commodity to be used, not for his personal consumption, but to be exchanged once more for money. He would have no object in doing this if his aim were merely that of the simple exchanger (C. M. C.), namely, to obtain an article of consumption different in kind from that which he has exchanged, since in money there is no inherent difference of quality, and therefore whatever difference there may be must be one of quantity. Accordingly the object of the exchanger in this second stage is amount, not kind. In going through his process of exchange (the formula for which may be stated thus—
C-M-C-M-C),
the second quantum of money must be 252 more than the first, or else he will have failed in his object; will have made a bad bargain, as the phrase goes. On the other hand, though this form of exchange differs essentially it nevertheless connects itself with the earlier form, in which money occurs only as the middle term between commodity and commodity, thus distinguishing it from simple barter, because even in the later form the result of the merchant’s transaction is a commodity with which he intends to begin a fresh transaction—
C-M-C-M-C.
This is the form of exchange which was the practice of the developed classical world in its commercial operations. The break up of the Roman Empire, and the confusion that followed, dislocated this commerce, and largely brought exchange back again to its earlier and simple form of the exchange of a commodity for money with which to buy another commodity to be consumed, which was for the most part the character of the exchange of the Middle Ages.
The second form of exchange leads without a break into the third or modern 253 form of Capitalistic Exchange, in which the exchanger, beginning with money, buys a commodity in order to exchange it for