fractions of the laws of the exchange of commodites,[1] which in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing value.[2]
Hence, we see that behind all attempts to represent the circulation of commodities as a source of surplus-value, there lurks a quid pro quo, a mixing up of use-value and exchange value. For instance, Condillac says: "It is not true that on an exchange of commodities we give value for value. On the contrary, each of the two contracting parties in every case, gives a less for a greater value.… If we really exchanged equal values, neither party could make a profit. And yet, they both gain, or ought to gain. Why? The value of a thing consists solely in its relation to our wants. What is more to the one is less to the other, and vice versâ.… It is not to be assumed that we offer for sale articles required for our own consumption.… We wish to part with a useless thing, in order to get one that we need; we want to give less for more.… It was natural to think that, in an exchange, value was given for value, whenever each of the articles exchanged was of equal value with the same quantity of gold.… But there is another point to be considered in our calculation. The question is, whether we both exchange something superfluous for something necessary."[3] We see in this passage, how Condillac not only confuses use-value with exchange value, but in a really childish manner assumes, that in a society, in which the production of commodities is well developed, each producer produces his own means of subsistence, and throws into circulation only the excess over his own requirements.[4] Still, Condillac's argument is frequently used
- ↑ "L'échange devient désavantageux pour l'une des parties, lorsque quelque chose étrangère vient diminuer ou exagérer le prix; alors l'égalité est blessée, mais la lésion procède de cette cause et non de l'échange." ("Le Trosne," l. c. p. 904.)
- ↑ "L'échange est de sa nature un contrat d'égalité qui se fait de valeur pour valeur égale. Il n'est donc pas un moyen de s'enrichir, puisque l'on donne autant que l'on reçoit." ("Le Trosne," l. c. p. 903.)
- ↑ "Condillac: "Le Commerce et le Gouvernement" (1776). Edit. Daire et Molinari in the "Mélanges d'Econ. Polit." Paris, 1847, p. 367, etc.
- ↑ Le Trosne, therefore, answers his friend Condillac with justice as follows: "Dans une … societé formée il n'y a pas de surabondant en aucun genre." At the same time, in a bantering way, he remarks: "If both the persons who exchange receive more to an equal amount, and part with less to an equal amount, they both get the same." It is because Condillac has not the remotest idea of the nature of
