按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
rise to the family。 On the contrary； possession always presupposes this
〃more concrete category〃。 One may； nevertheless； conclude that the
simple categories represent relations or conditions which may reflect
the immature concrete situation without as yet positing the more complex
relation or condition which is conceptually expressed in the more
concrete category； on the other hand； the same category may be retained
as a subordinate relation in more developed concrete circumstances。
Money may exist and has existed in historical time before capital；
banks； wage…labor； etc。； came into being。 In this respect； it can be
said that the simpler category expresses relations in a more advanced
entity； relations which already existed historically before the entity
had developed the aspects expressed in a more concrete category。 The
procedure of abstract reasoning which advances from the simplest to more
complex concepts to that extent conforms to actual historical
development。
It is true； on the other hand； that there are certain highly…developed
（but nevertheless historically immature） social formations which employ
some of the most advanced economic forms e。g。； cooperation； developed
division of labor； etc。 without having developed any money at all
for instance； Peru。 In Slavonic communities； too； money and it's
precondition； exchange is of little or no importance within the
individual community； but is used on the borders where commerce with
other communities takes place； and it is altogether wrong to assume that
exchange within the community is an original constituent element。 On
the contrary； in the beginning exchange tends to arise in the
intercourse of different communities with one another； rather than among
members of the same community。 Moreover； although money begins to play
a considerable role very early and in diverse ways； it is known to have
been a dominant factor in antiquity only among nations developed in a
particular direction i。e。； merchant nations。 Even among Greeks and
Romans （the most advanced nations of antiquity） money reaches its full
development； which is presupposed in modern bourgeois society； only in
the period of their disintegration。 The full potential of this quite
simple category thus emerges historically not in the most advanced
phases of society； and it certainly does not penetrate into all economic
relations。 For example： taxes in kind and deliveries in kind remained
the basis of the Roman empire even at the height of its development；
indeed； a completely…evolved monetary system existed in Rome only in the
army； and it never permeated the whole complex of labor。 Although the
simpler category； therefore； may have existed historically before the
more concrete category； its complete intensive and extensive development
can nevertheless occur in a complex social formation； whereas the more
concrete category may have been fully evolved in a more primitive social
formation。
Labor seems to be a very simple category。 The notion of labor in this
universal form （as labor in general） is also extremely old。
Nevertheless； 〃labor〃 in this simplicity is economically considered just
as modern a category as the relations which give rise to this simple
abstraction。 The Monetary System； for example； still regards wealth
quite objectively as a thing existing independently in the shape of
money。 Compared with this standpoint； it was a substantial advance when
the manufacturing or Mercantile system transferred the source of wealth
from the object to the subjective activity mercantile or industrial
labor but it still considered that only this circumscribed activity
itself produced money。 In contrast to this system； the Physiocrats
assume that a specific for of labor agriculture creates wealth；
and they see the object no longer in the guise of money； but as a
product in general； as the universal result of labor。 In accordance
with the still circumscribed activity； the product remains a naturally
developed product； an agricultural product； a product of the land _par
excellence_。
It was an immense advance when Adam Smith rejected all restrictions with
regard to the activity that produces wealth for him； it was labor as
such； neither manufacturing； nor commercial； nor agricultural labor； but
all of them。 The abstract universality which creates wealth implies
also the universality of the objects defined as wealth： they are
products as such； or once more labor as such； but in this case past；
materialized labor。 How difficult and immense a transition that was is
demonstrated by the fact that Adam Smith himself occassionally relapses
once more into the Physiocratic system。 It might seem that in this way
merely an abstract expression was found for the simplest and most
ancient relation in which human beings act as producers irrespective
of the type of society they live in。 This is true in one respect； but
not in another。
The fact that the specific kind of labor is irrelevant presupposes a
highly…developed complex of actually existing kinds of labor none of
which is any more the all…important one。 The most general abstractions
arise on the whole only when concrete development is most profuse； so
that a specific quality is seen to be common to many phenomena； or
common to all。 Then it is no longer perceived solely in a particular
form。 This abstraction of labor is； on the other hand； by no means
simply the conceptual resultant of a variety of existing concrete types
of labor。 The fact that the particular kind of labor employed is
immaterial is appropriate to a form of society in which individuals
easily pass from one type of labor to another； the particular type of
labor being accidental to them and therefore irrelevant。 Labor； not
only as a category but in reality； has become a means to create wealth
in general； and has ceased to be tied as an attribute to a particular
individual。 This state of affairs is most pronounced in the United
States； the most modern form of bourgeois society。 The abstract
category 〃labor〃； 〃labor as such〃； labor _sans phrase_； the point of
departure in modern economics； thus becomes a practical fact only there。
The simplest abstraction； which plays a decisive role in modern
political economy； an abstraction which expresses an ancient relation
existing in all social formations； nevertheless appears to be actually
true in this abstract form only as a category of the most modern
society。 It might be said that phenomena which are historical products
in the United States e。g。； the irrelevance of the particular type of
labor appear to be among the Russians （for instance） naturally
developed predispositions。 But in the first place； there is an enormous
difference between barbarians having a predisposition which makes it
possible to employ them in various tasks； and civilized people who apply
themselves to various tasks。 As regards the Russians； moreover； their
indifference to the particular kind of labor performed is in practice
matched by their tradi