Ignorance of earlier socialist thought is so widespread in Germany that an innocent youth might at this point raise the question whether， for example， Owen's labour-notes might not lead to a similar abuse. Although we are here not concerned with developing the significance of these labour-notes， space should be given to the following for the purpose of contrasting Dühring's "comprehensive schematism" {D. C. 341} with Owen's "crude feeble and meagre ideas" {D. K. G. 295， 296}： In the first place， such a misuse of Owen's labour-notes would require their conversion into real money， while Herr Dühring presupposes real money， though attempting to prohibit it from functioning otherwise than as mere labour certificate. While in Owen's scheme there would have to be a real abuse， in Dühring's scheme the immanent nature of money， which is independent of human volition， would assert itself； the specific， correct use of money would assert itself in spite of the misuse which Herr Dühring tries to impose on it owing to his own ignorance of the nature of money. Secondly， with Owen the labour-notes are only a transitional form to complete community and free utilisation of the resources of society； and incidentally at most also a means designed to make communism plausible to the British public. If therefore any form of misuse should compel Owen's society to do away with the labour-notes， the society would take a step forward towards its goal， entering upon a more perfect stage of its development. But if the Dühringian economic commune abolishes money， it at one blow destroys its "world-historic import"， it puts an end to its peculiar beauty， ceases to be the Dühring economic commune and sinks to the level of the befogged notions to lift it from which Herr Dühring has devoted so much of the hard labour of his rational fantasy. *14What， then， is the source of all the strange errors and entanglements amid which the Dühring economic commune meanders？ Simply the fog which， in Herr Dühring's mind， envelops the concepts of value and money， and finally drives him to attempt to discover the value of labour. But as Herr Dühring has not by any means the monopoly of such fogginess for Germany， but on the contrary meets with many competitors， we will "overt<；'me our reluctance for a moment and solve the knot" {497} which he has contrived to make here.
The only value known in economics is the value of commodities.
What are commodities？ Products made in a society of more or less separate private producers， and therefore in the first place private products. These private products， however， become commodities only when they are made， not for consumption by their producers， but for consumption by others， that is， for social consumption； they enter into social consumption through exchange. The private producers are therefore socially interconnected， constitute a society. Their products， although the private products of each individual， are therefore simultaneously but unintentionally and as it were involuntarily， also social products. In what， then， consists the social character of these private products？ Evidently in two peculiarities：
first， that they all satisfy some human want， have a use-value not only for the producers but also for others， and secondly， that although they are products of the most varied individual labour， they are at the same time products of human labour as such， of general human labour. In so far as they have a use-value also for other persons， they can， generally speaking enter into exchange； in so far as general human labour， the simple expenditure of human labour-power is incorporated in all of them， they can be compared with each other in exchange， be assumed to be equal or unequal， according to the quantity of this labour embodied in each. In two equal products made individually， social conditions being equal， an unequal quantity of individual labour may be contained， but always only an equal quantity of general human labour. An unskilled smith may make five horseshoes in the time a skilful smith makes ten. But society does not form value from the accidental lack of skill of an individual， it recognises as general human labour only labour of a normal average degree of skill at the particular time. In exchange therefore， one of the five horseshoes made by the first smith has no more value than one of the ten made by the other in an equal time. Individual labour contains general human labour only in so far as it is socially necessary.
Therefore when I say that a commodity has a particular value， I say (1) that it is a socially useful product； (2) that it has been produced by a private individual for private account， (3) that although a product of individual labour， it is nevertheless at the same time and as it were unconsciously and involuntarily， also a product of social labour and， be it noted， of a definite quantity of this labour， ascertained in a social way， through exchange； (4) I express this quantity not in labour itself， in so and so many labour-hours， but in another commodity . If therefore I say that this clock is worth as much as that piece of cloth and each of them is worth fifty marks， I say that an equal quantity of social labour is contained in the clock， the cloth and the money. I therefore assert that the social labour-time represented in them has been socially measured and found to be equal. But not directly， absolutely， as labour-time is usually measured， in labour-hours or days， etc.， but in a roundabout way， through the medium of exchange， relatively. That is why I cannot express this definite quantity of labour-time in labour-hours -- how many of them remains unknown to me -- but also only in a roundabout way， relatively， in another commodity， which represents an equal quantity of social labourtime.
The clock is worth as much as the piece of cloth.
