Abstract
This paper studies about the theory of value forms, which is in Marx 'Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Okonomie' (4^<th>ed., 1890) vol.1, chap.1. Value appears only in a relation of commodities, so commodities express the value by the relative value form. However, a commodity has to turn into the equivalent form, which makes a direct exchange possible. A commodity shifts from left to right in the value formula. Expressing value of a commodity includes the purpose of satisfying one's needs in the reverse relation, the equivalent form. Especially a commodity is able to prove the full ability by the general equivalent form. The total and developed value form becomes the general value form at the reverse relation. Any commodity can get the general equivalent form, because commodities have the value. However, the only one commodity can get the form in actuality. Therefore some of past scholars have denied the reverse relation of expressing value. If you deny the reverse relation, too, you will pay no attention to a commodity requiring a possibility of direct exchange. Of course, all the commodities are not monies, but, as Marx said, "a commodity is money" in essence. I think it is the commodity-money theory. The theory of value forms chases the development of a commodity, for example, linens, expressing value, because any commodities contain the general equivalent form by nature. In reality, the only one commodity becomes the general equivalent form, so the theory of exchange process (chap.2) explains it. On the other hand, the monetary form is that gold has won the position from among all equivalents. Gold has carried through the nature of commodities to the end. But there is no difference in the ability of value between gold and all the other commodities. Why has gold got the position of the general equivalent form? The theory of value forms can't explain it. It doesn't show the genesis of money.
