Key Arguments

• Marx insists that in the pure case of commodity exchange, where obligations balance, money is only money of account and there is merely a formal change: 'all that happens in exchange (if we leave aside the replacing of one use-value by another) is a metamorphosis, a mere change in the form of the commodity.'
• The same quantity of value remains with the same owner through its different forms: 'The same value, i.e. the same quantity of objectified social labour, remains throughout in the hands of the same commodity-owner, first in the shape of his own commodity, then in the shape of the money into which the commodity has been transformed, and finally in the shape of the commodity into which this money has been re-converted.'
• This change of form does not alter magnitude of value: 'This change of form does not imply any change in the magnitude of the value.… This change of form no more implies, taken alone, a change in the quantity of value than does the changing of a £5 note into sovereigns, half-sovereigns and shillings.'
• Therefore, when the phenomenon is taken 'in its purity', exchange necessarily involves equivalence: 'In so far, therefore, as the circulation of commodities involves a change only in the form of their values, it necessarily involves the exchange of equivalents, provided the phenomenon occurs in its purity.'
• Marx allows that both parties may gain as regards use‑value: 'In so far as use-values are concerned, it is clear that both parties may gain.… With reference, therefore, to use-value, it can indeed be said that “exchange is a transaction by which both sides gain”. It is otherwise with exchange-value.'
• He quotes another writer to underline that exchange does not add exchange‑value: '“A man who has plenty of wine and no corn treats with a man who has plenty of corn and no wine; an exchange takes place between them of corn to the value of 50, for wine of the same value. This act produces no increase of exchange-value either for the one or the other; for each of them already possessed, before the exchange, a value equal to that which he acquired by means of that operation.”'
• Summarizing for exchange‑value, Marx says: 'If, then, as regards the use-values exchanged, both buyer and seller may possibly gain something, this is not the case as regards exchange-values. Here we must rather say: “Where equality exists there is no gain.”'
• He draws the explicit conclusion: 'In its pure form, the exchange of commodities is an exchange of equivalents, and thus it is not a method of increasing value.'

Source Quotes

Thus the inversion of the order of succession does not take us outside the sphere of the simple circulation of commodities, and we must rather look to see whether this simple circulation, by its nature, might permit the valorization of the values entering into it and consequently the formation of surplus-value. Let us take the process of circulation in a form in which it presents itself to us as the exchange of commodities pure and simple. This is always the case when two owners of commodities buy from each other, and on the date of settlement the amounts they owe to each other balance out equally.

The value of a commodity is expressed in its price before it enters into circulation, and it is therefore a pre-condition of circulation, not its result. If we consider this in the abstract, i.e. disregarding circumstances which do not flow from the immanent laws of simple commodity circulation, all that happens in exchange (if we leave aside the replacing of one use-value by another) is a metamorphosis, a mere change in the form of the commodity. The same value, i.e. the same quantity of objectified social labour, remains throughout in the hands of the same commodity-owner, first in the shape of his own commodity, then in the shape of the money into which the commodity has been transformed, and finally in the shape of the commodity into which this money has been re-converted.

If we consider this in the abstract, i.e. disregarding circumstances which do not flow from the immanent laws of simple commodity circulation, all that happens in exchange (if we leave aside the replacing of one use-value by another) is a metamorphosis, a mere change in the form of the commodity. The same value, i.e. the same quantity of objectified social labour, remains throughout in the hands of the same commodity-owner, first in the shape of his own commodity, then in the shape of the money into which the commodity has been transformed, and finally in the shape of the commodity into which this money has been re-converted. This change of form does not imply any change in the magnitude of the value.

This form exists first as the price of the commodity offered for sale, then as an actual sum of money, which was, however, already expressed in the price, and lastly as the price of an equivalent commodity. This change of form no more implies, taken alone, a change in the quantity of value than does the changing of a £5 note into sovereigns, half-sovereigns and shillings. In so far, therefore, as the circulation of commodities involves a change only in the form of their values, it necessarily involves the exchange of equivalents, provided the phenomenon occurs in its purity.

It is true that commodities may be sold at prices which diverge from their values, but this divergence appears as an infringement of the laws governing the exchange of commodities. In its pure form, the exchange of commodities is an exchange of equivalents, and thus it is not a method of increasing value. Hence we see that behind all attempts to represent the circulation of commodities as a source of surplus-value, there lurks an inadvertent substitution, a confusion of use-value and exchange-value.

Key Concepts

• Let us take the process of circulation in a form in which it presents itself to us as the exchange of commodities pure and simple.
• all that happens in exchange (if we leave aside the replacing of one use-value by another) is a metamorphosis, a mere change in the form of the commodity.
• The same value, i.e. the same quantity of objectified social labour, remains throughout in the hands of the same commodity-owner
• This change of form no more implies, taken alone, a change in the quantity of value than does the changing of a £5 note into sovereigns, half-sovereigns and shillings.
• In its pure form, the exchange of commodities is an exchange of equivalents, and thus it is not a method of increasing value.

Context

Central theoretical part of Chapter 5 where Marx analyzes the circulation C–M–C abstractly and shows that simple exchange, taken in its pure form as exchange of equivalents, cannot generate surplus‑value.