1.-- Opposition of value in USE and value in EXCHANGE.
Value is the corner-stone of the economic edifice.The divine artist who has intrusted us with the continuation of his work has explained himself on this point to no one; but the few indications given may serve as a basis of conjecture.Value, in fact, presents two faces: one, which the economists call value in use, or intrinsic value; another, value in exchange, or of opinion.The effects which are produced by value under this double aspect, and which are very irregular so long as it is not established, -- or, to use a more philosophical expression, so long as it is not constituted, -are changed totally by this constitution.
Now, in what consists the correlation between useful value and value in exchange? What is meant by constituted value, and by what sudden change is this constitution effected? To answer these questions is the object and end of political economy.I beg the reader to give his whole attention to what is to follow, this chapter being the only one in the work which will tax his patience.For my part, I will endeavor to be more and more simple and clear.
Everything which can be of any service to me is of value to me, and the more abundant the useful thing is the richer I am: so far there is no difficulty.Milk and flesh, fruits and grains, wool, sugar, cotton, wine, metals, marble; in fact, land, water, air, fire, and sunlight, --
are, relatively to me, values of use, values by nature and function.If all the things which serve to sustain my life were as abundant as certain of them are, light for instance, -- in other words, if the quantity of every valuable thing was inexhaustible, -- my welfare would be forever assured: I should not have to labor; I should not even think.In such a state, things would always be useful, but it would be no longer true to say that they ARE VALUABLE; for value, as we shall soon see, indicates an essentially social relation; and it is solely through exchange, reverting as it were from society to Nature, that we have acquired the idea of utility.
The whole development of civilization originates, then, in the necessity which the human race is under of continually causing the creation of new values; just as the evils of society are primarily caused by the perpetual struggle which we maintain against our own inertia.Take away from man that desire which leads him to think and fits him for a life of contemplation, and the lord of creation stands on a level with the highest of the beasts.
But how does value in use become value in exchange? For it should be noticed that the two kinds of value, although coexisting in thought (since the former becomes apparent only in the presence of the latter), nevertheless maintain a relation of succession: exchangeable value is a sort of reflex of useful value; just as the theologians teach that in the Trinity the Father, contemplating himself through all eternity, begets the Son.This generation of the idea of value has not been noted by the economists with sufficient care: it is important that we should tarry over it.
Since, then, of the objects which I need, a very large number exist in Nature only in moderate quantities, or even not at all, I am forced to assist in the production of that which I lack; and, as I cannot turn my hand to so many things, I propose to other men, my collaborators in various functions, to yield me a portion of their products in exchange for mine.I shall then always have in my possession more of my own special product than I consume; just as my fellows will always have in their possession more of their respective products than they use.This tacit agreement is fulfilled by commerce.Here we may observe that the logical succession of the two kinds of value is even more apparent in history than in theory, men having spent thousands of years in disputing over natural wealth (this being what is called primitive communism) before their industry afforded opportunity for exchange.
Now, the capacity possessed by all products, whether natural or the result of labor, of serving to maintain man, is called distinctively value in use; their capacity of purchasing each other, value in exchange.At bottom this is the same thing, since the second case only adds to the first the idea of substitution, which may seem an idle subtlety; practically, the consequences are surprising, and beneficial or fatal by turns.
Consequently, the distinction established in value is based on facts, and is not at all arbitrary: it is for man, in submitting to this law, to use it to increase his welfare and liberty.Labor, as an author (M.
Walras) has beautifully expressed it, is a war declared against the parsimony of Nature; by it wealth and society are simultaneously created.Not only does labor produce incomparably more wealth than Nature gives us, -- for instance, it has been remarked that the shoemakers alone in France produce ten times more than the mines of Peru, Brazil, and Mexico combined, --
but, labor infinitely extending and multiplying its rights by the changes which it makes in natural values, it gradually comes about that all wealth, in running the gauntlet of labor, falls wholly into the hands of him who creates it, and that nothing, or almost nothing, is left for the possessor of the original material.
Such, then, is the path of economic progress: at first, appropriation of the land and natural values; then, association and distribution through labor until complete equality is attained.Chasms are scattered along our road, the sword is suspended over our heads; but, to avert all dangers, we have reason, and reason is omnipotence.
