If the object of this sham pseudo-science of Political Economy had not
been the same as that of all other legal sciences,--the justification of
coercion,--it could not have avoided noticing the strange phenomena that
the distribution of wealth, the deprivation of some men of land and
capital, and the enslavery of some men to others, depend upon money, and
that it is only by means of money that some men utilize the labour of
others,--in other words, enslave them.
I repeat that a man who has money may buy up and monopolise all the corn
and kill others by starvation, completely oppressing them, as it has
frequently happened before our own eyes on a very large scale.
It would seem then that we ought to examine the connection of these
occurrences with money; but Political Science, with full assurance,
asserts that money has no connection whatever with the matter.
This science says, "Money is as much an article of merchandise as
anything else which contains the value of its production, only with this
difference,--that this article of merchandise is chosen as the more
convenient medium of exchange for establishing values, for saving, and
for making payments. One man has made boots, another has grown wheat,
the third has bred sheep; and now, in order to exchange more
conveniently, they put money into circulation, which represents the
equivalent of labour; and by this medium they exchange the soles of
boots for a loin of mutton, or ten pounds of flour."
Students of this sham science are very fond of picturing to themselves
such a state of affairs; but there has never been such a condition in
the world. This idea about society is like the fancy about the
primitive, prehistoric, perfect human state which the philosophers
cherished; but such a state never existed.
In all human societies where money has been used there has also been the
oppression by the strong and the armed of the weak and the defenceless;
and wherever there was oppression, there the standard of value, money,
whatever it consisted of, cattle or hides, skin or metals, must have
unavoidably lost its significance as a medium of exchange, and received
the meaning of a ransom from violence.
There is no doubt that money does possess the inoffensive properties
which science enumerates; but it would have these properties only in a
society in which there was no violence,--in an ideal state. But in such
a society money would not be found as a general measure of value. In
such a community, at the advent of violence, money would immediately
lose its significance.
In all societies known to us where money is used it receives the
significance of a medium of exchange only because it serves as a means
of violence. And its chief object is to act thus,--not as a mere medium.
Where violence exists, money cannot be a true medium of exchange,
because it is not a measure of value,--because, as soon as one man may
take away from another the products of his labour, all measures of value
are directly violated. If horses and cows, bred by one man, and
violently taken away by others, were brought to a market, it is plain
that the value of other horses and cows there, when brought into
competition with stolen animals, would no longer correspond with the
labour of breeding them. And the value of everything else would also
change with this change, and so money could not determine values.
Besides, if one man may acquire by force a cow or a horse or a house, he
may by the same force acquire money itself, and with this money acquire
all kinds of produce. If, then, money itself is acquired by violence,
and spent to purchase products, money entirely loses its quality as a
medium of exchange.
The oppressor who takes money and gives it for the products of labour
does not exchange anything, but obtains from labour all that he wants.
But let us suppose that such an imaginary and impossible state of
society really existed, in which money is in circulation, without the
exercise of general violence,--silver or gold serving as a measure of
value and as a medium of exchange. All the savings in such a society are
expressed by money. There appears in this society an oppressor in the
shape of a conqueror. Let us suppose that this oppressor claims the
cows, horses, clothes, and the houses of the inhabitants; but, as it is
not convenient for him to take possession of all this, he naturally
thinks of taking that which represents among these men all kinds of
values and is exchanged for everything,--money. And at once in this
community, money receives, for the oppressor and his assistants, another
signification, and its character as a medium of exchange therefore
immediately ceases.
The measure of the values will always depend on the pleasure of the
oppressor. The articles most necessary to him, and for which he gives
more money, are considered greater value, and _vice versa_; so that, in
a community exposed to violence, money at once receives its chief
meaning,--it becomes a means of violence and a ransom from violence, and
it retains, among the oppressed, its significance as a medium of
exchange only so far as that is convenient to the oppressor.
Let us picture the whole affair in a circle, thus:--The serfs supply
their landlord with linen, poultry, sheep, and daily labour. The
landlord substitutes money for these goods, and fixes the value of the
various articles sent in. Those who have no linen, corn, cattle, or
manual labour to offer, may bring a definite sum of money.
It is obvious, that, in the society of the peasants of this landlord,
the price of the various articles will always depend upon the landlord's
pleasure. The landlord uses the articles collected among his peasants,
and some of these articles are more necessary for him than others: he
fixes the prices for them accordingly, more or less. It is clear that
the mere will and requirements of the landlord must regulate the prices
of these articles among the payers. If he is in want of corn, he will
set a high price for a fixed quantity of it, and a low price for linen,
cattle, or work; and therefore those who have no corn will sell their
labour, linen, and cattle to others, in order to buy corn to give it to
the landlord.
If the landlord chooses to substitute money for all his claims, then the
value of things will again depend, not upon the value of labour, but
first upon the sum of money which the landlord requires, and secondly
upon the articles produced by the peasants, which are more necessary to
the landlord, and for which he allows a higher price.
The money-claim made by the landlord on the peasants ceases to influence
the prices of the articles only when the peasants of this landlord live
separately from other people and have no connection with any one; and
secondly, when the landlord employs money, not in purchasing things in
his own village, but elsewhere. Only under these two conditions would
the prices of things, though changed nominally, remain relatively the
same, and money would become a measure of value and a medium of
exchange.
But if the peasants have any business connections with the inhabitants
surrounding them, the prices of their produce, as sold to their
neighbours, would depend on the sum required from them by their
landlord. (If less money is required from their neighbours than from
themselves, then their products would be sold cheaper than the products
of their neighbours, and _vice versa_.) Again, the landlord's
money-demand would cease to influence the prices of the articles, only
when the sums collected by the landlord were not spent in buying the
products of his own peasants. But if he spends the money in purchasing
from them, it is plain that the prices of various articles will
constantly vary among them according as the landlord buys more of one
thing than another.
Suppose one landlord has fixed a very high poll-tax, and his neighbour a
very low one: it is clear that on the estate of the first landlord every
thing will be cheaper than on the estate of the second, and that the
prices on either estate will depend only upon the increase and decrease
of the poll-taxes. This is one effect of violence on value.
Another, rising out of the first, consists in relative values. Suppose
one landlord is fond of horses, and pays a high price for them; another
is fond of towels, and offers a high figure for them. It is obvious that
on the estate of either of these two landlords, the horses and the
towels will be dear, and the prices of these articles will be out of
proportion to those of cows or of corn. If to-morrow the collector of
towels dies, and his heirs are fond of poultry, then it is obvious that
the price of towels will fall and that of poultry will rise.
Wherever in society there is the mastery of one man over another, there
the meaning of money as the measure of value at once yields to the will
of the oppressor, and its meaning as a medium of exchange of the
products of labour is replaced by another,--that of the most convenient
means of utilizing other people's labour.
The oppressor wants money neither as a medium of exchange,--for he takes
whatever he wants without exchange,--nor as a measure of value,--for he
himself determines the value of everything,--but only for the
convenience it affords of exercising violence; and this convenience
consists in the fact that money may be stored up, and is the most
convenient means of holding in slavery the majority of mankind.
It is not convenient to carry away all the cattle in order always to
have horses, cows, and sheep whenever wanted, because they must be fed;
the same holds good with corn, for it may be spoiled; the same with
slaves; sometimes a man may require thousands of workmen, and sometimes
none. Money demanded from those who have not got it makes it possible to
get rid of all these inconveniences and to have everything that is
required; and this is why the oppressor wants money. Besides which, he
wants money so that his right to utilize another man's labour may not be
confined to certain men but may be extended to all men who require the
money.
When there was no money in circulation each landlord could utilize the
labour of his own serfs only; but when they agreed to demand from the
peasants money which they had not, they were enabled to appropriate
without distinction the labour of all men on every estate.
Thus the oppressor finds it more convenient to press all his claims on
labour in the shape of money, and for this sole object is it desired. To
the victim from whom it is taken away money cannot be of use, either for
the purpose of exchange (seeing he exchanges without money, as all
nations have exchanged who had no government); nor for a measure of
value, because this is fixed without him; nor for the purpose of saving,
because the man whose productions are taken away cannot save; neither
for payments, because an oppressed man always has more to pay than to
receive; and if he does receive anything, the payment is made, not in
money, but in articles of merchandise in either case; whether the
workman takes his goods from his master's shop to remunerate his labour,
or whether he buys the necessaries of life with his earnings in other
shops, the money is required from him, and he is told by his oppressors
that if he does not pay it they will refuse to give him land or bread,
or will take away his cow or his horse, or condemn him to work, or put
him in prison. He can only free himself from all this by selling the
products of his toil, his own labour, or that of his children.
He will have to sell this according to the prices established, not by a
regular exchange, but by the authority which demands money of him.
Under the conditions of the influence of tribute and taxes on
prices,--which everywhere and always repeat themselves, as much with the
land-owners in a narrow circle, as with the state on a larger scale (in
which the causes of the modification of prices are as obvious to us, as
the motion of the hands and feet of puppets is obvious to those who look
behind the curtain and see who are the wire-pullers):--under these
circumstances, to say that money is a medium of exchange and a measure
of value, is at least astonishing.