Miscellanea

• • 1) Transformation of Money into Capital
  • 2) Absolute Surplus Value
  • 3) Relative Surplus Value
  • 3) Relative Surplus Value (continued)
  • 3) Relative Surplus Value (end)
  • 4) Reconversion of Surplus Value into Capital
  • Capital and Profit
  • Miscellanea
  • Mercantile Capital

Add another subpage

Read the help page for usage.

 

[XVII-1022] LABOUR PROCESS AND VALORISATION PROCESS:

USE VALUE AND EXCHANGE VALUE

It was shown originally that the distinction between the labour process and the valorisation process was of decisive importance, because there rested upon it the distinction between constant and variable capital, and the whole of the theory of capital (surplus value, profit, etc.).

But there are, as will appear, yet more very important relations relevant to this distinction.

We see, firstly, with fixed capital, that it enters into the labour process completely, but into the valorisation process only partially—to the extent that it is used up, as WEAR AND TEAR. This is one of the main factors working towards the cheapening of commodities through the employment of machinery; thus TO A CERTAIN DEGREE towards the increase of relative surplus value. At the same time, however, it is a cause of the decline in the rate of profit.

But, apart from fixed capital, all those productive forces which cost nothing, i.e. those which derive from the division of labour, cooperation, machinery (in so far as this costs nothing, as is for example the case with the motive forces of water, wind, etc., and also with the ADVANTAGES which proceed from the SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT of the workshop) as well as forces of nature whose application does not give rise to any costs—or at least to the degree to which their application does not give rise to any costs—enter into the labour process without entering into the valorisation process.

It is apparent here, secondly, and once again, how use value, which originally appears to us only as the material substratum of the economic relations, itself intervenes to determine the economic category.

We saw this first with money, where the nature of the substratum which serves as its vehicle, the use value of the commodity which functions as money, is itself determined by the economic function.

Secondly: the whole relation of wages to capital rests on the fact that labour capacity as exchange value is determined by the labour time required to produce it; but because its use value itself consists in labour, its exchange value is paid for, and it nevertheless returns in the exchange with capital more exchange value than it receives.

[XVII-1023] 3) Fixed capital—hence this particular economic form—is to a large extent dependent on use value. The duration of the depreciation of the machine, i.e. TO WHAT DEGREE it enters into the price of the commodity during a given period of turnover, and how long the component of capital represented by it circulates, depends on the use value, i.e. on the greater or lesser durability of the machine, etc. The turnover time of the total capital therefore depends on this; and CHANGES in the ratio between the organic components of the capital are also considerably affected by this.

4) The whole distinction between the labour process and the valorisation process—hence also the increase in the productivity of labour while labour time remains the same—the whole of the development of the productive forces—concerns use value, not exchange value. But it changes and modifies the economic relations and exchange value relations themselves.

DIMINUTION IN THE RATE OF PROFIT

No capitalist voluntarily employs a new mode of production, even though it may be much more productive, and however high the ratio in which it increases the rate of surplus value, if it reduces the rate of profit. But every new mode of production of this kind cheapens the commodity. He therefore starts by selling it above its costs of production, and above its value. He is able to do this because the average labour time socially required for the production of this commodity is greater than the labour time required under the new mode of production (the total amount of labour time contained in the constant and variable capital). His mode of production stands above the socially average level. Competition generalises this and subjects it to the general law. Then the fall in the rate of profit takes place, a law which is therefore completely independent of the will of the capitalist.

CONSTANT CAPITAL. ABSOLUTE QUANTITY OF CAPITAL

In order to employ with advantage the machine which produces the motive force (hence e.g. to use the steam engine instead of the motive force provided by hands and feet), which sets in motion the actual working machines, i.e. in such a way that the [XVII-1024] total capital which is required in the new mode of production does not make the commodity more expensive instead of cheapening it, it is necessary for this motivating machine to be employed for a large number of working machines and therefore relatively [fewer] workers. And relative costs of production fall in proportion as the number of working machines increases. Hence the constant growth in absolute capital and the growth in the minimum amount of capital required in order to employ in the production of the commodity no more labour time than is socially necessary. Hence in turn a growth [in the constant capital] (since the raw material and the matières instrumentales form part of this), a fall in the variable capital in comparison with the quantity of capital advanced, and, above all, the necessity for an absolutely large] quantity of capital.

DECLINE IN THE RATE OF PROFIT

The result of the investigation is this: Firstly, the rate of surplus value does not rise in proportion to the growth in productive power or the decline in the (relative) number of workers employed. The capital does not grow in the same proportion as the productive power. Or, the rate of surplus value does not rise in the same proportion as the variable capital falls in comparison with the total amount of capital. Hence a diminution in the relative magnitude of the surplus value. Hence a decline in the rate of profit. A constant tendency towards a decline in the same.

It should be remarked further on this point that the law whereby the value of the commodities is determined by the labour time socially necessary for their production drives the individual capitalist, so that he can sell his commodity above its social value, to curtail the labour time necessary for him exceptionally by introducing the division of labour, by employing machinery, etc.—also in spheres of production whose products enter neither directly nor indirectly into the worker’s consumption or into the conditions of production of his articles of consumption—therefore also in branches of production where no development of productive power can cheapen the reproduction of labour capacity, i.e. shorten the necessary labour time and lengthen the surplus labour time. Once proof has actually been provided that these commodities can be produced more cheaply, the capitalists who work under the old conditions of production must sell them below the value, since the labour time they need for the production of those commodities now stands above the labour time socially necessary for their production. In a word—and this appears as an effect of competition—they too must adopt the new mode of production [XVII-1025], in which the ratio of the variable capital to the total amount of capital advanced has fallen. Here, therefore, there takes place a reduction in the value of the commodities, and a reduction in the number of workers exploited, without an increase of any kind in relative surplus value. This situation in the unproductive spheres of production—those not producing relative surplus value—is of substantial influence, if one considers the capital of the whole society, i.e. of the capitalist class, from the angle that the total amount of surplus value falls in proportion to the capital advanced—hence that the rate of profit falls.

It is possible that such commodities may by growing cheaper become accessible to the workers’ consumption, may indeed become necessary elements in this. Their effect is never direct, and is never more than partial. They DIVERSIFY its magnitude without raising its value. Above all, they DIVERSIFY the magnitude of the capitalists’ [consumption], a point which can be made for any development in productivity, but which is irrelevant in our context. They even exert an economic influence, in so far as every expansion of the sphere of exchange, every magnification of the number of stages in which the exchange value of a commodity unfolds promotes at the same time its character as commodity, hence also promotes the mode of production directed exclusively at the production of commodities, not of use values as such.

On the other hand, the fall in variable capital in comparison with total capital—and this fall accompanies every development of productive power—does not occur to the same degree as productive power develops, because an ever more considerable portion of the capital enters into the value of the commodities, into the valorisation process, only in the form of annuities, and because during certain periods a constant increase takes place in the size of the capital in the production of a particular commodity without accompanying changes in the ratio of the organic components, i.e. it remains on the basis of the old mode of production. The rate of profit therefore does not diminish in the same proportion as capital grows (still less in a greater proportion), although the growth of capital—to the extent that it depends on the development of the productive forces—is continuously accompanied by a tendential fall in the rate of profit.

We therefore say, on the one hand: capital does not grow as quickly as productive power. We say, on the other hand: the rate of profit does not fall as quickly as capital grows. We say, on the one hand: variable capital does not decline as quickly in proportion to total capital, or total capital does not grow as quickly in proportion to variable capital, as productivity grows. We say, on the other hand: the surplus value created by variable capital does not grow as quickly as the variable capital falls, and does not fall as quickly as the constant capital rises. (Of the total capital.)

[XVII-1026] The absolute magnitude of surplus value declines, in comparison with the capital advanced, although the rate of surplus value rises, with the fall in variable capital, or in the relative portion of the total capital which is laid out in wages. But it declines more slowly than variable capital falls. The rate of profit therefore does not fall as quickly as the total capital grows. On the other hand, the total capital does not grow as quickly as productive power and the replacement of variable capital by constant capital which accompanies this. This would therefore imply that variable capital falls more quickly than the total capital grows. But this is incorrect, in so far as the total capital enters into the valorisation process. However, the more rapid growth in the productive power of capital means only that the growth in the rate of surplus value does not correspond to the growth in productive power.

In so far as the employment of a greater amount of constant capital really creates [greater] surplus value, the aliquot part of the total amount of capital which corresponds to a single worker must be smaller than the total amount of capital which corresponded to the number of workers he replaces. But this comparative reduction in the aliquot parts of the capital relative to the individual workers employed by it (absolutely greater in relation to this individual, smaller in relation to the number he replaces) generally occurs—and in the further course of development always occurs—with a simultaneous increase in the absolute size of the capital, hence of the sum total of these aliquot parts. If, e.g., a capital of 400 was used for one instead of 500 for 20, these 400 could perhaps only be employed in this manner if 10,000x400 were employed. Therefore, although the conditions of labour would be cheaper for the individual worker—not compared with the previous individual worker, but with the previous 20 workers—there is a rise in the total value of the conditions of labour which must be possessed by the individual so as to carry on the productive labour process under these new conditions. I.e. the power of capital vis-à-vis labour grows, or, and this is the same thing, the worker’s chance of appropriating the conditions of labour for himself is lessened. The independent position of past labour as an alien power over living labour achieves a tremendous extension of its dimensions. The good Carey overlooked this. The single spindle is cheaper, but the workshop needed to employ mechanical spindles of this kind requires a capital extraordinarily increased in size, compared with that required previously by the hand spinner.

At the start of developments in many spheres of production where the tool is transformed into a machine of labour—but has not yet developed into a system of machinery—there may indeed be a fall in the amount of capital required, if e.g. 1 worker replaces 10, the raw material remains the same, and the cost of the machine-like tool is in contrast less than the wages of the 10 workers over one year. Mr. Carey TAKES HOLD OF such phenomena of the transition from manual to machine labour TO MAKE A FOOL OF HIMSELF. But these small machines are then seized upon by capital, which applies to them the principles of cooperation and the division of labour, and the principle of the [XVII-1027] proportional reduction of production costs, and finally subjects the whole workshop to a motivating machine or a natural force.

ACCUMULATION

The most direct way in which the increase in productive power intensifies the accumulation of capital is through the reduction in necessary labour time and the increase in surplus value, since surplus value is converted from its form as income into the form of capital; this conversion in general constitutes accumulation.

The direct result of every increase in productive power is a cheapening of the commodities in whose sphere of production the heightening of productive power has taken place. Whether these commodities enter into the worker’s means of subsistence — hence into the reproduction of labour capacity — or not, they increase in any case the amount of use values in which a definite magnitude of value is represented, hence a definite sum of money //the value of the substance in which the money exists remaining unchanged//, or the amount of use values representing a specific quantity of labour time — even where these commodities do not increase the magnitude of the surplus value, and the magnitude of the profit (its value magnitude). A relatively greater part of the income — of the profit, the surplus value — can therefore be reconverted into capital, although the extent of the capitalist’s enjoyments, or the amount of use values he consumes, values not reconverted into capital, is simultaneously increased. The more so, in that the increase of productive forces also takes place in the spheres of luxury production, and here luxury production is to be understood as including all production which does not enter either directly or indirectly into the reproduction of labour capacity. The accumulation of capital therefore grows as productive power increases, not only through the growth in the magnitude of the value which is represented in the form of profit, but through the ability, resulting from the general cheapening of commodities, to reconvert into capital an increasingly large part of income.

Disregarding this point: In so far as the increase in the productive power of the raw material and the instruments of labour, of the constant capital, brings about luxury production in the above sense, the same total capital absorbs more labour altogether, can employ, can realise, more labour. This is another source of the accumulation of capital, since here the absolute, if not the relative, surplus value is increased, because more days of labour are employed, exploited.

[XVII-1028] DIMINUTION OF OUTGOINGS

FOR CONSTANT CAPITAL

The SUPPRESSION of all precautionary measures aimed at the safety, convenience and health of the workers belongs here; e.g. in the coal mines, similarly in the factories proper, a large part of the battle bulletins (see the half-yearly factory REPORTS) of the wounded and dead of the industrial armies arises from this source. Similarly lack of space, etc.

The devaluation of constant capital as a result of new inventions, whereby it can be reproduced more cheaply and with better quality, more effectively, hence the labour time contained in it is no longer that socially necessary — and improvements come thick and fast particularly when new machines are first introduced — is one of the main reasons why overwork and the prolongation of SURPLUS labour time — OVERTIME—goes hand in hand with machinery (see the examples in Babbage). The circulation time within which the value of machines, etc., and other components of fixed capital is reproduced is in practice not determined by the time during which they last but by the quantity of labour time during which they serve as means of production, and in general by the dimensions, the duration, of the labour process during which they function and are used up. If the WORKMEN work 18 hours instead of 12, this gives 3 more days per week, l’/ä weeks of labour in 1 week, hence in 52 weeks 52+5 2 /2=52+26=78 weeks. In 5 years 390 weeks, hence well-nigh 7 years. If the OVERTIME is unpaid, and the normal SURPLUS TIME=2 hours, 30 hours of the 3 days (36 hours) would have to be paid for. Apart from the normal surplus time, the workers thus provide 1 week free for every 2 weeks. 1 year for every 2. And thus the valorisation of the machine is doubled, and accomplished in half the time needed otherwise.

Where the capitalists have a monopoly, and are not compelled by competition to replace obsolete machinery, etc., by new, as for example on the railways, they therefore exclude improvements as long as possible. “The Lancet” for 1 March 1862 STATES that a large number of the illnesses arising from railway travel are caused by the lack of elasticity inside the carriages and in the springs which SUPPORT the carriages.

* “The inventor of any patented article usually obtains reward for his ingenuity by a royalty on the sale from persons making use of his discovery. A number of ingenious improvements adapted solely for use by railway companies are yearly patented, and the system pursued towards the inventors is that, after approval of the plan suggested, it is determined to wait until the time of the patent expires before adopting it. Thus the old stock is used up and the royalty to the patentee saved; and though a few more preventable accidents may occur, yet the public are supposed to be used to being so treated, and the only anxiety is to keep the reports out of the papers, or to soften them as much as possible.”*