# Simple commodity production

Part of a series on :
Marxism :
Theoretical works
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Condition of the Working Class in England
The German Ideology
The Communist Manifesto
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Grundrisse
Capital
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Dialectics of Nature
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
What Is to Be Done?
The Accumulation of Capital
Philosophical Notebooks
Terrorism and Communism
The State and Revolution
Essays on Marx's Theory of Value
History and Class Consciousness
Prison Notebooks
The Black Jacobins
On Practice
Dialectic of Enlightenment
A Critique of Soviet Economics
The Long Revolution
Guerrilla Warfare
The Wretched of the Earth
Reading Capital
The Society of the Spectacle
Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses
Ways of Seeing
How Europe Underdeveloped Africa
Social Justice and the City
Women, Race and Class
Marxism and the Oppression of Women
Imagined Communities
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy
The Sublime Object of Ideology
Time, Labor and Social Domination
The Age of Extremes
The Origin of Capitalism
Empire
Late Victorian Holocausts
Change the World Without Taking Power
Caliban and the Witch
An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital
Capitalist Realism
Capital in the Anthropocene :
Philosophy
Alienation
Dialectical materialism
Ideology
Philosophy of nature
Philosophy in the Soviet Union
Reification
Marxist ethics :
Critique of political economy
Capital (accumulation)
Crisis theory
Commodity
Concrete and abstract labor
Factors of production
Falling profit-rate tendency
Means of production
Mode of production
Capitalist
Socialist
Productive forces
Scientific socialism
State monopoly capitalism
Surplus product
Socially necessary labour time
Value-form
Wage labour :
Sociology
Base and superstructure
Bourgeoisie
Class
Class consciousness
Classless society
Commodity fetishism
Communist society
Critical theory
Cultural hegemony
Democracy
Dictatorship of the proletariat
Soviet
Radical
Democratic centralism
Exploitation
False consciousness
Human nature
Immiseration
Imperialism
Lumpenproletariat
Metabolic rift
Proletariat
Private property
Relations of production
State theory
Working class :
History
Class struggle
Historical determinism
Primitive accumulation
Proletarian revolution
World revolution
Theory of historical trajectory :
Aspects
Aesthetics
Archaeology
Criminology
Cultural Marxism
Cultural Studies
Ethics
Film theory
Geography
Historiography
Literary criticism
Marxism and religion
Sociology
Philosophy :
Common variants
Structural
Autonomist
Marxism–Leninism
Guevarism
Maoism
Titoism
Trotskyism
Neo-Gramscianism
Regulation school
Third-worldist
Hegelian
Budapest School
Frankfurt School
Humanist
Neue Marx-Lektüre
Open
Praxis School
Both
Black
Classical
Communization
Feminist
Leninism
Neo
Post
Western :
Other variants
Analytical
Austromarxism
Centrist
Eurocommunism
Instrumental
Marxism–Leninism–Maoism
Nkrumaism
Political
Revisionist
Situationist
Socialism with Chinese characteristics
Wertkritik :
People
Marx
Engels
Morris
Lafargue
Rubin
Kautsky
Plekhanov
Du Bois
Connolly
Lenin
Luxemburg
Liebknecht
Kollontai
Stalin
Trotsky
Grossman
Zinoviev
Bloch
Lukács
Korsch
Bukharin
Ho
Serge
Gramsci
Pashukanis
Bordiga
Benjamin
Mao
Basu
Mariátegui
Horkheimer
Dutt
Brecht
Marcuse
Kalecki
Fromm
Cox
Lefebvre
James
Adorno
Padmore
Sartre
Deutscher
Beauvoir
Sombart
Nkrumah
Sweezy
Emmanuel
Hill
Bettelheim
Draper
Jones
Hobsbawm
Althusser
Hinton
Williams
Freire
Mandel
Sivanandan
Miliband
Cabral
Thompson
Bauman
Fanon
Berger
Castro
Guevara
Liebman
Heller
Guattari
Mészáros
O'Connor
Wallerstein
Mies
Tronti
Debord
Amin
Hall
Nairn
Parenti
Negri
Jameson
Dussel
Harvey
Laclau
Bahro
Poulantzas
Vattimo
Badiou
Harnecker
Altvater
Anderson
Löwy
Vogel
Sison
Easthope
Rancière
Berman
Przeworski
Cohen
Therborn
Losurdo
Postone
Rodney
Bannerji
Spivak
Newton
Wood
Federici
Wolff
Balibar
Eagleton
Kurz
Rowbotham
Mouffe
Geras
Brenner
Davis
Massey
Cleaver
Bishop
Haraway
Panitch
Clarke
Jessop
Davis
Wright
Fraser
Burawoy
Holloway
Rose
Screpanti
Tamás
Hampton
Cano
Žižek
Berardi
Sankara
Hennessy
McDonnell
Douzinas
Roediger
Foster
West
Ghandy
Marcos
Heinrich
Prashad
Kelley
Dean
Lordon
Linera
Fisher
Li
Coulthard
Malm
Seymour
Toscano
Bhattacharya
Moufawad-Paul
Srnicek
Horvat
Hamza
Saito :
Journals
Antipode
Capital & Class
Capitalism Nature Socialism
Constellations
Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory
Historical Materialism
Mediations
Monthly Review
New Left Review
Race & Class
Rethinking Marxism
Science & Society
Socialist Register :
Related topics
21st-century communist theorists
Anarchism
Creative destruction
Conflict theory
Criticism of Marxism
Communism
Communalism
Economic determinism
History of communism
Left-wing politics
Marxian economics
New Left
Old Left
Municipalism
Political ecology
Socialism
Authoritarian
Democratic
Market
Reformist
Revolutionary
Social
Utopian
Left-wing populism
Universal class
Vulgar Marxism
Economism
Worker cooperative
Workers' council :
Outline
Communism portal
Philosophy portal
Socialism portal :
vte :
Simple commodity production (German: einfache Warenproduktion, also translated as petty commodity production), is a term coined by Friedrich Engels in 1894 when he had compiled and edited the third volume of Marx's Capital. It refers to productive activities under the conditions of what Karl Marx had called the "simple exchange" or "simple circulation" of commodities, where independent producers trade their own products to obtain other products in exchange (the trading circuit C-M-C'). The use of the adjective simple is not intended to refer to the nature of the producers or of their production, but rather to the relatively simple and straightforward exchange processes involved, from an economic perspective.
As discussed below, both Karl Marx and Engels claimed explicitly that the law of value applied also to simple exchange, and that this law is modified (or, as Marx sometimes says, "inverted") by the capitalist mode of production when all the inputs and outputs of production (including means of production and labour power) become tradeable commodities.
According to Marx and Engels, simple commodity production and trade existed for millennia before the advent of capitalism. From the beginnings of the bourgeois epoch in 15th century Europe, the reach and scope of commodity production began to grow incrementally, although sometimes this process was interrupted by wars, epidemic diseases and natural disasters. Only with the growth of free wage labour is commodity production generalized (verallgemeinert) to most of the economy, and fully integrated into national and international markets. Obviously, this market growth also required institutions, conventions and rules, so that the competing burghers could resolve their trade disputes fairly and efficiently, without destroying the markets and destroying people's livelihoods; through learning from experience as well as from the invention and widespread adoption of new ideas, a "market culture" gradually evolved to make that possible. Civil society could not be "civil", if the burghers defied all religion and authority, and resolved their trading disputes by robbing, physically attacking and killing each other.
Originally production for market sale existed alongside subsistence production (see also natural economy). That continued for millennia until urbanization, merchant trade and industrialization began to take off. Through the last six centuries, the share of commodity production in total output grew more and more, together with productivity growth and population growth. It grew steeply in the 19th and 20th centuries, until production for the market represented the largest part of total output value in the majority of countries.
To explain this lengthy historical process, Marx and Engels took a nuanced approach. They did not argue crudely that economic categories can only be either "transhistorical categories" or "categories specific to one historical period". Instead, they argued that economic categories can and do evolve from one historical epoch to the next, along with the evolution of the social relations which they express. Continuities co-existed with discontinuities. The challenge was to understand dialectically how the new economic relations could evolve out of the old ones - by retaining some of their content, losing some content, and also gaining some completely new content.

## Different interpretations

This historical viewpoint is however not accepted by all Marxists. Some believe that capitalist markets function in a "totally different way" from pre-capitalist markets, or they believe that the law of value applies only to industrial capitalism, and not to market systems which preceded industrial capitalism. According to Helmut Reichelt, for example, the law of value only applies when the whole of society is subsumed under the bourgeois form of the division of labour. Engels aimed to give a consistent explanation of the evolution and development of the market economy, from simple beginnings to the complexities of modern capitalist markets, but his critics argue he disregards the qualitative transformation of the relations of production involved.
Marx and Engels's interpretation of the historical role of simple exchange based on simple commodity production has been the subject of considerable controversy among Marxist scholars. It has been claimed by academics that Marx never had a concept of "simple commodity production" because he did not use those words. If that is true, then it seems that Engels's concept is really alien to Marx's thought. For example, the Italian Marx-scholar Roberto Fineschi alleges that Friedrich Engels (who was a successful businessman, and edited Vol. 2 and 3 of Marx's Capital) failed to understand the difference between circulation and production, so that Engels falsely equated Marx's concept of "simple exchange of commodities" with "simple commodity production". According to Rolf Hecker's interpretation, by contrast, Engels does not equate Marx's concept of simple exchange of commodities with simple commodity production, but instead replaces simple exchange of commodities with simple commodity production. Christopher J. Arthur claims that an economy or society fully based on simple commodity production has never existed in history, contrary to what Engels (allegedly) suggested.
This new anti-Engels interpretation is contrary to the traditional Marxist view, the latter which defines a commodity as a product of labour and not (as academic value-form theorists do) as a product of exchange. According to the traditional Marxist view, the simple exchange of commodities presupposes at least that the commodities are produced. Otherwise there would not exist any commodities that could be exchanged. Historically speaking, the development of the simple exchange of reproducible commodities could never occur without simple commodity production. Engels does not argue that the law of value disappears when commodity trade is regulated by production prices, but rather that the law of value is transformed and modified. It is transformed, because:
* While originally (as already recognized by Adam Smith) the exchange-value of what a producer creates is regulated by his own physically necessary labour-time (with upper and lower bounds), in the end what regulates the exchange-value of his production is a socially average labour-cost, i.e. a value expressed as the normal price-level which is imposed on him as an objective external force (like "a law of nature"), regardless of whether his own labour-time is more or less than the normal social average.
* The simple exchange of labour-equivalents is gradually replaced by the more complex exchange of unequal labour-values, where fluctuating market-prices for products systematically diverge from product-values and their supply-cost contains a surplus value formed in production.
* While originally the commodities sold were a surplus to the requirements of the seller, alongside subsistence production, in the end the market sale of the commodities produced is the precondition and the only practical purpose of producing them.
Instead of postulating a "society of simple commodity producers", Engels was referring to the history of the gradual expansion of commodity-trade alongside subsistence production across thousands of years, to more and more sectors of economic life - until commodity production is generalized and the majority of commodities are produced "by means of commodities" in capitalist enterprises employing wage labour. Marx had briefly indicated this historical process himself in his 1864 manuscript Results of the immediate process of production.
The difficulty that the anti-Engels critics have, is that they cannot credibly explain what regulates commodity-trade in the pre-capitalist economy, in the supposed absence of the law of value, and how the law of value can then "suddenly" appear out of nowhere, once most of production becomes commodity production, via expanding markets. The only narrative the anti-Engels critics have, is that capitalism exists when wage-labour exists, i.e. when peasants and serfs are thrown off the land, and are forced to work for a wage from an employer, to make a living. Somehow, a mass of employers "suddenly" appears out of nowhere to employ a mass of unemployed workers in mechanized factories, in exchange for wages. But how this could have resulted from the situation that preceded it remains unclear. It is only when labour history is studied, that this mystery is cleared up and resolved. Long before the emergence of the industrial capitalist on the stage of history, wage-labourers were already being hired - when officials of the early state paid soldiers for their services, temple officials employed contract labourers, and landowners hired farm workers. The first workers' strike in written history, recorded on a papyrus, was staged more than three thousand years ago by building workers at the royal necropolis at Deir el-Medina in Egypt, during the reign of Ramses III (see also Deir el-Medina strikes).

## Origins

Simple exchange of reproducible and portable commodities (such as food, ornaments, beads, pottery, pelts, fabrics, clothing, tools, utensils, and weapons) is as old as the history of trade, insofar as it progressed from incidental barter of use-values according to cultural custom, to exchange using a standard of value. Simple exchange occurred for thousands of years before most production became organized in the capitalist way. It begins when producers in a simple division of labour (e.g. farmers, hunters/gatherers and artisans) trade surpluses to their own requirements, with the aim of obtaining other products with an equal value, for their own use. In Marx's own words,
   "Definite historical conditions are involved in the existence of the product as a commodity. (…) The appearance of products as commodities requires a level of development of the division of labour within society such that the separation of use-value from exchange-value, a separation which first begins with barter, has already been completed. But such a degree of development is common to many economic formations of society [ökonomischer Gesellschaftsformationen], with the most diverse historical characteristics. If we go on to consider money, its existence implies that a definite stage in the development of commodity exchange has been reached."
Through the experience of regular trade and competition, normal exchange values become established for products, which reflect an economy of labour-time and a cost-structure of production. The simple commodity producers could aim just to trade their products or services to obtain other products with an equivalent value, or they could, in favourable circumstances, aim to realise a profit. They could sell their products or services to the final consumer, or to an intermediary such as a merchant. Simple commodity production and simple exchange are compatible with many different relations of production and exchange, ranging from self-employment in which the producer owns his own means of production and family (household) labour, to forms of slavery, peonage, indentured labour, and serfdom. In the cooperative farming system of the Soviet Union, members of the kolkhozy were permitted to cultivate small plots of private farmland, to raise some livestock, and to sell their produce themselves.
The technologies used by a simple commodity producer might be characteristic for a specific mode of production, but simple commodity production as such is not specific to any particular mode of production, and might be found alongside (or articulated with) many different modes of production, with various degrees of sophistication. It does not necessarily imply that all the inputs or outputs of productive activity in the local economy are commodities traded in markets. For example, simple commodity producers could produce some products for their own subsistence and for their own use on their own land, while trading another part of their products. They might buy or trade some tools and equipment, but also make some tools and equipment themselves. Simple commodity production continues to occur in capitalist societies, especially in developing countries.

## Early colonial settlements

There has never existed a society which literally consisted only of simple commodity producers, and Friedrich Engels did not claim that either. No serious Marxian scholar has ever claimed that such a society really existed. However, in the dawn of the bourgeois epoch of history, many of the initial colonial settlements in foreign lands involved a large majority of self-employed producers, who farmed their own land or worked as artisans (for example, settler colonies in North America, Argentina, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand). Marx was well aware of this, and he remarked wrily that in the colonies "the capitalist regime constantly comes up against the obstacle presented by the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the capitalist".). An American historian comments that:
   "By the mid-1600s... [a]bout three-quarters of the colonists [in America] were farmers. (…) Most farmers owned their land. To encourage immigration, colonists often received free or almost free land. Land was readily available at low prices (…) Most immigrants and native-born colonists enjoyed ample opportunity to acquire property. Upon completing terms of indenture, on average four years in duration, servants often received plots of land on which to begin their lives as freemen."
The proportion of early American colonists who worked as artisans is estimated to have been between 10% and 18%. So the vast majority of the workforce at that time (up to about 93%) consisted not of waged employees, but of independent farmers and artisans engaging in simple commodity production. Imported African slaves "worked mainly on the tobacco, rice and indigo plantations of the southern coast, from the Chesapeake Bay colonies of Maryland and Virginia south to Georgia." Before 1660, few Virginia planters owned slaves. By 1675 the use of slaves was common, and by 1700 slaves largely replaced indentured servants. "With plentiful land and slave labor available to grow a lucrative crop, southern planters prospered, and family-based tobacco plantations became the economic and social norm".
From the time of the earliest English colonial settlements of the 1600s until America began to issue its own currency in 1783, three different types of money were used in colonial commodity trade: (1) coins (Spanish dollars, shillings), (2) paper notes (fiat money denominated in British pounds, shillings and pence; land notes; bank notes; tobacco notes) and (3) commodity money (portable goods and services offered in exchange, including tobacco, corn, wampum, buttons, etc.).

## Textual sources of the concept

In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith introduces the concept of simple commodity production as follows:
   "In that early and rude state of society which precedes both the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another. (…) In this state of things, the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer; and the quantity of labour commonly employed in acquiring or producing any commodity, is the only circumstance which can regulate the quantity of labour which it ought commonly to purchase, command, or exchange for."
Smith then contrasts simple commodity production with capitalist production involving wage labour:
   "As soon as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular persons, some of them will naturally employ it in setting to work industrious people, whom they will supply with materials and subsistence, in order to make a profit by the sale of their work, or by what their labour adds to the value of the materials. (…) [The employer] could have no interest to employ [workers], unless he expected from the sale of their work something more than what was sufficient to replace his stock to him; and he could have no interest to employ a great stock rather than a small one, unless his profits were to bear some proportion to the extent of his stock."
In a conspectus and critique of Adam Smith's theory of value, Marx similarly gives a brief description of simple commodity production (although admittedly he did not use that terminology):
   "Let us assume that all workers are producers of commodities, and not only produce their commodities but also sell them. The value of these commodities is determined by the necessary labour-time contained in them. If therefore the commodities are sold at their value, the labourer buys with one commodity, which is the product of twelve hours’ labour-time, another twelve hours’ labour-time in the form of another commodity, that is to say, twelve hours’ labour-time which is embodied in another use-value. The value of his labour is therefore equal to the value of his commodity; that is, it is equal to the product of twelve hours’ labour-time. The selling and buying again, in a word, the whole process of exchange, the metamorphosis of the commodity, alters nothing in this. It alters only the form of the use-value in which this twelve hours’ labour-time appears. The value of labour is therefore equal to the value of the product of labour."
In his 1894 preface to Capital, Volume 3, Friedrich Engels argued that:
   "...at the beginning of Volume 1... Marx takes simple commodity production as his historical presupposition, only later, proceeding from this basis, to come on to capital... he proceeds... from the simple commodity and not from a conceptually and historically secondary form, the commodity as already modified by capitalism".
This interpretation by Engels closely followed what Marx himself stated in his 1864 manuscript titled Results of the immediate process of production:
   "The commodity that emerges from capitalist production is different from the commodity we began with as the element, the precondition of capitalist production. We began with the individual commodity viewed as an autonomous article in which a specific amount of labour-time is objectified and which therefore has an exchange-value of a definite amount. (...) The individual commodity viewed as the product, the actual elementary component of capital that has been generated and reproduced, differs then from the individual commodity with which we began, and which we regarded as an autonomous article, as the presupposition [Voraussetzung] of capital formation."
However, the interpretation by Engels arguably did not completely match what Marx said about his own approach. In his critical notes on Adolph Wagner's Textbook on political economy (1879), Marx said about his analysis of the commodity form in Capital, Volume 1 that:
   "What I proceed from is the simplest social form in which the product of labour presents itself in contemporary society, and this is the "commodity." This I analyse, initially in the form in which it appears."
Here Marx states clearly, that in the first chapter of Capital Vol. 1 he was talking about the commodity as the simplest traded object "in contemporary society", and not about a simple commodity in pre-capitalist society. Point is, when Marx first analyzes a commodity as such (as a very simple category of trade), he disregards how exactly the commodity is produced and how specifically it is traded. He just examines the commodity (in his own words) "as an autonomous article", as a separate thing just as it observably appears in an everyday trading relation - without introducing all sorts of assumptions about how and where it originated, or what it will be used for. Put another way, Marx is talking about simple commodity circulation, not simple commodity production, although the former could assume the latter (the simple exchange of a commodity could be preceded by different forms of producing it).
In his 1895 afterword Supplement and addendum to Volume 3 of Capital, Friedrich Engels elaborates the concept of simple commodity production as follows:
   ”... Marx's law of value applies universally, as much as any economic laws do apply, for the entire period of simple commodity production, i.e. up to the time at which this undergoes a modification by the onset of the capitalist form of production. Up till then, prices gravitate to the values determined by Marx's law and oscillate around these values, so that the more completely simple commodity production develops, the more do average prices coincide with values for longer periods when not interrupted by external violent disturbances, and with the insignificant variations we mentioned earlier. Thus the Marxian law of value has a universal economic validity for an era lasting from the beginning of the exchange that transforms products into commodities down to the fifteenth century of our epoch. But commodity exchange dates from a time before any written history, going back to at least 3500 B.C. in Egypt, and 4000 B.C. or maybe even 6000 B.C. in Babylon; thus the law of value prevailed for a period of some five to seven millennia.”
Again, Engels based himself on (and references) what Marx himself had said – in chapter 10 of Capital, Volume 3 (on the equalization of rates of profit by competition):
   ”The exchange of commodities at their values, or at approximately these values… [Marx writes] corresponds to a much lower stage of development than the exchange at prices of production, for which a definite degree of capitalist development is needed. Whatever may be the ways in which the prices of different commodities are first established or fixed in relation to one another, the law of value governs their movement. When the labour-time required for their production falls, prices fall; and where it rises, prices rise, as long as other circumstances remain equal. Apart from the way in which the law of value governs prices and their movement, it is also quite apposite to view the values of commodities not only as theoretically prior to the prices of production, but also as historically prior to them. This applies to those conditions in which the means of production belong to the worker, and this condition is to be found, in both the ancient and the modern world among peasant proprietors and handicraftsmen who work for themselves. This agrees, moreover, with the opinion we expressed previously, viz. that the development of products into commodities arises from exchange between different communities, and not between the members of one and the same community. This is true not only for the original condition, but also for later social conditions based on slavery and serfdom, and for the guild organization of handicraft production, as long as the means of production involved in each branch of production can be transferred from one sphere to another only with difficulty, and the different spheres of production therefore relate to one another, within certain limits, like foreign countries or communistic communities.”

## From simple commodity production to capitalist production

The large-scale global transformation of simple commodity production into capitalist production based on the wage labour of employees occurred only in the last two centuries of human history. It is preceded by the strong growth of merchant trade, supported by credit from financiers who earn rents, profit and interest from the process.The merchants not only act as intermediary between producers and consumers, but also integrate more and more of production into a market economy. That is, more and more is produced for the purpose of market trade, rather than for own use. The initial result is known as "merchant capitalism", which flourished in Western European cities especially in the 17th and 18th centuries but already existed on a smaller scale in the 15th century and even earlier.
However, the transformation of more and more simple commodity production into capitalist production which accompanies industrialisation requires profound changes in property relations, because it must be possible to trade freely in means of production and labour power (the factors of production). Only when that trade becomes possible, can the whole of production be reorganised to conform to commercial principles.
Marx describes capitalist society as "a society where the commodity-form is the universal form of the product of labour, hence the dominant social relation is the relation between people as possessors of commodities". He argues that "The capitalist epoch is... characterized by the fact that labour-power, in the eyes of the worker himself, takes on the form of a commodity which is his property; his labour consequently takes on the form of wage-labour... it is only from this moment that the commodity-form of the products of labour becomes universal." Thus, "...from the moment there is a free sale, by the worker himself, of labour power as a commodity... from then onwards... commodity production is generalized and becomes the typical form of production."
In an 1864 manuscript, Marx emphasized specifically that:
   "Capital cannot come into being except on the foundation of the circulation of commodities (including money), i.e. where trade has already grown to a certain given degree. For their part, however, the production and circulation of commodities do not at all imply the existence of the capitalist mode of production. On the contrary… they may be found even in 'pre-bourgeois modes of production'. They constitute the historical premiss of the capitalist mode of production. On the other hand, however, once the commodity has become the general form of the product, then everything that is produced must assume that form; sale and purchase embrace not just excess produce, but its very substance, and the various conditions of production themselves appear as commodities which leave circulation and enter production only on the foundations of capitalist production. Hence if the commodity appears on the one hand as the premiss of the formation of capital, it is also essentially the result, the product of capitalist production once it has become the universal elementary form of the product. At earlier stages of production a part of what was produced took the form of commodities. Capital, however, necessarily produces its product as a commodity. This is why as capitalist production, i.e. capital, develops, the general laws governing the commodity evolve in proportion; for example, the laws affecting value develop in the distinct form of the circulation of money."
To reach the stage of a universal market, many legal, political, religious and technical restrictions imposed on commercial trade must be overcome. The unification of a "home market" among people in a country who can speak the same language typically stimulated nationalist ideologies. But depending on the existing social systems, the transformation might occur in many different ways. Typically, though, it has involved wars, violence and revolutions, since people were unwilling to just give away assets, rights and income that they previously had. Communally owned property, hereditary land ownership, the property of religious orders and state property all had to be privatised and amalgamated, in order to become tradeable assets in the process of capital accumulation. The ideology of the rising bourgeoisie typically emphasized the benefits of privately owned property for the purpose of wealth creation and industriousness.
Marx refers to this process as the primitive accumulation of capital, a process which continues particularly in developing countries to this day. Marx shows that primitive accumulation involves to a large extent the expropriation of independent producers, who lose their means of production, and therefore are forced to work for an employer to earn a living. Typically, previously independent producers on the land (but also serfs and indentured labourers etc.) are proletarianised and migrate to the urban centres, in search of work from an employer.
Simple commodity production nevertheless continues to occur on a large scale in the world economy, particularly in peasant production. It also persists within industrialised capitalist economies in the form of self-employment by free producers. Capitalist firms sometimes contract out specialised services to self-employed producers, who can produce them at a lower cost, or provide a superior product. Many digital products are produced by self-employed specialists who own their own computer (but who also depend on internet providers, and on access to rented software and websites).

## Modelling simple commodity production

In some schools of Marxian economics, simple commodity production refers to a model of a hypothetical economy (or an "imaginary society") used by economists to interpret some of Karl Marx's insights about the economic laws governing the development of commodity trade. The model is only a thought experiment to identify some quantitative implications of commercial production and trade. In this society, a market economy is supposed in which all producers are independent individuals who own and operate their own means of production, and who trade their own products. According to Michio Morishima,
   "In such a society, there are no capitalists and hence no exploitation of workers by them; prices or exchange ratios between commodities must in the state of equilibrium be equal to the relative [labour-]values, provided the primary factors of production other than labour are all free. It is true that the actual exchange ratios in the market may differ from the relative [labour-]values (...) [but] the market price will ultimately be settled at the equilibrium exchange ratio, which is equal to the relative [labour-]value."

## Theoretical discussion

The theoretical debates about simple commodity production have attracted contributions from numerous economists, philosophers and historians across the last century. This seemingly obscure topic has important implications for quite a few different areas of research: (i) the interpretation of Marx’s method of analysis and his theory of value; (ii) the interpretation of the historical transition from pre-capitalist society to capitalism (and more generally, the social history of trade and marketization and the evolution of the forms of economic value); (iii) the so-called transformation problem; (iv) understanding settler colonialism and the post-colonial economy; (v) development economics; and (vi) the economics of the transition from capitalism to socialism and communism (the gradual replacement of market allocation by direct allocation).
Contributors to the theoretical discussion have included Michael von Tugan-Baranowsky, Nikolai Bukharin, Karl Kautsky, Rudolf Hilferding, Oskar Lange, Paul Sweezy, Piero Sraffa, Ronald L. Meek, Helmut Reichelt, Joan Robinson, Isaak Illich Rubin, Roman Rosdolsky, Maurice Dobb, Ernest Mandel, Robert Brenner, Gerd Hardach & Jürgen Schilling, Rodney Hilton, Michio Morishima & George Catephores, Jairus Banaji, Richard Britnell, Dimitris Milonakis, John Roemer, Rolf Hecker, John Weeks, Hans-Georg Backhaus, Ben Fine, Wladimir Schkredow, Nadja Rakowitz, Christopher J. Arthur, Arthur Diquattro, Neil Davidson, Kolja Lindner, Howard Nicholas, Octavio Colombo, Prabhat Patnaik, Anwar M. Shaikh, Ellen Meiksins Wood, Paresh Chattopadhyay, Andrew B. Trigg, Ian P. Wright, Allin F. Cottrell, Paul Cockshott, Gregory John Michaelson & Victor Yakovenko, Michael Heinrich, and Bill Jefferies.
Modern digital technology enables digitally skilled individuals to set up their own business, producing digital products and services, with a relatively low capital outlay. Therefore, "simple commodity production" could turn out to be not just an outdated economic category of the past, but also a common sort of work in the future.