Value，therefore，beingtheactivefactorinsuchaprocess，andassumingatonetimetheformofmoney，atanotherthatofcommodities，butthroughallthesechangespreservingitselfandexpanding，itrequiressomeindependentform，bymeansofwhichitsidentitymayatanytimebeestablished。Andthisformitpossessesonlyintheshapeofmoney。Itisundertheformofmoneythatvaluebeginsandends，andbeginsagain，everyactofitsownspontaneousgeneration。Itbeganbybeing£100，itisnow£110，andsoon。Butthemoneyitselfisonlyoneofthetwoformsofvalue。
　　Unlessittakestheformofsomecommodity，itdoesnotbecomecapital。
　　Thereisherenoantagonism，asinthecaseofhoarding，betweenthemoneyandcommodities。Thecapitalistknowsthatallcommodities，howeverscurvytheymaylook，orhoweverbadlytheymaysmell，areinfaithandintruthmoney，inwardlycircumcisedJews，andwhatismore，awonderfulmeanswherebyoutofmoneytomakemoremoney。
　　Insimplecirculation，C—M—C，thevalueofcommoditiesattainedatthemostaformindependentoftheiruse—values，i。e。，theformofmoney;
　　butthatsamevaluenowinthecirculationM—C—M，orthecirculationofcapital，suddenlypresentsitselfasanindependentsubstance，endowedwithamotionofitsown，passingthroughalife—processofitsown，inwhichmoneyandcommoditiesaremereformswhichitassumesandcastsoffinturn。Nay，more:insteadofsimplyrepresentingtherelationsofcommodities，itentersnow，sotosay，intoprivaterelationswithitself。
　　Itdifferentiatesitselfasoriginalvaluefromitselfassurplus—value;
　　asthefatherdifferentiateshimselffromhimselfquâtheson，yetbothareoneandofoneage:foronlybythesurplus—valueof£10
　　doesthe£100originallyadvancedbecomecapital，andsosoonasthistakesplace，sosoonastheson，andbytheson，thefather，isbegotten，sosoondoestheirdifferencevanish，andtheyagainbecomeone，£110。
　　Valuethereforenowbecomesvalueinprocess，moneyinprocess，and，assuch，capital。Itcomesoutofcirculation，entersintoitagain，preservesandmultipliesitselfwithinitscircuit，comesbackoutofitwithexpandedbulk，andbeginsthesameroundeverafresh。[14]M—M’，moneywhichbegetsmoney，suchisthedescriptionofCapitalfromthemouthsofitsfirstinterpreters，theMercantilists。
　　Buyinginordertosell，or，moreaccurately，buyinginordertoselldearer，M—C—M’，appearscertainlytobeaformpeculiartoonekindofcapitalalone，namely，merchants’capital。Butindustrialcapitaltooismoney，thatischangedintocommodities，andbythesaleofthesecommodities，isre—convertedintomoremoney。Theeventsthattakeplaceoutsidethesphereofcirculation，intheintervalbetweenthebuyingandselling，donotaffecttheformofthismovement。Lastly，inthecaseofinterest—bearingcapital，thecirculationM—C—M’appearsabridged。Wehaveitsresultwithouttheintermediatestage，intheformM—M’，"enstylelapidaire"sotosay，moneythatisworthmoremoney，valuethatisgreaterthanitself。
　　M—C—M’isthereforeinrealitythegeneralformulaofcapitalasitappearsprimafaciewithinthesphereofcirculation。
　　Footnotes[1]Thecontrastbetweenthepower，basedonthepersonalrelationsofdominionandservitude，thatisconferredbylandedproperty，andtheimpersonalpowerthatisgivenbymoney，iswellexpressedbythetwoFrenchproverbs，"Nulleterresansseigneur，"and"L’argentn’apasdemaître。"
　　[2]"AvecdeI’argentonachètedesmarchandisesetavecdesmarchandisesonachètedeI’argent。"（MercierdelaRivière:"L’ordrenatureletessentieldessociétéspolitiques，"p。543。）
　　[3]"Whenathingisboughtinordertobesoldagain，thesumemployediscalledmoneyadvanced;whenitisboughtnottobesold，itmaybesaidtobeexpended。"？（JamesSteuart:"Works，"&c。EditedbyGen。SirJamesSteuart，hisson。Lond。，1805，V。I。，p。274。）
　　[4]"Onn’échangepasdeI’argentcontredeI’argent，"saysMercierdelaRivièretotheMercantilists（l。c。，p。486。）Inawork，which，exprofessotreatsof"trade"and"speculation，"occursthefollowing:
　　"Alltradeconsistsintheexchangeofthingsofdifferentkinds;andtheadvantage"（tothemerchant？）"arisesoutofthisdifference。Toexchangeapoundofbreadagainstapoundofbread……wouldbeattendedwithnoadvantage;……Hencetradeisadvantageouslycontrastedwithgambling，whichconsistsinamereexchangeofmoneyformoney。"（Th。Corbet，"AnInquiryintotheCausesandModesoftheWealthofIndividuals;orthePrinciplesofTradeandSpeculationExplained。"London，1841，p。5。）AlthoughCorbetdoesnotseethatM—M，theexchangeormoneyformoney，isthecharacteristicformofcirculation，notonlyofmerchants’capitalbutofallcapital，yetatleastheacknowledgesthatthisformiscommontogamblingandtoonespeciesoftrade，viz。，speculation:butthencomesMacCullochandmakesout，thattobuyinordertosell，istospeculate，andthusthedifferencebetweenSpeculationandTradevanishes。"Everytransactioninwhichanindividualbuysproduceinordertosellitagain，is，infact，aspeculation。"（MacCulloch:"ADictionaryPractical，&c。，ofCommerce。"
　　Lond。，1847，p。1009。）Withmuchmorenaiveté，Pinto，thePindaroftheAmsterdamStockExchange，remarks，"Lecommerceestunjeu:（takenfromLocke）etcen’estpasavecdesgueuxqu’onpeutgagner。Sil’ongagnaitlongtempsentoutavectous，ilfaudraitrendredebonaccordlesplusgrandespartiesduprofitpourrecommencerlejeu。"（Pinto:"Traité
　　delaCirculationetduCrédit。"Amsterdam，1771。p。231，）
　　[5]"Capitalisdivisible……intotheoriginalcapitalandtheprofit，theincrementtothecapital……althoughinpracticethisprofitisimmediatelyturnedintocapital，andsetinmotionwiththeoriginal。"（F。Engels，"UmrissezueinerKritikderNationalökonomie，in:Deutsch—FranzösischeJahrbücher，herausgegebenvonArnoldRugeundKarlMarx。"Paris，1844，p。99。）
　　[6]AristotleopposesOeconomictoChrematistic。Hestartsfromtheformer。
　　Sofarasitistheartofgainingalivelihood，itislimitedtoprocuringthosearticlesthatarenecessarytoexistence，andusefuleithertoahouseholdorthestate。"Truewealth（[greek:]oalethinosploutos）consistsofsuchvaluesinuse;forthequantityofpossessionsofthiskind，capableofmakinglifepleasant，isnotunlimited。Thereis，however，asecondmodeofacquiringthings，towhichwemaybypreferenceandwithcorrectnessgivethenameofChrematistic，andinthiscasethereappeartobenolimitstorichesandpossessions。Trade（[greek:]ekapelike）isliterallyretailtrade，andAristotletakesthiskindbecauseinitvaluesinusepredominate）
　　doesnotinitsnaturebelongtoChrematistic，forheretheexchangehasreferenceonlytowhatisnecessarytothemselves（thebuyerorseller）。"
　　Therefore，ashegoesontoshow，theoriginalformoftradewasbarter，butwiththeextensionofthelatter，therearosethenecessityformoney。
　　Onthediscoveryofmoney，barterofnecessitydevelopedinto[greek:kapelike]，intotradingincommodities，andthisagain，inoppositiontoitsoriginaltendency，grewintoChrematistic，intotheartofmakingmoney。NowChrematisticisdistinguishablefromOeconomicinthisway，that"inthecaseofChrematisticcirculationisthesourceofriches（[greek:]poietikechrematon……diachrematondiaboles）。Anditappearstorevolveaboutmoney，formoneyisthebeginningandendofthiskindofexchange（[greek:]tonomismastoicheiontesallagesestin）。Thereforealsoriches，suchasChrematisticstrivesfor，areunlimited。Justaseveryartthatisnotameanstoanend，butanendinitself，hasnolimittoitsaims，becauseitseeksconstantlytoapproachnearerandnearertothatend，whilethoseartsthatpursuemeanstoanend，arenotboundless，sincethegoalitselfimposesalimituponthem，sowithChrematistic，therearenoboundstoitsaims，theseaimsbeingabsolutewealth。OeconomicnotChrematistichasalimit……
　　theobjectoftheformerissomethingdifferentfrommoney，ofthelattertheaugmentationofmoney……Byconfoundingthesetwoforms，whichoverlapeachother，somepeoplehavebeenledtolookuponthepreservationandincreaseofmoneyadinfinitumastheendandaimofOeconomic。"（Aristoteles，"DeRep。"edit。Bekker，lib。l。c。8，9。passim。）
　　[7]"Commodities（hereusedinthesenseofuse—values）arenottheterminatingobjectofthetradingcapitalist，moneyishisterminatingobject。"（Th。
　　Chalmers，"OnPol。Econ。&c。，"2ndEd。，Glasgow，1832，pp。165，166。）
　　[8]"IImercantenoncontaquasipernienteillucrofatto，mamirasemprealfuturo。"（A。Genovesi，LezionidiEconomiaCivile（1765），Custodi’sedit。ofItalianEconomists。ParteModernat。viii，p。139。）
　　[9]"Theinextinguishablepassionforgain，theaurisacrafames，willalwaysleadcapitalists。"（MacCulloch:"ThePrinciplesofPolit。Econ。"London，1830，p。179。）Thisview，ofcourse，doesnotpreventthesameMacCullochandothersofhiskidney，whenintheoreticaldifficulties，such，forexample，asthequestionofover—production，fromtransformingthesamecapitalistintoamoralcitizen，whosesoleconcernisforuse—values，andwhoevendevelopsaninsatiablehungerforboots，hats，eggs，calico，andotherextremelyfamiliarsortsofuse—values。
　　[10][greek:Sozein]isacharacteristicGreekexpressionforhoarding。SoinEnglishtosavehasthesametwomeanings:sauverandépargner。
　　[11]"Questoinfinitochelecosenonhannoinprogresso，hannoingiro。"（Galiani。）
　　[12]Cen’estpaslamatièrequifaitlecapital，maislavaleurdecesmatières。"（J。B。Say:"Traitéd’Econ。Polit。"3èmeéd。Paris，1817，t。II。，p。429。）
　　[13]"Currency（！）employedinproducingarticles……iscapital。"（Macleod:
　　"TheTheoryandPracticeofBanking。"London，1855，v。1，ch。i，p。55。）
　　"Capitaliscommodities。"（JamesMill:"ElementsofPol。Econ。"Lond。，1821，p。74。）
　　[14]Capital:"portionfructifiantedelarichesseaccumulée……valeurpermanents，multipliante。"（Sismondi:"NouveauxPrincipesd’Econ。Polit。，"
　　t。i。，p。88，89。）
　　ChapterFiveKarlMarxCapitalVolumeOnePartII:
　　TheTransformationofMoneyinCapitalCHAPTERFIVE:
　　CONTRADICTIONSINTHEGENERALFORMULAOFCAPITAL
　　Theformwhichcirculationtakeswhenmoneybecomescapital，isopposedtoallthelawswehavehithertoinvestigatedbearingonthenatureofcommodities，valueandmoney，andevenofcirculationitself。Whatdistinguishesthisformfromthatofthesimplecirculationofcommodities，istheinvertedorderofsuccessionofthetwoantitheticalprocesses，saleandpurchase。
　　Howcanthispurelyformaldistinctionbetweentheseprocesseschangetheircharacterasitwerebymagic？
　　Butthatisnotall。Thisinversionhasnoexistencefortwooutofthethreepersonswhotransactbusinesstogether。Ascapitalist，IbuycommoditiesfromAandsellthemagaintoB，butasasimpleownerofcommodities，IsellthemtoBandthenpurchasefreshonesfromA。AandBseenodifferencebetweenthetwosetsoftransactions。Theyaremerelybuyersorsellers。
　　AndIoneachoccasionmeetthemasamereownerofeithermoneyorcommodities，asabuyeroraseller，and，whatismore，inbothsetsoftransactions，IamopposedtoAonlyasabuyerandtoBonlyasaseller，totheoneonlyasmoney，totheotheronlyascommodities，andtoneitherofthemascapitaloracapitalist，orasrepresentativeofanythingthatismorethanmoneyorcommodities，orthatcanproduceanyeffectbeyondwhatmoneyandcommoditiescan。FormethepurchasefromAandthesaletoBarepartofaseries。Buttheconnexionbetweenthetwoactsexistsformealone。
　　AdoesnottroublehimselfaboutmytransactionwithB，nordoesBaboutmybusinesswithA。AndifIofferedtoexplaintothemthemeritoriousnatureofmyactionininvertingtheorderofsuccession，theywouldprobablypointouttomethatIwasmistakenastothatorderofsuccession，andthatthewholetransaction，insteadofbeginningwithapurchaseandendingwithasale，began，onthecontrary，withasaleandwasconcludedwithapurchase。Intruth，myfirstact，thepurchase，wasfromthestandpointofA，asale，andmysecondact，thesale，wasfromthestandpointofB，apurchase。Notcontentwiththat，AandBwoulddeclarethatthewholeserieswassuperfluousandnothingbutHokusPokus;thatforthefutureAwouldbuydirectfromB，andBselldirecttoA。Thusthewholetransactionwouldbereducedtoasingleactforminganisolated，non—complementedphaseintheordinarycirculationofcommodities，ameresalefromA’spointofview，andfromB’s，amerepurchase。Theinversion，therefore，oftheorderofsuccession，doesnottakeusoutsidethesphereofthesimplecirculationofcommodities，andwemustratherlook，whetherthereisinthissimplecirculationanythingpermittinganexpansionofthevaluethatentersintocirculation，and，consequently，acreationofsurplus—value。
　　Letustaketheprocessofcirculationinaformunderwhichitpresentsitselfasasimpleanddirectexchangeofcommodities。Thisisalwaysthecasewhentwoownersofcommoditiesbuyfromeachother，andonthesettlingdaytheamountsmutuallyowingareequalandcanceleachother。Themoneyinthiscaseismoneyofaccountandservestoexpressthevalueofthecommoditiesbytheirprices，butisnot，itself，intheshapeofhardcash，confrontedwiththem。Sofarasregardsuse—values，itisclearthatbothpartiesmaygainsomeadvantage。Bothpartwithgoodsthat，asuse—values，areofnoservicetothem，andreceiveothersthattheycanmakeuseof。
　　Andtheremayalsobeafurthergain。A，whosellswineandbuyscorn，possiblyproducesmorewine，withgivenlabour—time，thanfarmerBcould，andBontheotherhand，morecornthanwine—growerAcould。A，therefore，mayget，forthesameexchange—value，morecorn，andBmorewine，thaneachwouldrespectivelygetwithoutanyexchangebyproducinghisowncornandwine。Withreference，therefore，touse—value，thereisgoodgroundforsayingthat"exchangeisatransactionbywhichbothsidesgain。"[1]Itisotherwisewithexchange—value。"A
　　manwhohasplentyofwineandnocorntreatswithamanwhohasplentyofcornandnowine;anexchangetakesplacebetweenthemofcorntothevalueof50，forwineofthesamevalue。Thisactproducesnoincreaseofexchange—valueeitherfortheoneortheother;foreachofthemalreadypossessed，beforetheexchange，avalueequaltothatwhichheacquiredbymeansofthatoperation。"[2]Theresultisnotalteredbyintroducingmoney，asamediumofcirculation，betweenthecommodities，andmakingthesaleandthepurchasetwodistinctacts。[3]Thevalueofacommodityisexpressedinitspricebeforeitgoesintocirculation，andisthereforeaprecedentconditionofcirculation，notitsresult。[4]
　　Abstractedlyconsidered，thatis，apartfromcircumstancesnotimmediatelyflowingfromthelawsofthesimplecirculationofcommodities，thereisinanexchangenothing（ifweexceptthereplacingofoneuse—valuebyanother）butametamorphosis，amerechangeintheformofthecommodity。
　　Thesameexchange—value，i。e。，thesamequantityofincorporatedsociallabour，remainsthroughoutinthehandsoftheownerofthecommodity，firstintheshapeofhisowncommodity，thenintheformofthemoneyforwhichheexchangedit，andlastly，intheshapeofthecommodityhebuyswiththatmoney。Thischangeofformdoesnotimplyachangeinthemagnitudeofthevalue。Butthechange，whichthevalueofthecommodityundergoesinthisprocess，islimitedtoachangeinitsmoney—form。Thisformexistsfirstasthepriceofthecommodityofferedforsale，thenasanactualsumofmoney，which，however，wasalreadyexpressedintheprice，andlastly，asthepriceofanequivalentcommodity。Thischangeofformnomoreimplies，takenalone，achangeinthequantityofvalue，thandoesthechangeofa£5noteintosovereigns，halfsovereignsandshillings。Sofarthereforeasthecirculationofcommoditieseffectsachangeintheformaloneoftheirvalues，andisfreefromdisturbinginfluences，itmustbetheexchangeofequivalents。LittleasVulgar—Economyknowsaboutthenatureofvalue，yetwheneveritwishestoconsiderthephenomenaofcirculationintheirpurity，itassumesthatsupplyanddemandareequal，whichamountstothis，thattheireffectisnil。Iftherefore，asregardstheuse—valuesexchanged，bothbuyerandsellermaypossiblygainsomething，thisisnotthecaseasregardstheexchange—values。Herewemustrathersay，"Whereequalityexiststherecanbenogain。"[5]Itistrue，commoditiesmaybesoldatpricesdeviatingfromtheirvalues，butthesedeviationsaretobeconsideredasinfractionsofthelawsoftheexchangeofcommodities[6]，whichinitsnormalstateisanexchangeofequivalents，consequently，nomethodforincreasingvalue。[7]
　　Hence，weseethatbehindallattemptstorepresentthecirculationofcommoditiesasasourceofsurplus—value，therelurksaquidproquo，amixingupofuse—valueandexchange—value。Forinstance，Condillacsays:"Itisnottruethatonanexchangeofcommoditieswegivevalueforvalue。Onthecontrary，eachofthetwocontractingpartiesineverycase，givesalessforagreatervalue……Ifwereallyexchangedequalvalues，neitherpartycouldmakeaprofit。Andyet，theybothgain，oroughttogain。Why？Thevalueofathingconsistssolelyinitsrelationtoourwants。Whatismoretotheoneislesstotheother，andviceversâ……Itisnottobeassumedthatweofferforsalearticlesrequiredforourownconsumption……Wewishtopartwithauselessthing，inordertogetonethatweneed;wewanttogivelessformore……Itwasnaturaltothinkthat，inanexchange，valuewasgivenforvalue，whenevereachofthearticlesexchangedwasofequalvaluewiththesamequantityofgold……Butthereisanotherpointtobeconsideredinourcalculation。
　　Thequestionis，whetherwebothexchangesomethingsuperfluousforsomethingnecessary。"[8]Weseeinthispassage，howCondillacnotonlyconfusesuse—valuewithexchange—value，butinareallychildishmannerassumes，thatinasociety，inwhichtheproductionofcommoditiesiswelldeveloped，eachproducerproduceshisownmeansofsubsistence，andthrowsintocirculationonlytheexcessoverhisownrequirements。[9]Still，Condillac’sargumentisfrequentlyusedbymodemeconomists，moreespeciallywhenthepointistoshow，thattheexchangeofcommoditiesinitsdevelopedform，commerce，isproductiveofsurplus—value。Forinstance，"Commerce……addsvaluetoproducts，forthesameproductsinthehandsofconsumers，areworthmorethaninthehandsofproducers，anditmaystrictlybeconsideredanactofproduction。"[10]Butcommoditiesarenotpaidfortwiceover，onceonaccountoftheiruse—value，andagainonaccountoftheirvalue。Andthoughtheuse—valueofacommodityismoreserviceabletothebuyerthantotheseller，itsmoney—formismoreserviceabletotheseller。Wouldheotherwisesellit？Wemightthereforejustaswellsaythatthebuyerperforms"strictlyanactofproduction，"byconvertingstockings，forexample，intomoney。
　　Ifcommodities，orcommoditiesandmoney，ofequalexchange—value，andconsequentlyequivalents，areexchanged，itisplainthatnooneabstractsmorevaluefrom，thanhethrowsinto，circulation。Thereisnocreationofsurplus—value。And，initsnormalform，thecirculationofcommoditiesdemandstheexchangeofequivalents。Butinactualpractice，theprocessdoesnotretainitsnormalform。Letus，therefore，assumeanexchangeofnon—equivalents。
　　Inanycasethemarketforcommoditiesisonlyfrequentedbyownersofcommodities，andthepowerwhichthesepersonsexerciseovereachother，isnootherthanthepoweroftheircommodities。Thematerialvarietyofthesecommoditiesisthematerialincentivetotheactofexchange，andmakesbuyersandsellersmutuallydependent，becausenoneofthempossessestheobjectofhisownwants，andeachholdsinhishandtheobjectofanother’swants。Besidesthesematerialdifferencesoftheiruse—values，thereisonlyoneotherdifferencebetweencommodities，namely，thatbetweentheirbodilyformandtheformintowhichtheyareconvertedbysale，thedifferencebetweencommoditiesandmoney。Andconsequentlytheownersofcommoditiesaredistinguishableonlyassellers，thosewhoowncommodities，andbuyers，thosewhoownmoney。
　　Supposethen，thatbysomeinexplicableprivilege，thesellerisenabledtosellhiscommoditiesabovetheirvalue，whatisworth100for110，inwhichcasethepriceisnominallyraised10%。Thesellerthereforepocketsasurplus—valueof10。Butafterhehassoldhebecomesabuyer。Athirdownerofcommoditiescomestohimnowasseller，whointhiscapacityalsoenjoystheprivilegeofsellinghiscommodities10%toodear。Ourfriendgained10asaselleronlytoloseitagainasabuyer。[11]Thenetresultis，thatallownersofcommoditiesselltheirgoodstooneanotherat10%abovetheirvalue，whichcomespreciselytothesameasiftheysoldthemattheirtruevalue。Suchageneralandnominalriseofpriceshasthesameeffectasifthevalueshadbeenexpressedinweightofsilverinsteadofinweightofgold。Thenominalpricesofcommoditieswouldrise，buttherealrelationbetweentheirvalueswouldremainunchanged。
　　Letusmaketheoppositeassumption，thatthebuyerhastheprivilegeofpurchasingcommoditiesundertheirvalue。Inthiscaseitisnolongernecessarytobearinmindthatheinhisturnwillbecomeaseller。Hewassobeforehebecamebuyer;hehadalreadylost10%insellingbeforehegained10%asbuyer。[12]Everythingisjustasitwas。
　　Thecreationofsurplus—value，andthereforetheconversionofmoneyintocapital，canconsequentlybeexplainedneitherontheassumptionthatcommoditiesaresoldabovetheirvalue，northattheyareboughtbelowtheirvalue。[13]
　　TheproblemisinnowaysimplifiedbyintroducingirrelevantmattersafterthemannerofCol。Torrens:"Effectualdemandconsistsinthepowerandinclination（！），onthepartofconsumers，togiveforcommodities，eitherbyimmediateorcircuitousbarter，somegreaterportionof……capitalthantheirproductioncosts。"[14]Inrelationtocirculation，producersandconsumersmeetonlyasbuyersandsellers。Toassertthatthesurplus—valueacquiredbytheproducerhasitsorigininthefactthatconsumerspayforcommoditiesmorethantheirvalue，isonlytosayinotherwords:Theownerofcommoditiespossesses，asaseller，theprivilegeofsellingtoodear。Thesellerhashimselfproducedthecommoditiesorrepresentstheirproducer，butthebuyerhastonolessextentproducedthecommoditiesrepresentedbyhismoney，orrepresentstheirproducer。Thedistinctionbetweenthemis，thatonebuysandtheothersells。Thefactthattheownerofthecommodities，underthedesignationofproducer，sellsthemovertheirvalue，andunderthedesignationofconsumer，paystoomuchforthem，doesnotcarryusasinglestepfurther。[15]
　　Tobeconsistenttherefore，theupholdersofthedelusionthatsurplus—valuehasitsorigininanominalriseofpricesorintheprivilegewhichthesellerhasofsellingtoodear，mustassumetheexistenceofaclassthatonlybuysanddoesnotsell，i。e。，onlyconsumesanddoesnotproduce。
　　Theexistenceofsuchaclassisinexplicablefromthestandpointwehavesofarreached，viz。，thatofsimplecirculation。Butletusanticipate。
　　Themoneywithwhichsuchaclassisconstantlymakingpurchases，mustconstantlyflowintotheirpockets，withoutanyexchange，gratis，bymightorright，fromthepocketsofthecommodity—ownersthemselves。Tosellcommoditiesabovetheirvaluetosuchaclass，isonlytocribbackagainapartofthemoneypreviouslygiventoit。[16]ThetownsofAsiaMinorthuspaidayearlymoneytributetoancientRome。
　　WiththismoneyRomepurchasedfromthemcommodities，andpurchasedthemtoodear。TheprovincialscheatedtheRomans，andthusgotbackfromtheirconquerors，inthecourseoftrade，aportionofthetribute。Yet，forallthat，theconqueredwerethereallycheated。Theirgoodswerestillpaidforwiththeirownmoney。Thatisnotthewaytogetrichortocreatesurplus—value。
　　Letusthereforekeepwithintheboundsofexchangewheresellersarealsobuyers，andbuyers，sellers。Ourdifficultymayperhapshavearisenfromtreatingtheactorsaspersonificationsinsteadofasindividuals。
　　AmaybecleverenoughtogettheadvantageofBorCwithouttheirbeingabletoretaliate。Asellswineworth£40toB，andobtainsfromhiminexchangecorntothevalueof£50。Ahasconvertedhis£40into£50，hasmademoremoneyoutofless，andhasconvertedhiscommoditiesintocapital。Letusexaminethisalittlemoreclosely。
　　Beforetheexchangewehad£40worthofwineinthehandsofA，and£50worthofcorninthoseofB，atotalvalueof£90。Aftertheexchangewehavestillthesametotalvalueof£90。Thevalueincirculationhasnotincreasedbyoneiota，itisonlydistributeddifferentlybetweenAandB。WhatisalossofvaluetoBissurplus—valuetoA;whatis"minus"tooneis"plus"totheother。Thesamechangewouldhavetakenplace，ifA，withouttheformalityofanexchange，haddirectlystolenthe£10fromB。Thesumofthevaluesincirculationcanclearlynotbeaugmentedbyanychangeintheirdistribution，anymorethanthequantityofthepreciousmetalsinacountrybyaJewsellingaQueenAnne’sfarthingforaguinea。Thecapitalistclass，asawhole，inanycountry，cannotover—reachthemselves。[17]
　　Turnandtwistthenaswemay，thefactremainsunaltered。Ifequivalentsareexchanged，nosurplus—valueresults，andifnon—equivalentsareexchanged，stillnosurplus—value。[18]Circulation，ortheexchangeofcommodities，begetsnovalue。[19]
　　Thereasonisnowthereforeplainwhy，inanalysingthestandardformofcapital，theformunderwhichitdeterminestheeconomicorganisationofmodernsociety，weentirelyleftoutofconsiderationitsmostpopular，and，sotosay，antediluvianforms，merchants’capitalandmoney—lenders’
　　capital。
　　ThecircuitM—C—M，buyinginordertoselldearer，isseenmostclearlyingenuinemerchants’capital。Butthemovementtakesplaceentirelywithinthesphereofcirculation。Since，however，itisimpossible，bycirculationalone，toaccountfortheconversionofmoneyintocapital，fortheformationofsurplus—value，itwouldappear，thatmerchants’capitalisanimpossibility，solongasequivalentsareexchanged;[20]that，therefore，itcanonlyhaveitsorigininthetwo—foldadvantagegained，overboththesellingandthebuyingproducers，bythemerchantwhoparasiticallyshoveshimselfinbetweenthem。ItisinthissensethatFranklinsays，"warisrobbery，commerceisgenerallycheating。"[21]Ifthetransformationofmerchants’moneyintocapitalistobeexplainedotherwisethanbytheproducersbeingsimplycheated，alongseriesofintermediatestepswouldbenecessary，which，atpresent，whenthesimplecirculationofcommoditiesformsouronlyassumption，areentirelywanting。
　　Whatwehavesaidwithreferencetomerchants’capital，appliesstillmoretomoney—lenders’capital。Inmerchants’capital，thetwoextremes，themoneythatisthrownuponthemarket，andtheaugmentedmoneythatiswithdrawnfromthemarket，areatleastconnectedbyapurchaseandasale，inotherwordsbythemovementofthecirculation。Inmoney—lenders’
　　capitaltheformM—C—Misreducedtothetwoextremeswithoutamean，M—M
　　，moneyexchangedformoremoney，aformthatisincompatiblewiththenatureofmoney，andthereforeremainsinexplicablefromthestandpointofthecirculationofcommodities。HenceAristotle:"sincechrematisticisadoublescience，onepartbelongingtocommerce，theothertoeconomic，thelatterbeingnecessaryandpraiseworthy，theformerbasedoncirculationandwithjusticedisapproved（foritisnotbasedonNature，butonmutualcheating），thereforetheusurerismostrightlyhated，becausemoneyitselfisthesourceofhisgain，andisnotusedforthepurposesforwhichitwasinvented。Foritoriginatedfortheexchangeofcommodities，butinterestmakesoutofmoney，moremoney。Henceitsname（[greek:tokos]interestandoffspring）。Forthebegottenarelikethosewhobegetthem。Butinterestismoneyofmoney，sothatofallmodesofmakingaliving，thisisthemostcontrarytoNature。"[22]
　　Inthecourseofourinvestigation，weshallfindthatbothmerchants’
　　capitalandinterest—bearingcapitalarederivativeforms，andatthesametimeitwillbecomeclear，whythesetwoformsappearinthecourseofhistorybeforethemodernstandardformofcapital。
　　Wehaveshownthatsurplus—valuecannotbecreatedbycirculation，and，therefore，thatinitsformation，somethingmusttakeplaceinthebackground，whichisnotapparentinthecirculationitself。[23]Butcansurplus—valuepossiblyoriginateanywhereelsethanincirculation，whichisthesumtotalofallthemutualrelationsofcommodity—owners，asfarastheyaredeterminedbytheircommodities？Apartfromcirculation，thecommodity—ownerisinrelationonlywithhisowncommodity。Sofarasregardsvalue，thatrelationislimitedtothis，thatthecommoditycontainsaquantityofhisownlabour，thatquantitybeingmeasuredbyadefinitesocialstandard。Thisquantityisexpressedbythevalueofthecommodity，andsincethevalueisreckonedinmoneyofaccount，thisquantityisalsoexpressedbytheprice，whichwewillsupposetobe£10。
　　Buthislabourisnotrepresentedbothbythevalueofthecommodity，andbyasurplusoverthatvalue，notbyapriceof10thatisalsoapriceof11，notbyavaluethatisgreaterthanitself。Thecommodityownercan，byhislabour，createvalue，butnotself—expandingvalue。Hecanincreasethevalueofhiscommodity，byaddingfreshlabour，andthereforemorevaluetothevalueinhand，bymaking，forinstance，leatherintoboots。Thesamematerialhasnowmorevalue，becauseitcontainsagreaterquantityoflabour。Thebootshavethereforemorevaluethantheleather，butthevalueoftheleatherremainswhatitwas;
　　ithasnotexpandeditself，hasnot，duringthemakingoftheboots，annexedsurplus—value。Itisthereforeimpossiblethatoutsidethesphereofcirculation，aproducerofcommoditiescan，withoutcomingintocontactwithothercommodity—owners，expandvalue，andconsequentlyconvertmoneyorcommoditiesintocapital。
　　Itisthereforeimpossibleforcapitaltobeproducedbycirculation，anditisequallyimpossibleforittooriginateapartfromcirculation。
　　Itmusthaveitsoriginbothincirculationandyetnotincirculation。