The Meaning of "Commodity"
Why Does "Labor" Become "Value"?

(From 'For Advocating "The Labor Value Theory"' 1999)

Written by Hiroyoshi Hayashi
Translated by Roy West

Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation!

CONTENTS (Sorry, Those Except I Are Getting Ready.)

I. Concerning Some "Methodologies"
II. The Nature of the "Beginning Commodity"
III. "Verification of the Labor Theory of Value"
IV. Simple and Complex Labor
V. What is the "Form of Value"?
VI. The "Mysterious" Nature of a Commodity
VII. The Exchange Process-The Location of Money Formation
VIII. The Functions of Money and the Phenomenon of Price
IX. The Function of Money as a Means of Circulation and Inflation
X. The Exploitation of Labor
XI. An Overview of the Theory of the "Commodity"-A Special "Commodity"


The following is a series of articles from the SWP newspaper "henkaku" (Revolutionary Change) [former name] of over two and a half years which attempts a "simple" explanation of Marxist economics. The object of study is the first part of Capital; that is the part focusing on the commodity. I would be very pleased if this can be of help to young people who are attempting to study Capital and Marxist economics. This is not simply a commentary-the "method" adopted is to elucidate the correctness and validity of Marxism and its meaning through the introduction of various criticisms and attacks that were made on Marxist economics. Most examples are taken from the Uno (Uno Kozo 1897-1977) School's criticism of Marxism (they are in fact contemptible professional "peddlers of criticism of Marx"), but I have also focused criticism on significant criticism from other bourgeois scholars.

(We will be uploading chapters from this series as soon as they are translated.)

I. Concerning Some "Methodologies"

1. The Materialist Conception of History and "Economics"
-The Position of the Materialist Conception of History

I intend to begin with the "commodity", but first I'd like to consider a few "methodological" questions. When I say "methodology" this refers to the "methodology" directly related to Marxist economics. We will have to deal with Marx's "methodology" repeatedly in each case and in various forms, but here we are referring to general questions such as the relation between Das Kapital ("economics") and the materialist conception of history (or historical materialism), as well as the meaning of Das Kapital (i.e. is it in fact a theory of "pure" capitalism=principle theory?).

The position of the Uno School is the same irregardless of where one begins. Let's look at a passage from Ouchi Hideaki's Principle Theory of Economics.

"In the narrow sense of economics we explain economic laws with modern capitalism as our object of study. But "on top of this, the wider meaning of economics includes humanity's entire historical development and transformation including capitalist society. This is precisely the correct methodology for economics as a historical science. Accordingly, in Das Kapital, Marx's object of study is to elucidate the laws of the modern capitalist economy, not antiquity or the middle ages. The "ultimate goal" of Das Kapital is "to clarify the laws of economic movement of modern capitalism."

What a dish of stupidity our learned professor has concocted! It should be obvious that the object of Das Kapital, that is the analysis of "capital", would be capitalism, not antiquity or the middle ages. This is simply repetitive. If this were not the case Das Kapital would certainly not be entitled Das Kapital. The reason Ouchi has written such foolishness is because he (or rather the Uno School in general) denies or obscures the independent meaning of the materialist conception of history, and insists that it is merely an "ideological hypothesis" and its correctness can only be (and must be) 'proven' by Das Kapital.

Ouchi's idea that the "economic laws" of capitalist must be clarified, and then "on top of that" the materialist conception of history or "economics in the wider sense" can be posited is nonsense. It is clear that the scientific understanding of capitalistic production has the power to contribute to the establishment of historical materialism, but historical materialism can only be arrived at from an overall generalization of the historical and social development of mankind. This should be perfectly clear. The boss himself, Uno Kozo, put it in the following way:

"The materialist conception of history clarifies the economic process of society as a materialistic process of development, but it is the task of economics to verify this scientifically... Economics is not able to provide this theoretical basis by means of the materialist conception of history. A proof which in incapable of gaining the acceptance of someone irregardless of whether that person stands on the materialist conception of history, cannot be called a scientific proof...It not possible to claim that economics and the materialist conception of history or both objective, and that economics provide proof through the materialist conception of history." (Study of the Theory of Value)

2. The Meaning of the Materialist Conception of History
-The Uno School Denies Reality

Uno states that the task of economics is to scientifically verify the materialist conception of history. Here "economics" means "modern economics", that is the scientific analysis of capitalist relations of production of Smith, Ricardo which reached a peak with Marx.

Uno's places "economics" and the "materialist conception of history" in opposition, and posits that it is not the materialist conception of history which gives economics a theoretical base, but rather the materialist conception of history is verified through economics.

Simply put, it could be said that essentially for the Uno school, there is economics-it will gradually become clear what sort of thing this is-but there is not a materialist conception of history. Thus, one can only take up the analysis of capitalism, while a summary of the overall history of mankind cannot avoid being one dimensional.

The materialist conception of history elucidates that human history develops through the mutual relationship between productive power and the relations of production. Fixed relations of production, thus social relations, are formed in correspondence to the productive power of human labor, and a "superstructure" (state apparatus, culture and ideological relations) develop in correspondence to this. As the productive power develops increasingly, and comes into contradiction with the old relations of production, a period of great change, turmoil and revolution begins which doesn't end until the relations of production are brought into correspondence with the productive power. According to Marx's materialist conception of history humanity has fundamentally developed through the slavery system, feudal system, and capitalist system of society, and moreover necessarily must move to socialism.

The 20th century is an age of turmoil and revolution, a period of deep "crisis" where human history comes up against the enormous, unprecedented task of shifting from capitalism to socialism; this must be solved if the next step forward is to be reached. To study the materialist conception of history is to know the major, necessary historical currents throughout human history; to know the laws of human development; it is to know why we are opposed to capitalism, and why we must live and fight for socialism.

For this reason the petty bourgeois intellectuals of the Uno School are especially prejudiced against the materialist conception of history. They keep their distance by calling it an "ideological hypothesis", and repeat that the "objective", "scientific" analysis of economics takes precedence. They hope to escape from the spiritual "pressure" of the materialist conception of history.

It becomes clear why Uno makes the materialist conception of history dependent on capitalism for proof. He prefers to play around with a "pure" scientific theory as "theory" only. Realistic questions such as the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, or the liberation of workers is of little importance to him.

Uno says, plausibly, that if economics is made dependent on materialism, it is not possible to insist on the objectivity economics and the materialist conception of history together. In fact, Uno's position is to glorify a vulgar "objective" economics, on the one hand, and deny the objectivity of the materialist conception of history by dissolving it into economics, on the other.

"Economics cannot be given a theoretical basis through the materialist conception of history"-Who on earth is Uno debating with here? His opponent is a windmill, not an actual Marxist. A Marxist would say that the general historical laws of the materialist conception of history penetrate through capitalist society. However, the scientific elucidation of capitalism should not be directly deduced or demonstrated from the materialist conception of history, but rather should be left to the independent analysis and study of the development of the economic relations of capitalism.

However, in the eyes of Unoists, based on their dogma that 'economics (the analysis of capital) gives the materialist conception of history a theoretical basis, even the absolutely justifiable view above appears to say that 'economics is verified by the materialist conception of history'. They are unable to understand the simple truth that capitalism is also one historical form of society in the history of humanity, and therefore follows the general developmental laws of human history.

What does it mean to say that whether one takes up the materialist conception of history or not, Das Kapital is the undeniable proof that everyone must recognize. This is nothing but devious bourgeois "scientism" and fashionable "positivist" nonsense.

3. What is the 'Economy Process'
-the Vulgarization and Diminishiment of the Materialist Conception of History

In explaining the materialist conception of history Uno says, "the economic process of society is itself the development of the materialistic process."

This sounds like very materialistic, but the content is the problem. There are also many types of materialism. The materialism (historical materialism) applied to what Uno calls human society is the following thing:

"We intend to clarify the economic laws which in general run through capitalist society. We attempted to systematize the process of socio-material metabolism of a perfectly capitalistic structure. ... This was intended to elucidate the economic laws of capitalist society, and the fact that this is manifested as an independent materialistic process." (Fundamental Problems of Social Science)

"The commodity economy, the object of economics, particularly the capitalistic commodity economy is a society unlike that of past historical societies in that its economic process is grasped as a pure economic form." (Ibid)

Leaving aside for now the stupidity of the expression "society's economic process is grasped as a pure economic form", what does Uno mean by "economic process"?

"Man is, in fact, a thing. ... Everyone knows that human beings live by consuming things. Further, everyone understands that the consumption of things cannot continue without the production of things. It is also clear that the production of things must be carried out through the labor of human beings. There is also the so-called process of socio-material metabolism in which, on the one hand, things become human, and on the other hand, human being become things. No society can be formed without this economic process. ... Economics elucidates how this process is carried out in a capitalistic commodity economy. This process....is a socio-material process composed of independent movement. Furthermore, Das Kapital consistently provides the base which can establish materialism." (ibid)

Just as a commodity is not only a thing=use value, so capital is also not merely a thing=means of existence (machinery, etc.), but essentially is the particular relations of production. Machinery is only capital under certain production relations.

Uno understands commodity and capital directly as "things", and believes that the goal of economics is to analyze their movement (economic process). Das Kapital is then the analysis of the commodity as a "thing".

However, there is a big difference between saying that under capitalist relations of production the relations between people are expressed as a relation between things, and saying that the production relations themselves are a relations of things. Production relations without mutual human relations is something unheard of by man up to this day. The development of capital is also the mutual relationship between capital and wage labor, not merely the irrational development of "things".

Uno talks about "pure" economic processes, but he forgets that there is a mutual relationship between "economic relations" and human production, and that economic categories such as commodity, money, and capital are nothing but human relations concealed by a relation between "things".

In Uno's "economic process" people consume, and live, and this process is carried out as a commodity economy. Das Kapital elucidated this process, and this is what ultimately establishes materialism.

Uno doesn't attempt to explain why the socio-material metabolism can only be carried out through the commodity economy, only that this is what happens. He merely says that this is the material metabolism of society, verifies the relations of things, and thereby establishes materialism.

For Uno, human beings are only things; not the subject that fabricates society and history through their labor and social praxis. For him, the economic process is first of all consumption, and secondly the activity for that consumption, people are not connected by social relations of labor and production.

Of course, we have nothing in common with this vulgar materialist conception of history. This is a confused, vulgar materialism, a counterfeit version of the materialist conception of history. Uno completely misunderstands the theory of materialism, that is the materialist conception of history, which established the particularity of human history. Rather, he tries to dissolve it directly into a general theory of materialism (namely, a relationship between human beings as things and things as objects of consumption)!

4. What is the Object of Das Kapital?
-the Idealism of Uno's "Principle Theory"

It seems to be clear that Das Kapital is the analysis and scientific elucidation of capitalism as a historical from of production relations, and that the object of Das Kapital is only capitalist production. But even on this point there is a difference of opinion. According to Uno, the object of Das Kapital is only one state of capitalism-the stage of industrial capitalism, that is the stage of industrial capitalism is differentiated from earlier stages of capitalism, as well as the latter stage of finance capitalism. Uno puts forth this opinion because he thinks that only at this stage of capitalism was there a development toward the elimination of impure elements in capitalism, and the strengthening of a trend towards an approximation of a so-called pure capitalist society. At this stage capitalism had a tendency towards purity, whereas at earlier and later stages this capitalistic purification did not exist (not only this, at the monopoly stage there was a 'reversal' and a trend towards impurity).

Uno uses the following quotation from Marx as the grounds for his argument.

"The physicist either observes natural processes where they occur in their most significant form, and are least affected by disturbing influences, or, whenever possible, he makes experiments under conditions which ensure that the process will occur in its pure state. What I have to examine in this work is the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of production and forms of intercourse [Verkehrsverhaltnisse] that correspond to it. Until now, their locus classicus has been England. This is the reason why England is used as the main illustration of the theoretical developments I make." (Penguin Edition: Das Kapital p. 90)

As you can see, purity or impurity is not the problem which Marx poses. What he says is that when studying capitalism as capitalism, exterior relations must be placed out of consideration. Realistically, moreover, England is usually presupposed as the typical capitalist country at that time.

Indeed, everyone knows that a "pure" capitalist country is something which doesn't exist. In fact, various more or less "impure" elements (feudal or petty bourgeois) are connected and intertwined with capitalistic production. However, if capitalistic relations of production become the dominant ones, and continue to become so, this causes no difficulty for the abstraction of the laws of capitalism.

Uno says that Marx's object was not simply capitalism, but a stage of capitalism purified of the impure elements it contained. However, precisely because England is taken as the model of capitalism, it is said that Das Kapital contains decisive time period limitations.

Granted real capitalism has some "impure" elements, but to grasp the concept of capital, the assumption of a "pure" model is not necessary, the necessary prerequisite is that the dominate means of production are capitalistic-in general, this seems to be a simple truth, but the Idealist Uno Kozo is completely unable to understand this.

Marx talks about "model" capitalism, but "pure" capitalism is not an issue at all. Furthermore, if England had been the model capitalist country until that time, this definitely did not mean that the countries outside England were "impure" capitalist countries. In the near future Germany (or rather all nations and peoples in the world) followed after England, and like her, stepped onto the path of capitalistic development.

Thus, in the same preface Marx said, "The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future." (p. 91). Indeed, apart from this or that detail or formal difference, the history of mankind has essentially advanced as Marx said. That is, every country has entered into the path of capitalistic development, and had no choice but to enter this path. The deepening of capitalism has occurred in every country and has advanced in the era of monopoly capital, not merely in England or during the stage of industrial capital.

5. The Assumption of a "Pure" model
-Smuggling in the "Method" of Bourgeois Science

Uno's discussion of pure capitalism is completely idealistic.

"For Marx's theoretical development of Das Kapital, naturally the laws ruling the capitalist mode of production should be illustrated in their pure unfolding, but in fact they had only reached an approximation of this state. However, Marx thought that together with the development of capitalism, this approximation would eliminate the impurities from the former mode of production, and become stronger and stronger." (Fundamental Problems of Social Science)

"However, in the concrete process of the development of capitalism this theoretical assumption of a purely capitalist society could not be realized. In the late 19th century a new stage of finance capital was entered and the process of the purification of capitalism was obstructed-in England by foreign relations in the colonies, and in other advanced countries by domestic relations and stagnation in the capitalization of the antiquated agricultural system. The process of developmental change from the period of industrial capital to that of finance capital was not the internal development of a pure process of a commodity economy that had been presupposed in principle." (Ibid)

Uno's position here has fallen into idealism. He says that there is a "pure" principle theory and "impure" reality, and that reality is nothing but an "approximate reality" of the "pure" theory. Uno does not even possess the elemental materialist reflection on the fact that a scientific theory is one which correctly reflects reality and its various relations!

Exactly what is Uno's so-called "pure" capitalism? For example, is the first chapter "Capital" of Das Kapital a theory of "pure" capitalism? Is this so-called "pure" capitalism somehow distinct from real capitalism?

According to Uno, the theoretical object "pure" capitalism is not real capitalism. This is because real capitalism can only exist with various "impure" elements.

Marxists, on the other hand, say that Das Kapital is the theory and true understanding of capitalism. Even supposing that real capitalism contains more or less "impure" elements, this does not change one bit the fact that Das Kapital is the true understanding or science of the actual content and laws of motion of "modern civil society"=bourgeois society. This theory "reflects" reality, and there is no need for the supposition of a "model" ("pure") capitalism.

Of course, in the sense that Marx also thought "purely" of capitalism as capitalism, and actually existing capitalism is always "impure", there is some truth in Uno's idea that Marx's object of consideration was not real capitalism, but some intermediary theoretical model posited as a prototypical concept-this is a question that necessarily arises.

However, this is a superficial view. To analyze the social relations of reality, a person must use the "power of abstraction", but this certainly does not signify the establishment of a theoretical model, and is not the same thing as analyzing this model. Uno needs to reflect on Marx's statement that in the analysis of social relations experiment and reagents are not useful.

First of all, the presupposition of a model of "pure" capitalism, and analysis of this model is not a materialistic approach. To establish this model a fixed understanding (concept) of capitalism is necessary, but according to the presupposition the analysis of "capital" begins from this point since we have not possessed a true concept up to this point. If this were the case, how would the establishment of a model of "pure" capitalism be possible? Uno's "method" is completely idealistic and bourgeois-i.e. modern bourgeois philosophy uses this same circular "method".

Marx wrote Das Kapital to expose the reality of capitalist production-it is for this exact reason that those who are suffering from the contradictions of capitalism, and have decided to fight against the rule and exploitation of capital, must study Das Kapital.

6. The Meaning of a Theoretical Grasp
-Uno's "Method" Contains the Idealism of M. Weber

Certainly in the third volume of Das Kapital Marx "assumed that the laws of capitalist production developed purely, which in reality is always an approximation". Marx wrote that as capitalism develops this approximation becomes greater.

But is Marx's view the same thing as Uno's "methodology"? Marx is insisting that "in theory" the laws of capitalism develop "purely", but this stems from the nature of theory in general, and there is nothing strange or mysterious about this (although Uno apparently wants to mystify this).

Real capitalism always contains some other pre-capitalist elements. However, "in theory" these 'impure' elements are not considered. This is because the theoretical task is to grasp the concept of capital and the essence of capitalistic production.

To presume that "in theory" the laws of capital develop "purely", certainly doesn't mean that like Weber one assumes capital as a "ideal type" and analyze it as an object. The object of analysis for Marx is actual capitalist production, and not some sort of "ideal type". It is illogical and self-contradictory to hypothesize the existence of "pure" capitalism, or create this through our subjectivity, and then make this product of our subjectivity the object of our analysis and research.

What exists in reality is capitalism as the dominant, and moreover historically inevitable means of production. Abstraction is our weapon (the workings of our brain) to analyze and study this. In this case, through the power of abstraction, we "purely" define and establish capital as a category, and this is the real meaning of Marx's sentence.

In a profound sense, Uno position is close to Weber's "ideal type". According to Weber, an ideal type is not a general idea or category-rather it is an abstraction which most typically represents the characteristics of the real elements from the social and cultural structure. However, this is not, for example, the concept of capital.

Neo-Kantians, in general, have claimed that social science cannot find "universally applicable" laws, and thus it was only possible to grasp separate, concrete real phenomenon, and "principles" of their points in common. On this construct, Weber called the model of a given phenomenon an ideal type. Uno's so-called "pure capitalism"=principle theory, perfectly corresponds to this ideal type.

That is, according to Uno, "pure" capitalism is a kind of "idealized" model, taken to the extreme, of the tendency of the stage of 19th century "industrial capitalism" towards "purification". Das Kapital is thus seen as the theorization of this model (according to this view Das Kapital needs to be re-written in a pure form.

This model is thus unable to provide a theory of capitalism in general. From the beginning this was not the intention, and it remains to the end an Unoist model=principle theory. Ultimately this is a conceptual product of Uno's subjectivity. Uno's "theory" is fundamentally marked by the illogical, idealist fantasy that some sort of "scientific" theory can be created by analyzing a presupposed subjective conceptualization (pure capitalism). This by itself shows us the silly, speculative nature of this "theory".

Nothing better reveals the reactionary nature of Uno's theory than the fact that his "method" is essentially borrowed from the Neo-Kantian school and Max Weber. Uno's theory represents an attempt to revise Marxism through the philosophy and economics of modern monopoly capital. It is for this reason that his theory perfectly suits the character of intellectuals in the payroll of bourgeois universities.

7. An Illogical "Methodology"
-Uno's "Three-Stages Theory" is Sheer Nonsense

Uno's so-called "theory of stages" is self-contradictory and illogical from the outset. He says that his method of stages, consists of the negation of the general concept. For example, Uno argues that "finance capital" instead of being a common category of capital in the advanced countries from the 19th to the 20th century, is merely a "type". That is, there can be German finance capital, or English finance capital, but there is no such concept as finance capital in general. It is from this viewpoint that Uno criticizes Lenin.

"The logic that the use of the term finance capital must mean that there is general commonality, and that more than this just as there are general principles of capitalism, there must be a general principle of finance capital, strikes me as unreasonable...To view scientific elucidation in this way, means to ignore the meaning of economics as an historical science. There is a fundamental problem of proceeding under the common sense perspective of natural science under the name of science." (The Method of Economics)

We must note here that in explaining modern capitalism, Uno begins from "heavy industry" as natural thing. But even putting this aside, considering the noticeable existence of heavy industry in both England, and the United States, doesn't Uno have to recognize their general commonality? The idea that imperialist states would only have "distinctive" characteristics shows us the essence of Uno's "stages-theory" as a "methodology" which follows the "methodology" of the Neo-Kantians.

The reactionary essence of Uno's theory is expressed in a concentrated form in the idea that modern capitalism cannot be scientifically or rationally (theoretically) grasped on the basis of Das Kapital; and can only be phenomenally or experientially described as a "type".

However, modern capitalism, since it is capitalism, necessarily has the character and laws of capitalism that were elucidated in Das Kapital.

Of course, present-day capitalism has undergone various transformations since the era of "free competition" capitalism, and many new characteristics have appeared. Moreover, there is no question of the need for summaries of independent theoretical tasks such as Lenin carried out in Imperialism. But this is completely different from what Uno argues.

We do not interpret present-day capitalism in the "well-intentioned" manner of Uno Kozo who directly judges it based on a general theory of capital. In reality, this denies the possibility of a fundamental, scientific understanding of modern capitalism, and reflects the frivolous standpoint of petty bourgeois intellectuals who merely escape into the "analysis of the current situation" in which they merely describe phenomenon as phenomenon.

Needless to say, various phenomenon of modern capitalism (such as monopoly prices), can not be directly grasped with only a general theory of capital. Phenomenally, this can even be in contradiction with the general concept of capital. Nevertheless, by means of a reduction to the general concept of capital this new phenomenon-through various mediations-can be explained.

The theory of Uno Kozo is completely illogical and idealistic. In this theory, present-day capitalism is separated from capitalism in general, and thus already becomes something other than capitalism.

We will soon be entering Das Kapital, but there is no need, as Uno suggests, for us to presuppose 19th century England; present-day Japan as a highly developed monopoly capital state is sufficient. The study of Das Kapital is also a study of the capitalist society in which we live, and for this reason our study must be thorough, and has a decisively important and practical significance. Based on this firm awareness, let's continue on to study the commodity and the theory of value.