CHAPTER XXI.

The Historical Development of Commercial Capital.
(Extracted from vol. Ill, part 1, ch. 20. German ed.)
When examining the question from a strictly scientific point of view, the formation of the general rate of profit appears as having its starting point in productive capital, and in the competition between the various productive ca- pitals; and as having been, at a later period, «corrected», completed, modified by the intervention of commercial ca- pital. But, viewed from a historical point of view, just the contrary is the case.
From what we have already said, it is evident that no- thing could be more erroneous than to regard commercial capital as a species of productive capital, like mining, agri- culture, cattle-breeding, manufacture, transport, etc. The simple observation that every productive capital performs exactly the same functions as commercial capital when sell- ing its products and buying its raw materials, should alone suffice to render so primitive a conception impossible. Com- mercial capital is, on the contrary, but a differentiated part of productive capital, which has become independent, which constantly assumes the forms and performs the functions which are necessary to transform commodities into money (and vice-versa).
Up to now we have considered commercial capital from the standpoint, and within the limits, of the capitalist system
230 \PTER XXL
of production. Not only trade itself, however, but also commercial capital, is older than the capitalist system - is, as a matter of fact, historically the oldest free form of existence of capital
Because commercial capital is continuously and exclu- sively occupied with the circulation and exchange of commo- dities, no other conditions are necessary for its existence - apart from undeveloped forms which have their origin in direct barter — than are necessary for the simple circu- lation of commodities and money. Whatever be the orga- nisation of the production which supplies commodities for sale — whether it be based on the primitive community or on slavery, or whether it be peasant production, or plebian production, or capitalist production; whether all commo- dities be saleable, or only those produced in excess of the producer's own needs — such commodities must always be sold, be exchanged for others. And the medium of the sale, of the exchange, is commercial capital.
What quantity of products is brought into commerce, and consequently into the hands of the tradespeople, de- pends on the system of production; that quantity attains its maximum in the fully developed capitalist system of pro- duction, in which the product is, in fact, no longer any- thing else but a commodity, and is no longer produced as a direct means of subsistence. On the other hand, what- ever be the system of production, trade gives the impulsion to produce more than the producer requires for his own individual needs, in order to exchange the surplus for treasure or means of enjoyment. There where trade once exists, therefore, it impresses on production a character ten- ding ever more and more towards exchange-value.
I lowever the society, for the exchange of whose commo- dities the tradesman serves as intermediary, is organised, the tradesman's fortune always' exists in money form, and his money invariably functions as capital, /. e. it functions for the purpose of making more money, or surplus-value. The motive which determines the merchant to lay out his money in bringing about the exchange of commodities, his definitive aim in so doing, are — not only in the capitalist, but also in all the earlier forms of society — to make, out of money, more money. The various phases of the process of exchange M — C and C — M' appear merely as trarisi-
THL HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Of COMMERCIAL CAPITAL. 231
tory incidents of the transformation of M into M', i. e. of money into more money. The characteristic movement of commercial capital is M — C — M' (money — commodities - more money), and it differs from the trade between the producers themselves, characterised by C — M — C, which has as final aim the exchange of use-values.
The more undeveloped production is, the less money will the producers have, and the greater will be the fortune in the form of money in the hands of the tradespeople; or else that money fortune will appear as a peculiar form of trading capital.
Thus, in all pre-capitalistic times, trade appears as the function par excellence of capital, as the latter's real and only aim. And all the more so, in the measure in which the process of production in itself furnished means of sub- sistence for the producers. At that time there was no capital other than commercial capital; whereas, as we have seen, capital, in the capitalist epoch, takes possession of production itself, and profoundly modifies its process; so that henceforth commercial capital is but a specific form or function of capital, which coexists alongside of other forms and functions.
We have thus no difficulty in understanding why com- mercial capital is to be found in history long before capital has taken hold of production. On the contrary, commercial capital must exist, and have attained a certain degree of de- velopment, in order that the capitalist system of production may arise — firstly, because it is a condition precedent for the concentration of money; and, secondly, because capitalist production presupposes wholesale distribution (and not dis- tribution to the individual consumer). Capitalist produc- tion, therefore, presupposes also the existence of a trades- man, who does not buy in order to satisfy his individual wants, but in his capacity as intermediary for satisfying the wants of many. On the other hand, all development of commercial capital has the effect of impressing on the pro- cess of production a character .tending ever more and more to exchange-value, /. e. to transform ever more and more products into commodities. But the development of commer- cial capital in itself is insufficient (as we shall see directly) .to bring about and to explain the transition from one mode of production to another.
232 \riER xxs.
Within the system of capitalist production, commercial capital is deprived of its former independent existence, and becomes a specific form of capital investment in general; and the equalisation of profits reduces its rate of profit to the level of the average rate. Henceforth it functions only as the agent of productive capital. The particular social conditions which were created along with the deve- lopment of commercial capital are now no longer decisive; on the contrary, there where commercial capital is still pre- dominant, archaic conditions prevail. This holds good of different places within one and the same country — where, for instance, the purely trading towns offer us far more points for comparison with former times, than do the fac- tory towns.1
The independent development, and the predominance, of commercial capital imply that capital has not yet taken hold of production. Thus the independent development of com- mercial capital stands in inverse ratio to the general eco- nomic development of society.
This phenomenon is especially observable in the history of the carrying trade - £. in Venice, Genoa, Holland etc. — where the export of their own products by the coun- tries concerned is but a subsidiary source of profit; and where profit is mainly derived from serving as intermediary for the exchange of the products of communities whose trade and general economic life is still undeveloped, and from the exploitation of both producing countries.2 Here we have commercial capital in its undiluted state, separated from the processes of production between which it serves
i In modern iMiylisli history, the commercial class pro; and the trading t "-iionar\, and alii
the landed and financial ;ist industrial capil
for instance, the political role • ! with that
Birmingham. Ijiylish commercial capital and tlu
cracy have only recognised il> capital
since of the corn laws, etc.
; from rich-
Ir.xnry, and :; landowners.
an, I paid for them in the shape 'iiantilies
of raw produce from tin 'hat time, ti,
large part ot Kiirope consisted in ihe raw pi
country for the maimfacti industrially more advanced countries
demand,
in, with a view similar
marnf icttires into their own countries. (Adam Smith, \\ealth of Nations",