprice。Orrather，inordernottodoHerrDühringaninjusticeandgivetheabsurdityofhisdefinitionasfaraspossibleinhisownwords:valuearetheprices。Forhesaysonpage19:
“value，andthepricesexpressingitinmoney“——
thushimselfstatingthatthesamevaluehasverydifferentpricesandconsequentlyalsojustasmanydifferentvalues。IfHegelhadnotdiedlongago，hewouldhanghimself，withallhistheologieshecouldnothavethoughtupthisvaluewhichhasasmanydifferentvaluesasithasprices。
ItrequiresoncemoresomeonewiththepositiveassuranceofHerrDühringtoinaugurateanewanddeeperfoundationforeconomicswiththedeclarationthatthereisnodifferencebetweenpriceandvalueexceptthatoneisexpressedinmoneyandtheotherisnot。
Butallthisstilldoesnottelluswhatvalueis，andstilllessbywhatitisdetermined。HerrDühringhasthereforetocomeacrosswithfurtherexplanations。
“Speakingabsolutelyingeneral，thebasiclawofcomparisonandevaluation，onwhichvalueandthepricesexpressingitinmoneydepend，belongsinthefirstplacetothesphereofpureproduction，apartfromdistribution，whichintroducesonlyasecondelementintotheconceptofvalue。Thegreaterorlesserobstacleswhichthevarietyofnaturalconditionsplacesinthewayofeffortsdirectedtowardtheprocurementofthings，andowingtowhichitnecessitatesagreaterorlesserexpenditureofeconomicenergy，determinealso……thegreaterorlesservalue“，{19-20}andthisisappraisedaccordingto“theresistanceofferedbynatureandcircumstancestotheprocuringofthings{20}……Theextenttowhichweinvestourownenergyintothem“(things)“istheimmediatedeterminingcauseoftheexistenceofvalueingeneralandofaparticularmagnitudeofit“{21}。:
Insofarasthereisameaninginthis，itis:Thevalueofaproductoflabourisdeterminedbythelabour-timenecessaryforitsproduction;
andweknewthatlongago，evenwithoutHerrDühring。Insteadofstatingthefactsimply，hehastotwistitintoanoracularsaying。Itissimplywrongtosaythatthedimensionsinwhichanyoneinvestshisenergiesinanything(tokeeptothebombasticstyle)istheimmediatedeterminingcauseofvalueandofthemagnitudeofvalue。Inthefirstplace，itdependsonwhatthingtheenergyisputinto，andsecondly，howtheenergyisputintoit。Ifsomeonemakesathingwhichhasnouse-valueforotherpeople，hiswholeenergydoesnotproduceanatomofvalue;andifheisstiff-neckedenoughtoproducebyhandanobjectwhichamachineproducestwentytimescheaper，nineteen-twentiethsoftheenergyheputintoitproducesneithervalueingeneralnoranyparticularmagnitudeofvalue。
Moreoveritisanabsolutedistortiontotransformproductivelabour，whichcreatespositiveproducts，intoamerelynegativeovercomingofaresistance。Inordertocomebyashirtweshouldthenhavetosetaboutitsomewhatasfollows:Firstlyweovercometheresistanceofthecotton-seedtobeingsownandtogrowing，thentheresistanceoftheripecottontobeingpickedandpackedandtransported，thenitsresistancetobeingunpackedandcardedandspun，furthertheresistanceoftheyarntobeingwoven，thentheresistanceoftheclothtobeingbleachedandsewn，andfinallytheresistanceofthecompletedshirttobeingputon。
Whyallthischildishperversionandperversity？Inorder，bymeansofthe“resistance“，topassfromthe“productionvalue“，thetruebuthithertoonlyidealvalue，tothe“distributionvalue“，thevalue，falsifiedbyforce，whichalonewasacknowledgedinpasthistory:
“Inadditiontotheresistanceofferedbynature……thereisyetanother，apurelysocialobstacle……Anobstructivepowerstepsinbetweenmanandnature，andthispowerisonceagainman。Man，conceivedasaloneandisolated，facesnatureasafreebeing……Thesituationisdifferentassoonaswethinkofasecondmanwho，swordinhand，holdstheapproachestonatureanditsresourcesanddemandsaprice，whateverformitmaytake，forallowingaccess。Thissecondman……，sotospeak，putsataxontheotherandisthusthereasonwhythevalueoftheobjectstrivenforturnsoutgreaterthanitmighthavebeenbutforthispoliticalandsocialobstacletotheprocuringorproductionoftheobject……Theparticularformsofthisartificiallyenhancedworthofthingsareextremelymanifold。anditnaturallyhasitsconcomitantcounterpartinacorrespondingforcingdownoftheworthoflabour{23}……Itisthereforeanillusiontoattempttoregardvalueinadvanceasanequivalentinthepropersenseofthisterm，thatis，assomethingwhichisofequalworth，orasarelationofexchangearisingfromtheprinciplethatserviceandcounter-serviceareequal……Onthecontrary，thecriterionofacorrecttheoryofvaluewillbethatthemostgeneralcauseofevaluationconceivedinthetheorydoesnotcoincidewiththespecialformofworthwhichrestsoncompulsorydistribution。Thisformvarieswiththesocialsystem，whileeconomicvaluepropercanonlybeaproductionvaluemeasuredinrelationtonatureandinconsequenceofthiswillonlychangewithchangesintheobstaclestoproductionofapurelynaturalandtechnicalkind“[D。C。24-25]。
Thevaluewhichathinghasinpractice，accordingtoHerrDühring，thereforeconsistsoftwoparts:first，thelabourcontainedinit，and，secondly，thetaxsurchargeimposed“sword;inhand“。Inotherwords，valueinpracticetodayisamonopolyprice。Nowif，inaccordancewiththistheoryofvalue，allcommoditieshavesuchamonopolyprice，onlytwoalternativesarepossible。Eithereachindividuallosesagainasabuyerwhathegainedasaseller;thepriceshavechangednominallybutinreality——intheirmutualrelationship——haveremainedthesame;everythingremainsasbefore，andthefar-fameddistributionvalueisamereillusion——
Or，ontheotherhand，theallegedtaxsurchargesrepresentarealsumofvalues，namely，thatproducedbythelabouring，value-producingclassbutappropriatedbythemonopolistclass，andthenthissumofvaluesconsistsmerelyofunpaidlabour;inthisevent，inspiteofthemanwiththeswordinhishand，inspiteoftheallegedtaxsurchargesandtheasserteddistributionvalue，wearriveonceagainattheMarxiantheoryofsurplus-value。
Butletuslookatsomeexamplesofthefamous“distributionvalue“。
Onpage135andthefollowingpageswefind:
“Theshapingofpricesasaresultofindividualcompetitionmustalsoberegardedasaformofeconomicdistributionandofthemutualimpositionoftribute……Ifthestockofanynecessarycommodityissuddenlyreducedtoaconsiderableextent，thisgivesthesellersadisproportionatepowerofexploitation[135-36]……whatacolossalincreaseinpricesthismayproduceisshownparticularlybythoseabnormalsituationsinwhichthesupplyofnecessaryarticlesiscutoffforanylengthoftime“[137]andsoon。Moreover，eveninthenormalcourseofthingsvirtualmonopoliesexistwhichmakepossiblearbitrarypriceincreases，asforexampletherailwaycompanies，thecompaniessupplyingtownswithwaterandgas[see153，154]，etc。
Ithaslongbeenknownthatsuchopportunitiesformonopolisticexploitationoccur。Butthatthemonopolypricestheseproducearenottorankasexceptionsandspecialcases，butpreciselyasclassicalexamplesofthedeterminationofvaluesinoperationtoday——thisisnew。Howarethepricesofthenecessariesoflifedetermined？HerrDühringreplies:Gointoabeleagueredcityfromwhichsupplieshavebeencutoff，andfindout！Whateffecthascompetitiononthedeterminationofmarketprices？Askthemonopolists——theywilltellyouallaboutit！
Forthatmatter，eveninthecaseofthesemonopolies，themanwiththeswordinhishandwhoissupposedtostandbehindthemisnotdiscoverable。Onthecontrary:incitiesundersiege，ifthemanwiththesword，thecommandant，doeshisduty，he，asarule，verysoonputsanendtothemonopolyandrequisitionsthemonopolisedstocksforthepurposeofequaldistribution。Andfortherestthemenwiththesword，whentheyhavetriedtofabricatea“distributionvalue“，havereapednothingbutbadbusinessandfinancialloss。WiththeirmonopolisationoftheEastIndiantrade，theDutchbroughtboththeirmonopolyandtheirtradetoruin。Thetwostrongestgovernmentswhicheverexisted，theNorthAmericanrevolutionarygovernmentandtheFrenchNationalConvention，venturedtofixmaximumprices，andtheyfailedmiserably。[86]Forsomeyearsnow，theRussiangovernmenthasbeentryingtoraisetheexchangerateofRussianpapermoney——whichitisloweringinRussiabythecontinuousemissionofirredeemablebanknotes——bytheequallycontinuousbuyingupinLondonofbillsofexchangeonRussia。Ithashadtopayforthispleasureinthelastfewyearsalmostsixtymillionrubles，andtherublenowstandsatundertwomarksinsteadofoverthree。IftheswordhasthemagiceconomicpowersascribedtoitbyHerrDühring，whyisitthatnogovernmenthassucceededinpermanentlycompellingbadmoneytohavethe“distributionvalue“ofgoodmoney，orassignatstohavethe“distributionvalue“ofgold？Andwhereistheswordwhichisincommandoftheworldmarket？
Thereisalsoanotherprincipalforminwhichthedistributionvaluefacilitatestheappropriationofotherpeople’sserviceswithoutcounter-services:thisispossession-rent，thatistosay，rentoflandandtheprofitoncapital。Forthemomentwemerelyrecordthis，toenableusto。statethatthisisallthatwelearnofthisfamous“distributionvalue“——All？No，notquite。Listentothis:
“Inspiteofthetwofoldstandpointwhichmanifestsitselfintherecognitionofaproductionvalueandadistributionvalue，thereisneverthelessalwaysunderlyingthesesomethingincommon，thethingofwhichallvaluesconsistandbywhichtheyarethereforemeasured。Theimmediate，naturalmeasureistheexpenditureofenergy，andthesimplestunitishumanenergyinthecrudestsenseoftheterm。Thislattercanbereducedtotheexistencetimewhoseself-maintenanceinturnrepresentstheovercomingofacertainsumofdifficultiesinnutritionandlife。Distribution，orappropriation，valueispresentinpureandexclusiveformonlywherethepowertodisposeofunproducedthings，or，touseacommonerexpression，wherethesethingsthemselvesareexchangedforservicesorthingsofrealproductionvalue。Thehomogeneouselement，whichisindicatedandrepresentedineveryexpressionofvalueandthereforealsointhecomponentpartsofvaluewhichareappropriatedthroughdistributionwithoutcounter-serviceconsistsintheexpenditureofhumanenergy，which……findsembodiment……
ineachcommodity“
Nowwhatshouldwesaytothis？Ifallcommodityvaluesaremeasuredbytheexpenditureofhumanenergyembodiedinthecommodities，whatbecomesofthedistributionvalue，thepricesurcharge，thetax？True，HerrDühringtellsusthatevenunproducedthings——thingswhichconsequentlycannothavearealvalue——canbegivenadistributionvalueandexchangedagainstthingswhichhavebeenproducedandpossessvalue。Butatthesametimehetellsusthatallvalues——consequentlyalsopurelyandexclusivelydistributivevalues——consistintheexpenditureofenergyembodiedinthem。Unfortunatelywearenottoldhowanexpenditureofenergycanfindembodimentinanunproducedthing。Inanycaseonepointseemstoemergeclearlyfromallthismedleyofvalues:thatdistributionvaluethepricesurchargeoncommoditiesextortedasaresultofsocialposition，andthetaxleviedbyvirtueoftheswordalloncemoreamounttonothingThevaluesofcommoditiesaredeterminedsolelybytheexpenditureofhumanenergy，vulgolabour，whichfindsembodimentinthem。So，apartfromtherentoflandandthefewmonopolyprices，HerrDühringsaysthesame，thoughinmoreslovenlyandconfusedterms，asthemuch-decriedRicardo-Marxiantheoryofvaluesaidlongagoinclearerandmorepreciseform。
Hesaysit，andinthesamebreathhesaystheopposite。MarxtakingRicardo’sinvestigationsashisstarting-point，says。Thevalueofcommoditiesisdeterminedbythesociallynecessarygeneralhumanlabourembodiedinthem，andthisinturnismeasuredbyitsduration。Labouristhemeasureofallvalues，butlabouritselfhasnovalue。HerrDühring，afterlikewiseputtingforward，inhisclumsyway，labourasthemeasureofvalue，continues:
this“canbereducedtotheexistencetimewhoseself-maintenanceinturnrepresentstheovercomingofacertainsumofdifficultiesinnutritionandlife“{D。C。27}。
Letusignoretheconfusion，duepurelytohisdesiretobeoriginal，oflabour-time，whichistheonlythingthatmattershere，withexistencetime，whichhasneveryetcreatedormeasuredvalues。Letusalsoignorethefalse“socialitarian“presencewhichthe“self-maintenance“ofthisexistencetimeisintendedtointroduce;solongastheworldhasexistedandsolongasitcontinuestoexisteveryindividualmustmaintainhimselfinthesensethathehimselfconsumeshismeansofsubsistence。
LetusassumethatHerrDühringexpressedhimselfinpreciseeconomicterms;thenthesentencequotedeithermeansnothingatallormeansthefollowing:Thevalueofacommodityisdeterminedbythelabour-timeembodiedinit，andthevalueofthislabour-timebythemeansofsubsistencerequiredforthemaintenanceofthelabourerforthistime。And，initsapplicationtopresent-daysociety，thismeans:thevalueofacommodityisdeterminedbythewagescontainedinit。
AndthisbringsusatlasttowhatHerrDühringisreallytryingtosay。Thevalueofacommodityisdetermined，inthephraseologyofvulgareconomics，bytheproductionoutlays;
Carey，onthecontrary，“broughtoutthetruththatitisnotthecostsofproduction，butthecostsofreproductionthatdeterminevalue“(KritischeGeschichte，p。401)。
Weshallseelaterwhatthereistotheseproductionorreproductioncosts;
atthemomentweonlynotethat，asiswellknown，theyconsistofwagesandprofitoncapital。Wagesrepresentthe“expenditureofenergy“embodiedincommodities，theproductionvalue。Profitrepresentsthetaxorpricesurchargeextortedbythecapitalistbyvirtueofhismonopoly，theswordinhishand——thedistributionvalue。AndsothewholecontradictoryconfusionoftheDühringiantheoryofvalueisultimatelyresolvedintothemostbeautifulandharmoniousclarity。
Thedeterminationofthevalueofcommoditiesbywages，whichinAdamSmithstillfrequentlyappearedsidebysidewithitsdeterminationbylabour-time，hasbeenbannedfromscientificpoliticaleconomysinceRicardo，andnowadayssurvivesonlyinvulgareconomics。Itispreciselytheshallowestsycophantsoftheexistingcapitalistorderofsocietywhopreachthedeterminationofvaluebywages，andalongwiththis，describetheprofitofthecapitalistlikewiseasahighersortofwages，asthewagesofabstinence(rewardtothecapitalistfornotplayingducksanddrakeswithhiscapital)，asthepremiumonrisk，asthewagesofmanagement，etc。HerrDühringdiffersfromthemonlyindeclaringthatprofitisrobbery。Inotherwords，HerrDühringbaseshissocialismdirectlyonthedoctrinesoftheworstkindofvulgareconomics。Andhissocialismisworthjustasmuchasthisvulgareconomics。Theystandandfalltogether。
Afterall，itisclearthatwhatalabourerproducesandwhathecostsarejustasmuchdifferentthingsaswhatamachineproducesandwhatitcosts。Thevaluecreatedbyalabourerinatwelve-hourworking-dayhasnothingincommonwiththevalueofthemeansofsubsistencewhichheconsumesinthisworking-dayandtheperiodofrestthatgoeswithit。
Inthesemeansofsubsistencetheremaybeembodiedthree，fourorsevenhoursoflabour-timevaryingwiththestageofdevelopmentreachedintheproductivityoflabour。Ifweassumethatsevenhoursoflabourwerenecessaryfortheirproduction，thenthetheoryofvalueofvulgareconomicswhichHerrDühringhasacceptedimpliesthattheproductoftwelvehoursoflabourhasthevalueoftheproductofsevenhoursoflabour，thattwelvehoursoflabourareequaltosevenhoursoflabour，orthat12=7。Toputitevenmoreplainly:Alabourerworkingontheland，nomatterunderwhatsocialrelationshipsproducesinayearacertainquantityofgrain，saysixtybushelsofwheat。Duringthistimeheconsumesasumofvaluesamountingofforty-fivebushelsofwheat。Thenthesixtybushelsofwheathavethesamevalueastheforty-fivebushels，andthatinthesamemarketandwithotherconditionsremainingabsolutelyidentical;inotherwords，sixty=forty-five。
Andthisstylesitselfpoliticaleconomy！
Thewholedevelopmentofhumansocietybeyondthestageofbrutesavagerybeginsonthedaywhenthelabourofthefamilycreatedmoreproductsthanwerenecessaryforitsmaintenanceonthedaywhenaportionoflabourcouldbedevotedtotheproductionnolongerofthemeremeansofsubsistence，butofmeansofproduction。Asurplusoftheproductoflabouroverandabovethecostsofmaintenanceofthelabour，andtheformationandenlargement，outofthissurplus，ofasocialproductionandreservefund，wasandisthebasisofallsocial，politicalandintellectualprogress。Inhistory，uptothepresent，thisfundhasbeenthepossessionofaprivilegedclass，onwhichalsodevolvedalongwiththispossession，politicaldominationandintellectualleadership。Theimpendingsocialrevolutionwillforthefirsttimemakethissocialproductionandreservefund——thatis，thetotalmassofrawmaterials，instrumentsofproductionandmeansofsubsistence——areallysocialfund，bydeprivingthatprivilegedclassofthedisposalofitandtransferringittothewholeofsocietyasitscommonproperty。
Oftwoalternativecourses，one。Eitherthevalueofcommoditiesisdeterminedbythecostsofmaintenanceofthelabournecessaryfortheirproduction——thatis，inpresent-daysociety，bythewages。Inthatcaseeachlabourerreceivesinhiswagesthevalueoftheproductofhislabour;andthentheexploitationofthewage-earningclassbythecapitalistclassisanimpossibility。Letusassumethatthecostsofmaintenanceofalabourerinagivensocietycanbeexpressedbythesumofthreemarks。
Thentheproductofaday’slabour，accordingtotheabove-citedtheoryofthevulgareconomists，hasthevalueofthreemarks。Letusassumethatthecapitalistwhoemploysthislabourer，addsaprofittothisproduct，atributeofonemark，andsellsitforfourmarks。Theothercapitalistsdothesame。Butfromthatmomentthelabourercannolongercoverhisdailyneedswiththreemarks，butalsorequiresfourmarksforthispurpose。
Asallotherconditionsareassumedtohaveremainedunchanged，thewagesexpressedinmeansofsubsistencemustremainthesame，whilethewagesexpressedinmoneymustrise，namely，fromthreemarkstofourmarksaday。Whatthecapitaliststakefromtheworkingclassintheformofprofit，theymustgivebacktoitintheformofwages。Wearejustwherewewereatthebeginning:ifwagesdeterminevalue，noexploitationoftheworkerbythecapitalistispossible。Buttheformationofasurplusofproductsisalsoimpossible，for，onthebasisoftheassumptionfromwhichwestarted，thelabourersconsumejustasmuchvalueastheyproduce。Andasthecapitalistsproducenovalue，itisimpossibletoseehowtheyexpecttolive。Andifsuchasurplusofproductionoverconsumption，suchaproductionandreservefund，neverthelessexists，andexistsinthehandsofthecapitalists，nootherpossibleexplanationremainsbutthattheworkersconsumefortheirself-maintenancemerelythevalueofthecommoditiesandhavehandedoverthecommoditiesthemselvestothecapitalistforfurtheruse。
Or，ontheotherhand，ifthisproductionandreservefunddoesinfactexistinthehandsofthecapitalistclass，ifithasactuallyarisenthroughtheaccumulationofprofit(forthemomentweleavethelandrentoutofaccount)，thenitnecessarilyconsistsoftheaccumulatedsurplusoftheproductoflabourhandedovertothecapitalistclassbytheworkingclass，overandabovethesumofwagespaidtotheworkingclassbythecapitalistclass。Inthiscase，however，itisnotwagesthatdeterminevalue，butthequantityoflabour;inthiscasetheworkingclasshandsovertothecapitalistclassintheproductoflabouragreaterquantityofvaluethanitreceivesfromitintheshapeofwages;andthentheprofitoncapital，likeallotherformsofappropriationwithoutpaymentofthelabourproductofothers，isexplainedasasimplecomponentpartofthissurplus-valuediscoveredbyMarx。
Incidentally，inDühring’swholeCursusofpoliticaleconomythereisnomentionofthatgreatandepoch-makingdiscoverywithwhichRicardoopenshismostimportantwork:
“Thevalueofacommodity……dependsonthequantityoflabourwhichisnecessaryforitsproduction，andnotonthegreaterorlessercompensationwhichispaidforthatlabour。”
IntheKritischeGeschichteitisdismissedwiththeoracularphrase:
“Itisnotconsidered“(byRicardo)“thatthegreaterorlesserproportioninwhichwagescanbeanallotmentofthenecessariesoflife“(！)“mustalsoinvolve……differentformsofthevaluerelationships！“{D。K。G。
215。}
Aphraseintowhichthereadercanreadwhathepleases，andisonsafestgroundifhereadsintoitnothingatall。
Andnowletthereaderselectforhimself，fromthefivesortsofvalueserveduptousbyHerrDühring，theonethathelikesbest:
theproductionvalue，whichcomesfromnature;orthedistributionvalue，whichman’swickednesshascreatedandwhichisdistinguishedbythefactthatitismeasuredbytheexpenditureofenergy，whichisnotcontainedinit;orthirdly，thevaluewhichismeasuredbylabour-time;orfourthly，thevaluewhichismeasuredbythecostsofreproduction;orlastly，thevaluewhichismeasuredbywages。Theselectioniswide，theconfusioncomplete，andtheonlythingleftforustodoistoexclaimwithHerrDühring:
“Thetheoryofvalueisthetouchstoneoftheworthofeconomicsystems！“
{499}
VI。
SIMPLEANDCOMPOUNDLABOURHerrDühringhasdiscoveredinMarxagrossblunderineconomicsthataschoolboywouldblushat，ablunderwhichatthesametimecontainsasocialistheresyverydangeroustosociety。
Marx’stheoryofvalueis“nothingbuttheordinary……theorythatlabouristhecauseofallvaluesandlabour-timeistheirmeasure。Butthequestionofhowthedistinctvalueofso-calledskilledlabouristobeconceivedisleftincompleteobscurity。Itistruethatinourtheoryalsoonlythelabour-timeexpendedcanbethemeasureofthenaturalcostandthereforeoftheabsolutevalueofeconomicthings;butherethelabour-timeofeachindividualmustbeconsideredabsolutelyequal，tostartwith，anditisonlynecessarytoexaminewhere，inskilledproduction，thelabour-timeofotherpersons……forexampleinthetoolused，isaddedtotheseparatelabour-timeoftheindividual。Thereforethepositionisnot，asinHerrMarx’shazyconception，thatthelabour-timeofonepersonisinitselfmorevaluablethanthatofanother，becausemoreaveragelabour-timeiscondensedasitwerewithinit，butalllabour-timeisinprincipleandwithoutexception——andthereforewithoutanyneedtotakefirstanaverage——absolutelyequalinvalue;andinregardtotheworkdonebyaperson，asalsoinregardtoeveryfinishedproduct，allthatrequirestobeascertainedishowmuchofthelabour-timeofotherpersonsmaybeconcealedinwhatappearstobeonlyhisownlabour-time。Whetheritisahandtoolforproduction，orthehand，oreventheheaditself，whichcouldnothaveacquireditsspecialcharacteristicsandcapacityforworkwithoutthelabour-timeofothers，isnotoftheslightestimportanceinthestrictapplicationofthetheory。Inhislucubrationsonvalue，however，HerrMarxneverridshimselfoftheghostofaskilledlabour-timewhichlurksinthebackground。
Hewasunabletoeffectathoroughgoingchangeherebecausehewashamperedbythetraditionalmodeofthoughtoftheeducatedclasses，towhomitnecessarilyappearsmonstroustorecognisethelabour-timeofaporterandthatofanarchitectasofabsolutelyequalvaluefromthestandpointofeconomics“{D。K。G。499-500}。
ThepassageinMarxwhichcallsforththis“mightierwrath“{501}onHerrDühring’spartisverybrief。Marxisexaminingwhatitisthatdeterminesthevalueofcommoditiesandgivestheanswer:thehumanlabourembodiedinthem。This，hecontinues，“istheexpenditureofsimplelabour-powerwhich，onanaverage，apartfromanyspecialdevelopment，existsintheorganismofeveryordinaryindividual……Skilledlabourcountsonlyassimplelabourintensified，orrather，asmultipliedsimplelabour，agivenquantityofskilledbeingconsideredequaltoagreaterquantityofsimplelabour。Experienceshowsthatthisreductionisconstantlybeingmade。
Acommoditymaybetheproductofthemostskilledlabour，butitsvalue，byequatingittotheproductofsimpleunskilledlabour，representsadefinitequantityofthelatterlabouralone。Thedifferentproportionsinwhichdifferentsortsoflabourarereducedtounskilledlabourastheirstandard，areestablishedbyasocialprocessthatgoesonbehindthebacksoftheproducers，and，consequently，appeartobefixedbycustom“。
Marxisdealingherefirstofallonlywiththedeterminationofthevalueofcommodities，i。e。，ofobjectswhich，withinasocietycomposedofprivateproducers，areproducedandexchangedagainsteachotherbytheseprivateproducersfortheirprivateaccount。Inthispassagethereforethereisnoquestionwhateverof“absolutevalue“——whereverthismaybeinexistence——butofthevaluewhichiscurrentinadefiniteformofsociety。Thisvalue，inthisdefinitehistoricalsense，isshowntobecreatedandmeasuredbythehumanlabourembodiedintheindividualcommodities，andthishumanlabourisfurthershowntobetheexpenditureofsimplelabour-power。Butnotalllabourisamereexpenditureofsimplehumanlabour-power;verymanysortsoflabourinvolvetheuseofcapabilitiesorknowledgeacquiredwiththeexpenditureofgreaterorlessereffort，timeandmoney。Dothesekindsofcompoundlabourproduce，inthesameintervaloftime，thesamecommodityvaluesassimplelabour，theexpenditureofmeresimplelabour-power？Obviouslynot。Theproductofonehourofcompoundlabourisacommodityofahighervalue——perhapsdoubleortreble——incomparisonwiththeproductofonehourofsimplelabour。Thevaluesoftheproductsofcompoundlabourareexpressedbythiscomparisonindefinitequantitiesofsimplelabour;butthisreductionofcompoundlabourisestablishedbyasocialprocesswhichgoesonbehindthebacksoftheproducers，byaprocesswhichatthispoint，inthedevelopmentofthetheoryofvalue，canonlybestatedbutnotasyetexplained。
Itisthissimplefact，takingplacedailybeforeoureyesinpresent-daycapitalistsociety，whichisherestatedbyMarx。ThisfactissoindisputablethatevenHerrDühringdoesnotventuretodisputeiteitherinhisCursusorinhishistoryofpoliticaleconomy;
andtheMarxianpresentationissosimpleandlucidthatnoonebutHerrDühring“isleftincompleteobscurity“byit。Becauseofhiscompleteobscurityhemistakesthecommodityvalue，whichaloneMarxwasforthetimebeingconcernedwithinvestigating，for“thenaturalcost“，whichmakestheobscuritystillmorecomplete，andevenforthe“absolutevalue“，whichsofarasourknowledgegoeshasneverbeforehadcurrencyinpoliticaleconomy。ButwhateverHerrDühringmayunderstandbythenaturalcost，andwhicheverofhisfivekindsofvaluemayhavethehonourtorepresentabsolutevalue，thismuchatleastissure:thatMarxisnotdiscussinganyofthesethings，butonlythevalueofcommodities;andthatinthewholesectionofCapitalwhichdealswithvaluethereisnoteventheslightestindicationofwhetherortowhatextentMarxconsidersthistheoryofthevalueofcommodities’applicablealsotootherformsofsociety。
“Thereforethepositionisnot。”HerrDühringproceeds，“asinHerrMarx’shazyconception，thatthelabour-timeofonepersonisinitselfmorevaluablethanthatofanother，becausemoreaveragelabour-timeiscondensedasitwerewithinit，butalllabour-timeisinprincipleandwithoutexception——andthereforewithoutanyneedtotakefirstanaverage——absolutelyequalinvalue“{D。K。G。500}。
ItisfortunateforHerrDühringthatfatedidnotmakehimamanufacturer，andthussavedhimfromfixingthevalueofhiscommoditiesonthebasisofthisnewruleandtherebyrunninginfalliblyintothearmsofbankruptcy。
Butsay，areweherestillinthesocietyofmanufacturers？No，farfromit。WithhisnaturalcostandabsolutevalueHerrDühringhasmadeustakealeap，averitablesaltomortale，outofthepresentevilworldofexploitersintohisowneconomiccommuneofthefuture，intothepure，heavenlyairofequalityandjustice;andsowemustnow，eventhoughprematurely，takeaglanceatthisnewworld。
Itistruethat，accordingtoHerrDühring’stheory，onlythelabour-timeexpendedcanmeasurethevalueofeconomicthingsevenintheeconomiccommune;butasamatterofcoursethelabour-timeofeachindividualmustbeconsideredabsolutelyequaltostartwith，alllabour-timeisinprincipleandwithoutexceptionabsolutelyequalinvalue，withoutanyneedtotakefirstanaverage。AndnowcomparewiththisradicalequalitariansocialismMarx’shazyconceptionthatthelabour-timeofonepersonisinitselfmorevaluablethanthatofanother，becausemoreaveragelabour-timeiscondensedasitwerewithinit——aconceptionwhichheldMarxcaptivebyreasonofthetraditionalmodeofthoughtoftheeducatedclasses，towhomitnecessarilyappearsmonstrousthatthelabour-timeofaporterandthatofanarchitectshouldberecognisedasofabsolutelyequalvaluefromthestandpointofeconomics！
UnfortunatelyMarxputashortfootnotetothepassageinCapitalcitedabove:“Thereadermustnotethatwearenotspeakinghereofthewagesorvaluethatthelabourergetsforagivenlabour-time，butofthevalueofthecommodityinwhichthatlabour-timeismaterialised。”
Marx，whoseemsheretohavehadapresentimentofthecomingofhisDühring，thereforesafeguardshimselfagainstanapplicationofhisstatementsquotedaboveeventothewageswhicharepaidinexistingsocietyforcompoundlabour。AndifHerrDühring，notcontentwithdoingthisallthesame，presentsthesestatementsastheprinciplesonwhichMarxwouldliketoseethedistributionofthenecessariesofliferegulatedinsocietyorganisedsocialistically，heisguiltyofashamelessimposture，thelikeofwhichisonlytoteefoundinthegangsterpress。
Butletuslookalittlemorecloselyatthedoctrineofequalityinvalues。Alllabour-timeisentirelyequalinvalue，theporter’sandthearchitect’s。Solabour-time，andthereforelabouritself，hasavalue。
Butlabouristhecreatorofallvalues。Italonegivestheproductsfoundinnaturevalueintheeconomicsense。Valueitselfisnothingelsethantheexpressionofthesociallynecessaryhumanlabourmaterialisedinanobject。Labourcanthereforehavenovalue。Onemightaswellspeakofthevalueofvalue，ortrytodeterminetheweight，notofaheavybody，butofheavinessitself，asspeakofthevalueoflabour，andtrytodetermineit。HerrDühringdismissespeoplelikeOwen，Saint-SimonandFourierbycallingthemsocialalchemists{D。K。G。237}。
Hissubtilisingoverthevalueoflabour-time，thatis，oflabour，showsthatheranksfarbeneaththerealalchemists。AndnowletthereaderfathomHerrDühring’sbrazennessinimputingtoMarxtheassertionthatthelabour-timeofonepersonisinitselfmorevaluablethanthatofanother{500}，thatlabour-time，andthereforelabour，hasavalue——toMarx，whofirstdemonstratedthatlabourcanhavenovalue，andwhyitcannot！
Forsocialism，whichwantstoemancipatehumanlabour-powerfromitsstatusofacommodity，therealisationthatlabourhasnovalueandcanhavenoneisofgreatimportance。Withthisrealisationallattempts——inheritedbyHerrDühringfromprimitiveworkers’socialism——
toregulatethefuturedistributionofthenecessariesoflifeasakindofhigherwagesfalltothegroundAndfromitcomesthefurtherrealisationthatdistribution，insofarasitisgovernedbypurelyeconomicconsiderations，willberegulatedbytheinterestsofproduction，andthatproductionismostencouragedbyamodeofdistributionwhichallowsallmembersofsocietytodevelop，maintainandexercisetheircapacitieswithmaximumuniversality。Itistruethat，tothemodeofthoughtoftheeducatedclasseswhichHerrDühringhasinherited，itmustseemmonstrousthatintimetocometherewillnolongerbeanyprofessionalportersorarchitects，andthatthemanwhoforhalfanhourgivesinstructionsasanarchitectwillalsoactasaporterforaperiod，untilhisactivityasanarchitectisonceagainrequired。Afinesortofsocialismthatwouldbe——perpetuatingprofessionalporters！
Iftheequalityofvalueoflabour-time。meansthateachlabourerproducesequalvaluesinequalperiodsoftime，withouttherebeinganyneedtotakeanaverage，thenthisisobviouslywrong。Ifwetaketwoworkers，eveninthesamebranchofindustry，thevaluetheyproduceinonehouroflabour-timewillalwaysvarywiththeintensityoftheirlabourandtheirskill——andnotevenaneconomiccommune，atanyratenotonourplanet，canremedythisevil——which，however，isonlyanevilforpeoplelikeDühring。What，then，remainsofthecompleteequalityofvalueofanyandeverylabour？Nothingbutthepurelybraggartphrase，whichhasnoothereconomicfoundationthanHerrDühring’sincapacitytodistinguishbetweenthedeterminationofvaluebylabouranddeterminationofvaluebywages——nothingbuttheukase，thebasiclawoftheneweconomiccommune:Equalwagesforequallabour-time！Indeed，theoldFrenchcommunistworkersandWeitlinghadmuchbetterreasonsfortheequalityofwageswhichtheyadvocated。
Howthenarewetosolvethewholeimportantquestionofthehigherwagespaidforcompoundlabour？Inasocietyofprivateproducers，privateindividualsortheirfamiliespaythecostsoftrainingthequalifiedworker;
hencethehigherpricepaidforqualifiedlabour-poweraccruesfirstofalltoprivateindividuals:theskilfulslaveissoldforahigherprice，andtheskilfulwage-earnerispaidhigherwages。Inasocialisticallyorganisedsociety，thesecostsarebornebysociety，andtoitthereforebelongthefruits，thegreatervaluesproducedbycompoundlabour。Theworkerhimselfhasnoclaimtoextrapay。Andfromthis，incidentally，followsthemoralthatattimesthereisadrawbacktothepopulardemandoftheworkersfor“thefullproceedsoflabour“。[87]
VII。
CAPITALANDSURPLUS-VALUE“Tobeginwith，HerrMarxdoesnotholdtheacceptedeconomicviewofcapital，namely，thatitisameansofproductionalreadyproduced;onthecontrary，hetriestogetupamarespecial，dialectical-historicalideathattoyswithmetamorphosesofconceptsandhistory。Accordingtohim，capitalisbornofmoney，itformsahistoricalphaseopeningwiththesixteenthcentury，thatis，withthefirstbeginningsofaworldmarket，whichpresumablyappearedatthatperiod。Itisobviousthatthekeennessofnational-economicanalysisislostinsuchaconceptualinterpretation。
Insuchbarrenconceptions，whicharerepresentedashalfhistoricalandhalflogical，butwhichinfactareonlybastardsofhistoricalandlogicalfantasy，thefacultyofdiscernmentperishes，togetherwithallhonestyintheuseofconcepts“{D。K。G。497-98}——andsoheblustersalongforawholepage……
“Marx’sdefinitionoftheconceptofcapitalcanonlycauseconfusioninthestricttheoryofnationaleconomy……frivolitieswhicharepalmedoffasprofoundlogicaltruths……thefragilityoffoundations“{D。K。
G。498}andsoforth。
SoaccordingtoMarx，wearetold，capitalwasbornofmoneyatthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury。Thisislikesayingthatfullythreethousandyearsagometallicmoneywasbornofcattle，becauseonceuponatimecattle，amongotherthings，functionedasmoney。OnlyHerrDühringiscapableofsuchacrudeandineptmannerofexpressinghimself。IntheanalysiswhichMarxmakesoftheeconomicformswithinwhichtheprocessofthecirculationofcommoditiestakesplace，moneyappearsasthefinalform。
“Thisfinalproductofthecirculationofcommoditiesisthefirstforminwhichcapitalappears。Asamatterofhistory，capital，asopposedtolandedproperty，invariablytakestheformatfirstofmoney;
itappearsasmoneyedwealth，asthecapitalofthemerchantandoftheusurer……Wecanseeitdailyunderourveryeyes。Allnewcapital，tocommencewith，comesonthestage，thatis，onthemarket，whetherofcommodities，labour，ormoney，eveninourdays，intheshapeofmoneythatbyadefiniteprocesshastobetransformedintocapital。”HereonceagainMarxisstatingafact。Unabletodisputeit，HerrDühringdistortsit:Capital，hehasMarxsay，isbornofmoney！
Marxtheninvestigatestheprocessesbywhichmoneyistransformedintocapital，andfinds，first，thattheforminwhichmoneycirculatesascapitalistheinversionoftheforminwhichitcirculatesasthegeneralequivalentofcommodities。Thesimpleownerofcommoditiessellsinordertobuy;hesellswhathedoesnotneed，andwiththemoneythusprocuredhebuyswhathedoesneed。Theincipientcapitaliststartsbybuyingwhathedoesnotneedhimself;hebuysinordertosell，andtosellatahigherprice，inordertogetbackthevalueofthemoneyoriginallythrownintothetransaction，augmentedbyanincrementinmoney;andMarxcallsthisincrementsurplus-value。
Whencecomesthissurplus-value？Itcannotcomeeitherfromthebuyerbuyingthecommoditiesundertheirvalue，orfromthesellersellingthemabovetheirvalue。Forinbothcasesthegainsandthelossesofeachindividualcanceleachother，aseachindividualisinturnbuyerandseller。
Norcanitcomefromcheating，forthoughcheatingcanenrichonepersonattheexpenseofanother，itcannotincreasethetotalsumpossessedbyboth，andthereforecannotaugmentthesumofthevaluesincirculation。
“Thecapitalistclass，asawhole，inanycountry，cannotover-reachthemselves。”
Andyetwefindthatineachcountrythecapitalistclassasawholeiscontinuouslyenrichingitselfbeforeoureyes，bysellingdearerthanithadbought，byappropriatingtoitselfsurplus-value。Wearethereforejustwherewewereatthestart:whencecomesthissurplus-value？Thisproblemmustbesolved，anditmustbesolvedinapurelyeconomicway，excludingallcheatingandtheinterventionofanyforce——theproblembeing:howisitpossibleconstantlytoselldearerthanonehasbought，evenonthehypothesisthatequalvaluesarealwaysexchangedforequalvalues？
Thesolutionofthisproblemwasthemostepoch-makingachievementofMarx’swork。Itspreadtheclearlightofdaythrougheconomicdomainsinwhichsocialistsnolessthanbourgeoiseconomistspreviouslygropedinutterdarkness。Scientificsocialismdatesfromthediscoveryofthissolutionandhasbeenbuiltuparoundit。
Thissolutionisasfollows:Theincreaseinthevalueofmoneythatistobeconvertedintocapitalcannottakeplaceinthemoneyitself，norcanitoriginateinthepurchase，asherethismoneydoesnomorethanrealisethepriceofthecommodity，andthisprice，inasmuchaswetookasourpremiseanexchangeofequivalents，isnotdifferentfromitsvalue。Forthesamereason，theincreaseinvaluecannotoriginateinthesaleofthecommodity。Thechangemust，therefore，takeplaceinthecommoditybought;nothoweverinitsvalue，asitisboughtandsoldatitsvalue，butinitsuse-valueassuch，thatis，thechangeofvaluemustoriginateintheconsumptionofthecommodity。
“Inordertobeabletoextractvaluefromtheconsumptionofacommodity，ourfriend，Moneybags，mustbesoluckyastofind……inthemarket，acommodity，whoseuse-valuepossessesthepeculiarpropertyofbeingasourceofvalue，whoseactualconsumption，therefore，isitselfanembodimentoflabour，and，consequently，acreationofvalue。Thepossessorofmoneydoesfindonthemarketsuchaspecialcommodityincapacityforlabourorlabour-power。”Though，aswesaw，labourassuchcanhavenovalue，thisisbynomeansthecasewithlabour-power。Thisacquiresavaluefromthemomentthatitbecomesacommodity，asitisinfactatthepresenttime，andthisvalueisdetermined，“asinthecaseofeveryothercommodity，bythelabour-timenecessaryfortheproduction，andconsequentlyalsothereproduction，ofthisspecialarticle“;thatistosay，bythelabour-timenecessaryfortheproductionofthemeansofsubsistencewhichthelabourerrequiresforhismaintenanceinafitstatetoworkandfortheperpetuationofhisrace。Letusassumethatthesemeansofsubsistencerepresentsixhoursoflabour-timedaily。Ourincipientcapitalist，whobuyslabour-powerforcarryingonhisbusiness，i。e。，hiresalabourer，consequentlypaysthislabourerthefullvalueofhisday’slabour-powerifhepayshimasumofmoneywhichalsorepresentssixhoursoflabour。Andassoonasthelabourerhasworkedsixhoursintheemploymentoftheincipientcapitalist，hehasfullyreimbursedthelatterforhisoutlay，forthevalueoftheday’slabour-powerwhichhehadpaid。Butsofarthemoneywouldnothavebeenconvertedintocapital，itwouldnothaveproducedanysurplus-value。Andforthisreasonthebuyeroflabour-powerhasquiteadifferentnotionofthenatureofthetransactionhehascarriedout。Thefactthatonlysixhours’labourisnecessarytokeepthelaboureralivefortwenty-fourhours，doesnotinanywaypreventhimfromworkingtwelvehoursoutofthetwenty-four。Thevalueofthelabour-power，andthevaluewhichthatlabour-powercreatesinthelabour-process，aretwodifferentmagnitudes。Theownerofthemoneyhaspaidthevalueofaday’slabour-power;his，therefore，istheuseofitforaday——
awholeday’slabour。Thecircumstancethatthevaluewhichtheuseofitduringonedaycreatesisdoubleitsownvalueforadayisapieceofespeciallygoodluckforthebuyer，butaccordingtothelawsofexchangeofcommoditiesbynomeansaninjusticetotheseller。Onourassumption，therefore，thelabourereachdaycoststheownerofmoneythevalueoftheproductofsixhours’labour，buthehandsovertohimeachdaythevalueoftheproductoftwelvehours’labour。Thedifferenceinfavouroftheownerofthemoneyissixhoursofunpaidsurplus-labour，asurplus-productforwhichhedoesnotpayandinwhichsixhours’labourisembodied。Thetrickhasbeenperformed。Surplus-valuehasbeenproduced;
moneyhasbeenconvertedintocapital。
Inthusshowinghowsurplus-valuearises，andhowalonesurplus-valuecanariseunderthedominationofthelawsregulatingtheexchangeofcommodities，Marxexposedthemechanismoftheexistingcapitalistmodeofproductionandofthemodeofappropriationbasedonit;herevealedthecorearoundwhichthewholeexistingsocialorderhascrystallised。
However，thiscreationofcapitalrequiresthatoneessentialprerequisitebefulfilled:“Fortheconversionofhismoneyintocapitaltheownerofmoneymustmeetinthemarketwiththefreelabourer，freeinthedoublesense，thatasafreemanhecandisposeofhislabour-powerashisowncommodity，andthatontheotherhandhehasnoothercommodityforsale，isshortofeverythingnecessaryfortherealisationofhislabour-power。”
Butthisrelationbetweentheownersofmoneyorofcommoditiesontheonehand，andthosewhopossessnothingbeyondtheirownlabour-powerontheother，isnotanaturalrelation，norisitonethatiscommontoallhistoricalperiods:“Itisclearlytheresultofapasthistoricaldevelopment，theproduct……oftheextinctionofawholeseriesofolderformsofsocialproduction。”Andinfactwefirstencounterthisfreelaboureronamassscaleinhistoryattheendofthefifteenthandthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury，asaresultofthedissolutionofthefeudalmodeofproduction。
Withthis，however，andwiththebringingintobeingofworldtradeandtheworldmarketdatingfromthesameepoch，thebasiswasestablishedonwhichthemassoftheexistingmovablewealthwasnecessarilymoreandmoreconvertedintocapital，andthecapitalistmodeofproduction，aimedatthecreationofsurplus-value，necessarilybecamemoreandmoreexclusivelytheprevailingmode。
Uptothispoint，wehavebeenfollowingthe“barrenconceptions“
ofMarx，these“bastardsofhistoricalandlogicalfantasy“inwhich“thefacultyofdiscernmentperishes，togetherwithallhonestyintheuseofconcepts“。Letuscontrastthese“frivolities“withthe“profoundlogicaltruths“andthe“definitiveandmoststrictlyscientifictreatmentinthesenseoftheexactdisciplines“{D。K。G。498}，suchasHerrDühringoffersus。
SoMarx“doesnotholdtheacceptedeconomicviewofcapital，namely，thatitisameansofproductionalreadyproduced“{497};hesays，onthecontrary，thatasumofvaluesisconvertedintocapitalonlywhenitincreasesitsvalue，whenitformssurplus-value。AndwhatdoesHerrDühringsay？
“Capitalisabasisofmeansofeconomicpowerforthecontinuationofproductionandfortheformationofsharesinthefruitsofthegenerallabour-power“{DC。40}，Howeveroracularlyandslovenlythattooisexpressed，thismuchatleastiscertain:thebasisofmeansofeconomicpowermaycontinueproductiontoeternity，butaccordingtoHerrDühring’sownwordsitwillnotbecomecapitalsolongasitdoesnotform“sharesinthefruitsofthegenerallabour-power“——thatistosay，formsurplus-valueoratleastsurplus-product。HerrDühringthereforenotonlyhimselfcommitsthesinwithwhichhechargesMarx——ofnotholdingtheacceptedeconomicviewofcapital——butbesidescommitsaclumsyplagiarismofMarx，“badlyconcealed“{D。K。G。506}byhigh-soundingphrases。
Onpage262{D。C。}thisisfurtherdeveloped:
“Capitalinthesocialsense“(andHerrDühringstillhastodiscoveracapitalinasensewhichisnotsocial)“isinfactspecificallydifferentfromthemeremeansofproduction;forwhilethelatterhaveonlyatechnicalcharacterandarenecessaryunderallconditions，theformerisdistinguishedbyitssocialpowerofappropriationandtheformationofshares。Itistruethatsocialcapitalistoagreatextentnothingbutthetechnicalmeansofproductionintheirsocialfunction;butitispreciselythisfunctionwhich……mustdisappear“。
WhenwereflectthatitwaspreciselyMarxwhofirstdrewattentiontothe“socialfunction“byvirtueofwhichaloneasumofvaluesbecomescapital，itwillcertainly“atoncebecleartoeveryattentiveinvestigatorofthesubjectthatMarx’sdefinitionoftheconceptofcapitalcanonlycauseconfusion“{D。K。G。498}——not，however，asHerrDühringthinks，inthestricttheoryofnationaleconomybutasisevidentsimplyandsolelyintheheadofHerrDühringhimself，whointheKritischeGeschichtehasalreadyforgottenhowmuchusehemadeofthesaidconceptofcapitalinhisCursus。However，HerrDühringisnotcontentwithborrowingfromMarxthelatter’sdefinitionofcapital，thoughina“purified“form。
HeisobligedtofollowMarxalsointhe“toyingwithmetamorphosesofconceptsandhistory“{497}，inspiteofhisownbetterknowledgethatnothingcouldcomeofitbut“barrenconceptions“，“frivolities“，“fragilityofthefoundations“{498}andsoforth。Whencecomesthis“socialfunction“
{D。C。262}ofcapital，whichenablesittoappropriatethefruitsofothers’
labourandwhichalonedistinguishesitfrommeremeansofproduction？
HerrDühringsaysthatitdoesnotdepend“onthenatureofthemeansofproductionandtheirtechnicalindispensability“{262}。
Itthereforearosehistorically，andonpage262HerrDühringonlytellsusagainwhatwehaveheardtentimesbefore，whenheexplainsitsoriginbymeansoftheoldfamiliaradventuresofthetwomen，oneofwhomatthedawnofhistoryconvertedhismeansofproductionintocapitalbytheuseofforceagainsttheother。ButnotcontentwithascribingahistoricalbeginningtothesocialfunctionthroughwhichaloneasumofvaluesbecomescapitalHerrDühringprophesiesthatitwillalsohaveahistoricalend。Itis“preciselythiswhichmustdisappear“{262}。Inordinaryparlanceitiscustomarytocallaphenomenonwhicharosehistoricallyanddisappearsagainhistorically，“ahistoricalphase“。Capital，therefore，isahistoricalphasenotonlyaccordingtoMarxbutalsoaccordingtoHerrDühring，andweareconsequentlyforcedtotheconclusionthatweareamongJesuitshere。Whentwopersonsdothesamething，thenitisnotthesame。[AparaphraseofadictumfromthecomedyAdelphoebytheRomanplaywrightTerentius(ActV，Scene3)——Ed。]WhenMarxsaysthatcapitalisahistoricalphase，thatisabarrenconception，abastardofhistoricalandlogicalfantasy，inwhichthefacultyofdiscernmentperishes，togetherwithallhonestyintheuseofconceptsWhenHerrDühringlikewisepresentscapitalasahistoricalphasethatisproofofthekeennessofhiseconomicanalysisandofhisdefinitiveandmoststrictlyscientifictreatmentinthesenseoftheexactdisciplines。
WhatisitthenthatdistinguishestheDühringianconceptionofcapitalfromtheMarxian？
“Capital。”saysMarx，“hasnotinventedsurplus-labour。Whereverapartofsocietypossessesthemonopolyofthemeansofproduction，thelabourer，freeornotfree，mustaddtotheworking-timenecessaryforhisownmaintenanceanextraworking-timeinordertoproducethemeansofsubsistencefortheownersofthemeansofproduction。”Surplus-labour，labourbeyondthetimerequiredforthelabourer’sownmaintenance，andappropriationbyothersoftheproductofthissurplus-labour，theexploitationoflabour，isthereforecommontoallformsofsocietythathaveexistedhitherto，insofarasthesehavemovedinclassantagonisms。Butitisonlywhentheproductofthissurplus-labourassumestheformofsurplus-value，whentheownerofthemeansofproductionfindsthefreelabourer——freefromsocialfettersandfreefrompossessionsofhisown——asanobjectofexploitation，andexploitshimforthepurposeoftheproductionofcommodities——itisonlythen，accordingtoMarx，thatthemeansofproductionassumethespecificcharacterofcapital。Andthisfirsttookplaceonalargescaleattheendofthefifteenthandthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury。
HerrDühringonthecontrarydeclaresthateverysumofmeansofproductionwhich“formssharesinthefruitsofthegenerallabour-power“{D。C。40}，thatis，yieldssurplus-labourinanyform，iscapital。Inotherwords，HerrDühringannexesthesurplus-labourdiscoveredbyMarx，inordertouseittokillthesurplus-value，likewisediscoveredbyMarx，whichforthemoment3doesnotsuithispurpose。AccordingtoHerrDühring，therefore，notonlythemovableandimmovablewealthoftheCorinthianandAtheniancitizens，builtonaslaveeconomy，butalsothewealthofthelargeRomanlandownersofthetimeoftheempire，andequallythewealthofthefeudalbaronsoftheMiddleAges，insofarasitinanywayservedproduction——allthiswithoutdistinctioniscapital。
SothatHerrDühringhimselfdoesnothold“theacceptedviewofcapital，namely，thatitisameansofproductionalreadyproduced“
{D。K。G。497}，butratheronethatistheveryoppositeofit，aviewwhichincludesincapitalevenmeansofproductionwhichhavenotbeenproduced，theearthanditsnaturalresources。Theidea，however，thatcapitalissimply“producedmeansofproduction“isonceagaintheacceptedviewonlyinvulgarpoliticaleconomy。Outsideofthisvulgareconomics，whichHerrDühringholdssodear，the“producedmeansofproduction“
oranysumofvalueswhatever，becomescapitalonlybyyieldingprofitorinterest，i。e。，byappropriatingthesurplus-productofunpaidlabourintheformofsurplus-value，and，moreover，byappropriatingitinthesetwodefinitesubformsofsurplus-value。Itisofabsolutelynoimportancethatthewholeofbourgeoiseconomyisstilllabouringundertheideathatthepropertyofyieldingprofitorinterestisinherentineverysumofvalueswhichisutilisedundernormalconditionsinproductionorexchange。
Inclassicalpoliticaleconomy，capitalandprofit，orcapitalandinterest，arejustasinseparable，standinthesamereciprocalrelationstoeachother，ascauseandeffect，fatherandson，yesterdayandtoday。Theword“capital“initsmoderneconomicmeaningisfirstmetwith，however，atthetimewhenthethingitselfmakesitsappearance，whenmovablewealthacquires，toagreaterandgreaterextent，thefunctionofcapital，byexploitingthesurplus-labouroffreelabourersfortheproductionofcommodities;
andinfactitwasintroducedbythefirstnationofcapitalistsinhistory，theItaliansofthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies。AndifMarxwasthefirsttomakeafundamentalanalysisofthemodeofappropriationcharacteristicofmoderncapital;ifhebroughttheconceptofcapitalintoharmonywiththehistoricalfactsfromwhich，inthelastanalysis，ithadbeenabstracted，andtowhichitoweditsexistence;ifbysodoingMarxclearedthiseconomicconceptofthoseobscureandvacillatingideaswhichstillclungtoiteveninclassicalbourgeoispoliticaleconomyandamongtheformersocialists——thenitwasMarxwhoappliedthat“definitiveandmoststrictlyscientifictreatment“{498}aboutwhichHerrDühringissoconstantlytalkingandwhichwesopainfullymissinhisworks。
Inactualfact，HerrDühring’streatmentisquitedifferentfromthis。Heisnotcontentwithfirstinveighingagainstthepresentationofcapitalasahistoricalphasebycallingita“bastardofhistoricalandlogicalfantasy“{498}andthenhimselfpresentingitasahistoricalphase。Healsoroundlydeclaresthatallmeansofeconomicpower，allmeansofproductionwhichappropriate“sharesinthefruitsofthegenerallabour-power“{D。C。40}——andthereforealsolandedpropertyinallclasssocieties——arecapital;whichhoweverdoesnotintheleastpreventhim，inthefurthercourseofhisexposition，fromseparatinglandedpropertyandlandrent，quiteinthetraditionalmanner，fromcapitalandprofit，anddesignatingascapitalonlythosemeansofproductionwhichyieldprofitorinterest，ashedoesatconsiderablelengthonpage156
andthefollowingpagesofhisCursus。WithequaljusticeHerrDühringmightfirstincludeunderthename’locomotive“alsohorses，oxen，assesanddogs，onthegroundthatthese，too，canbeusedasmeansoftransport，andreproachmodernengineerswithlimitingthenamelocomotivetothemodernsteam-engineandtherebysettingitupasahistoricalphase，usingbarrenconceptions，bastardsofhistoricalandlogicalfantasyandsoforth;
andthenfinallydeclarethathorses，asses，oxenanddogsareneverthelessexcludedfromthetermlocomotive，andthatthistermisapplicableonlytothesteam-engine——AndsooncemorewearecompelledtosaythatitispreciselytheDühringianconceptionofcapitalinwhichallkeennessofeconomicanalysisislostandthefacultyofdiscernmentperishes，togetherwithallhonestyintheuseofconcepts;andthatthebarrenconceptions，theconfusion，thefrivolitiespalmedoffasprofoundlogicaltruthsandthefragilityofthefoundationsaretobefoundinfullbloompreciselyinHerrDühring’swork。
Butallthatisofnoconsequence。ForHerrDühring’sisthegloryneverthelessofhavingdiscoveredtheaxisonwhichalleconomics，allpoliticsandjurisprudence，inaword，allhistory，hashithertorevolved。
