From Marxists Internet Archive
Karl Marx. Capital Volume One
Chapter Seventeen: Changes of Magnitude in the Price of Labour-Power and in
Surplus Value
Contents
Section 1 - Length of the Working-Day and
Intensity of Labour Constant. Productiveness of Labour Variable
Section 2 - Working-Day Constant. Productiveness of Labour
Constant. Intensity of Labour Variable
Section 3 - Productiveness and Intensity of Labour Constant.
Length of the Working-Day Variable
Section 4 - Simultaneous Variations in the Duration,
Productiveness, and Intensity of Labour
A. Diminishing Productiveness of Labour with a
Simultaneous Lengthening of the Working-Day
B. Increasing Intensity and Productiveness of Labour with
Simultaneous Shortening of the Working-Day
The value of labour-power is determined by the value of the necessaries of
life habitually required by the average labourer. The quantity of these
necessaries is known at any given epoch of a given society, and can therefore be
treated as a constant magnitude. What changes, is the value of this quantity.
There are, besides, two other factors that enter into the determination of the
value of labour-power. One, the expenses of developing that power, which
expenses vary with the mode of production; the other, its natural diversity, the
difference between the labour-power of men and women, of children and adults.
The employment of these different sorts of labour-power, an employment which is,
in its turn, made necessary by the mode of production, makes a great difference
in the cost of maintaining the family of the labourer, and in the value of the
labour-power of the adult male. Both these factors, however, are excluded in the
following investigation. [1]
I assume (1) that commodities are sold at their value; (2) that the price of
labour-power rises occasionally above its value, but never sinks below it.
On this assumption we have seen that the relative magnitudes of surplus-value
and of price of labour-power are determined by three circumstances; (1) the
length of the working-day, or the extensive magnitude of labour; (2) the normal
intensity of labour, its intensive magnitude, whereby a given quantity of labour
is expended in a given time; (3) the productiveness of labour,whereby the same
quantum of labour yields, in a given time, a greater or less quantum of product,
dependent on the degree of development in the conditions of production. Very
different combinations are clearly possible, according as one of the three
factors is constant and two variable, or two constant and one variable, or
lastly, all three simultaneously variable. And the number of these combinations
is augmented by the fact that, when these factors simultaneously vary, the
amount and direction of their respective variations may differ. In what follows
the chief combinations alone are considered.
SECTION 1
LENGTH OF THE WORKING-DAY AND INTENSITY OF LABOUR CONSTANT. PRODUCTIVENESS
OF LABOUR VARIABLE.
On these assumptions the value of labour-power, and the magnitude of
surplus-value, are determined by three laws.
(1.) A working day of given length always creates the same amount of
value, no matter how the productiveness of labour, and, with it, the mass of the
product, and the price of each single commodity produced, may vary.
If the value created by a working-day of 12 hours be, say, six shillings,
then, although the mass of the articles produced varies with the productiveness
of labour, the only result is that the value represented by six shillings is
spread over a greater or less number of articles.
(2.) Surplus-value and the value of labour-power vary in opposite
directions. A variation in the productiveness of labour, its increase or
diminution, causes a variation in the opposite direction in the value of labour-power,
and in the same direction in surplus-value.
The value created by a working day of 12 hours is a constant quantity, say,
six shillings. This constant quantity is the sum of the surplus-value plus the
value of the labour-power, which latter value the labourer replaces by an
equivalent. It is self-evident, that if a constant quantity consists of two
parts, neither of them can increase without the other diminishing. Let the two
parts at starting be equal; 3 shillings value of labour-power, 3 shillings
surplus-value. Then the value of the labour-power cannot rise from three
shillings to four, without the surplus-value falling from three shillings to
two; and the surplus-value cannot rise from three shillings to four, without the
value of labour-power falling from three shillings to two. Under these
circumstances, therefore, no change can take place in the absolute magnitude,
either of the surplus-value, or of the value of labour-power, without a
simultaneous change in their relative magnitudes, i.e., relatively to
each other. It is impossible for them to rise or fall simultaneously.
Further, the value of labour-power cannot fall, and consequently
surplus-value cannot rise, without a rise in the productiveness of labour. For
instance, in the above case, the value of the labour-power cannot sink from
three shillings to two, unless an increase in the productiveness of labour makes
it possible to produce in 4 hours the same quantity of necessaries as previously
required 6 hours to produce. On the other hand, the value of the labour-power
cannot rise from three shillings to four, without a decrease in the
productiveness of labour, whereby eight hours become requisite to produce the
same quantity of necessaries, for the production of which six hours previously
sufficed. It follows from this, that an increase in the productiveness of labour
causes a fall in the value of labour-power and a consequent rise in
surplus-value, while, on the other hand, a decrease in such productiveness
causes a rise in the value of labour-power, and a fall in surplus-value.
In formulating this law, Ricardo overlooked one circumstance; although a
change in the magnitude of the surplus-value or surplus-labour causes a change
in the opposite direction in the magnitude of the value of labour-power, or in
the quantity of necessary labour, it by no means follows that they vary in the
same proportion. They do increase or diminish by the same quantity. But their
proportional increase or diminution depends on their original magnitudes before
the change in the productiveness of labour took place. If the value of the
labour-power be 4 shillings, or the necessary labour-time 8 hours, and the
surplus-value be 2 shillings, or the surplus-labour 4 hours, and if, in
consequence of an increase in the productiveness of labour, the value of the
labour-power fall to 3 shillings, or the necessary labour to 6 hours, the
surplus-value will rise to 3 shillings, or the surplus-labour to 6 hours. The
same quantity, 1 shilling or 2 hours, is added in one case and subtracted in the
other. But the proportional change of magnitude is different in each case. While
the value of the labour-power falls from 4 shillings to 3, i.e., by 1/4
or 25%, the surplus-value rises from 2 shillings to 3, i.e., by 1/2 or
50%. It therefore follows that the proportional increase or diminution in
surplus-value, consequent on a given change in the productiveness of labour,
depends on the original magnitude of that portion of the working day which
embodies itself in surplus-value; the smaller that portion, the greater is the
proportional change; the greater that portion, the less is the proportional
change.
(3.) Increase or diminution in surplus-value is always consequent
on, and never the cause of, the corresponding diminution or increase in the
value of labour-power. [2]
Since the working-day is constant in magnitude, and is represented by a value
of constant magnitude, since, to every variation in the magnitude of
surplus-value, there corresponds an inverse variation in the value of labour-power,
and since the value of labour-power cannot change, except in consequence of a
change in the productiveness of labour, it clearly follows, under these
conditions, that every change of magnitude in surplus-value arises from an
inverse change of magnitude in the value of labour-power. If, then, as we have
already seen, there can be no change of absolute magnitude in the value of
labour-power, and in surplus-value, unaccompanied by a change in their relative
magnitudes, so now it follows that no change in their relative magnitudes is
possible, without a previous change in the absolute magnitude of the value of
labour-power.
According to the third law, a change in the magnitude of surplus-value,
presupposes a movement in the value of labour-power, which movement is brought
about by a variation in the productiveness of labour. The limit of this change
is given by the altered value of labour-power. Nevertheless, even when
circumstances allow the law to operate, subsidiary movements may occur. For
example: if in consequence of the increased productiveness of labour, the value
of labour-power falls from 4 shillings to 3, or the necessary labour-time from 8
hours to 6, the price of labour-power may possibly not fall below 3s. 8d., 3s.
6d., or 3s. 2d., and the surplus-value consequently not rise above 3s. 4d., 3s.
6d., or 3s. 10d. The amount of this fall, the lowest limit of which is 3
shillings (the new value of labour-power), depends on the relative weight, which
the pressure of capital on the one side, and the resistance of the labourer on
the other, throws into the scale.
The value of labour-power is determined by the value of a given quantity of
necessaries. It is the value and not the mass of these necessaries that varies
with the productiveness of labour. It is, however, possible that, owing to an
increase of productiveness, both the labourer and the capitalist may
simultaneously be able to appropriate a greater quantity of these necessaries,
without any change in the price of labour-power or in surplus-value. If the
value of labour-power be 3 shillings, and the necessary labour-time amount to 6
hours, if the surplus-value likewise be 3 shillings, and the surplus-labour 6
hours, then if the productiveness of labour were doubled without altering the
ratio of necessary labour to surplus-labour, there would be no change of
magnitude in surplus-value and price of labour-power. The only
result would be that each of them would represent twice as many use-values as
before; these use-values being twice as cheap as before. Although labour-power
would be unchanged in price, it would be above its value. If, however, the price
of labour-power had fallen, not to 1s. 6d., the lowest possible point consistent
with its new value, but to 2s. 10d. or 2s. 6d., still this lower price would
represent an increased mass of necessaries. In this way it is possible with an
increasing productiveness of labour, for the price of labour-power to keep on
falling, and yet this fall to be accompanied by a constant growth in the mass of
the labourer's means of subsistence. But even in such case, the fall in the
value of labour-power would cause a corresponding rise of surplus-value, and
thus the abyss between the labourer's position and that of the capitalist would
keep widening. [3]
Ricardo was the first who accurately formulated the three laws we have above
stated. But he falls into the following errors: (1) he looks upon the special
conditions under which these laws hold good as the general and sole conditions
of capitalist production. He knows no change, either in the length of the
working-day, or in the intensity of labour; consequently with him there can be
only one variable factor, viz., the productiveness of labour; (2), and this
error vitiates his analysis much more than (1), he has not, any more than have
the other economists, investigated surplus-value as such, i.e.,
independently of its particular forms, such as profit, rent, &c. He
therefore confounds together the laws of the rate of surplus-value and the laws
of the rate of profit. The rate of profit is, as we have already said, the ratio
of the surplus-value to the total capital advanced; the rate of surplus-value is
the ratio of the surplus-value to the variable part of that capital. Assume that
a capital C of £500 is made up of raw material, instruments of labour, &c.
(c) to the amount of £400; and of wages (v) to the amount of £100; and
further, that the surplus-value (s) = £100. Then we have rate of surplus-value
s/v = £100/£100 = 100%. But the rate of profit s/c = £100/£500 = 20%. It is,
besides, obvious that the rate of profit may depend on circumstances that in no
way affect the rate of surplus-value. I shall show in Book III. that, with a
given rate of surplus-value, we may have any number of rates of profit, and that
various rates of surplus-value may, under given conditions, express themselves
in a single rate of profit.
SECTION 2
WORKING-DAY CONSTANT. PRODUCTIVENESS OF LABOUR CONSTANT. INTENSITY OF LABOUR
VARIABLE
Increased intensity of labour means increased expenditure of labour in a
given time. Hence a working-day of more intense labour is embodied in more
products than is one of less intense labour, the length of each day being the
same. Increased productiveness of labour also, it is true, will supply more
products in a given working-day. But in this latter case, the value of each
single product falls, for it costs less labour than before; in the former case,
that value remains unchanged, for each article costs the same labour as before.
Here we have an increase in the number of products, unaccompanied by a fall in
their individual prices: as their number increases, so does the sum of their
prices. But in the case of increased productiveness, a given value is spread
over a greater mass of products. Hence the length of the working-day being
constant, a day's labour of increased intensity will be incorporated in an
increased value, and, the value of money remaining unchanged, in more money. The
value created varies with the extent to which the intensity of labour deviates
from its normal intensity in the society. A given working-day, therefore, no
longer creates a constant, but a variable value; in a day of 12 hours of
ordinary intensity, the value created is, say 6 shillings, but with increased
intensity, the value created may be 7, 8, or more shillings. It is clear that,
if the value created by a day's labour increases from, say, 6 to 8 shillings
then the two parts into which this value is divided, viz., price of labour-power
and surplus-value, may both of them increase simultaneously, and either equally
or unequally. They may both simultaneously increase from 3 shillings to 4. Here,
the rise in the price of labour-power does not necessarily imply that the price
has risen above the value of labour-power. On the contrary, the rise in price
may be accompanied by a fall in value. This occurs whenever the rise in the
price of labour-power does not compensate for its increased wear and tear.
We know that, with transitory exceptions, a change in the productiveness of
labour does not cause any change in the value of labour-power, nor consequently
in the magnitude of surplus-value, unless the products of the industries
affected are articles habitually consumed by the labourers. In the present case
this condition no longer applies. For when the variation is either in the
duration or in the intensity of labour, there is always a corresponding change
in the magnitude of the value created, independently of the nature of the
article in which that value is embodied.
If the intensity of labour were to increase simultaneously and equally in
every branch of industry, then the new and higher degree of intensity would
become the normal degree for the society, and would therefore cease to be taken
account of. But still, even then, the intensity of labour would be different in
different countries, and would modify the international application of the law
of value. The more intense working-day of one nation would be represented by a
greater sum of money than would the less intense day of another nation. [4]
SECTION 3
PRODUCTIVENESS AND INTENSITY OF LABOUR CONSTANT. LENGTH OF THE WORKING-DAY
VARIABLE
The working-day may vary in two ways. It may be made either longer or
shorter. From our present data, and within the limits of the assumptions made on
[previously] we obtain the following laws:
(1.) The working-day creates a greater or less amount of value in
proportion to its length — thus, a variable and not a constant quantity of
value.
(2.) Every change in the relation between the magnitudes of surplus
value and of the value of labour-power arises from a change in the absolute
magnitude of the surplus-labour, and consequently of the surplus-value.
(3.) The absolute value of labour-power can change only in
consequence of the reaction exercised by the prolongation of surplus-labour upon
the wear and tear of labour-power. Every change in this absolute value is
therefore the effect, but never the cause, of a change in the magnitude of
surplus-value.
We begin with the case in which the working-day is shortened.
(1.) A shortening of the working-day under the conditions given
above, leaves the value of labour-power, and with it, the necessary labour-time,
unaltered. It reduces the surplus-labour and surplus-value. Along with the
absolute magnitude of the latter, its relative magnitude also falls, i.e., its
magnitude relatively to the value of labour-power whose magnitude remains
unaltered. Only by lowering the price of labour-power below its value could the
capitalist save himself harmless.
All the usual arguments against the shortening of the working-day, assume
that it takes place under the conditions we have here supposed to exist; but in
reality the very contrary is the case: a change in the productiveness and
intensity of labour either precedes, or immediately follows, a shortening of the
working-day. [5]
(2.) Lengthening of the working-day. Let the necessary labour-time
be 6 hours, or the value of labour-power 3 shillings; also let the surplus-labour
be 6 hours or the surplus-value 3 shillings. The whole working-day then amounts
to 12 hours and is embodied in a value of 6 shillings. If, now, the working-day
be lengthened by 2 hours and the price of labour-power remain unaltered, the
surplus-value increases both absolutely and relatively. Although there is no
absolute change in the value of labour-power, it suffers a relative fall. Under
the conditions assumed in 1. there could not be a change of relative magnitude
in the value of labour-power without a change in its absolute magnitude. Here,
on the contrary, the change of relative magnitude in the value of labour-power
is the result of the change of absolute magnitude in surplus-value.
Since the value in which a day's labour is embodied, increases with the
length of that day, it is evident that the surplus-value and the price of labour-power
may simultaneously increase, either by equal or unequal quantities. This
simultaneous increase is therefore possible in two cases, one, the actual
lengthening of the working-day, the other, an increase in the intensity of
labour unaccompanied by such lengthening.
When the working-day is prolonged, the price of labour-power may fall below
its value, although that price be nominally unchanged or even rise. The value of
a day's labour-power is, as will be remembered, estimated from its normal
average duration, or from the normal duration of life among the labourers, and
from corresponding normal transformations of organised bodily matter into
motion, [6] in conformity with the
nature of man. Up to a certain point, the increased wear and tear of labour-power,
inseparable from a lengthened working-day, may be compensated by higher wages.
But beyond this point the wear and tear increases in geometrical progression,
and every condition suitable for the normal reproduction and functioning of
labour-power is suppressed. The price of labour-power and the degree of its
exploitation cease to be commensurable quantities.
SECTION 4
SIMULTANEOUS VARIATIONS IN THE DURATION, PRODUCTIVENESS, AND INTENSITY OF
LABOUR
It is obvious that a large number of combinations are here possible. Any two
of the factors may vary and the third remain constant, or all three may vary at
once. They may vary either in the same or in different degrees, in the same or
in opposite directions, with the result that the variations counteract one
another, either wholly or in part. Nevertheless the analysis of every possible
case is easy in view of the results given in I., II., and III. The effect of
every possible combination may be found by treating each factor in turn as
variable, and the other two constant for the time being. We shall, therefore,
notice, and that briefly, but two important cases.
A. Diminishing productiveness of labour with a simultaneous lengthening of
the working-day.
In speaking of diminishing productiveness of labour, we here refer to
diminution in those industries whose products determine the value of labour-power;
such a diminution, for example, as results from decreasing fertility of the
soil, and from the corresponding dearness of its products. Take the working-day
at 12 hours and the value created by it at 6 shillings, of which one half
replaces the value of the labour-power, the other forms the surplus-value.
Suppose, in consequence of the increased dearness of the products of the soil,
that the value of labour-power rises from 3 shillings to 4, and therefore the
necessary labour-time from 6 hours to 8. If there be no change in the length of
the working-day, the surplus-labour would fall from 6 hours to 4, the
surplus-value from 3 shillings to 2. If the day be lengthened by 2 hours, i.e.,
from 12 hours to 14, the surplus-labour remains at 6 hours, the surplus-value at
3 shillings [note], but the
surplus-value decreases compared with the value of labour-power, as measured by
the necessary labour-time. If the day be lengthened by 4 hours, viz., from 12
hours to 16, the proportional magnitudes of surplus-value and value of labour-power,
of surplus-labour and necessary labour, continue unchanged, but the absolute
magnitude of surplus-value rises from 3 shillings to 4, that of the surplus-labour
from 6 hours to 8, an increment of 33 1/3%. Therefore, with diminishing
productiveness of labour and a simultaneous lengthening of the working-day, the
absolute magnitude of surplus-value may continue unaltered, at the same time
that its relative magnitude diminishes; its relative magnitude may continue
unchanged, at the same time that its absolute magnitude increases; and, provided
the lengthening of the day be sufficient, both may increase.
In the period between 1799 and 1815 the increasing price of provisions led in
England to a nominal rise in wages, although the real wages, expressed in the
necessaries of life, fell. From this fact West and Ricardo drew the conclusion,
that the diminution in the productiveness of agricultural labour had brought
about a fall in the rate of surplus-value, and they made this assumption of a
fact that existed only in their imaginations, the starting-point of important
investigations into the relative magnitudes of wages, profits, and rent. But, as
a matter of fact, surplus-value had at that time, thanks to the increased
intensity of labour, and to the prolongation of the working-day, increased both
in absolute and relative magnitude. This was the period in which the right to
prolong the hours of labour to an outrageous extent was established; [7]
the period that was especially characterised by an accelerated accumulation of
capital here, by pauperism there. [8]
B. Increasing intensity and productiveness of labour with simultaneous
shortening of the working-day.
Increased productiveness and greater intensity of labour, both have a like
effect. They both augment the mass of articles produced in a given time. Both,
therefore, shorten that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs to
produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent. The minimum length of the
working-day is fixed by this necessary but contractile portion of it. If the
whole working-day were to shrink to the length of this portion, surplus-labour
would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the régime of capital.
Only by suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the
working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. But, even in that case, the
latter would extend its limits. On the one hand, because the notion of “means
of subsistence” would considerably expand, and the labourer would lay claim to
an altogether different standard of life. On the other hand, because a part of
what is now surplus-labour, would then count as necessary labour; I mean the
labour of forming a fund for reserve and accumulation.
The more the productiveness of labour increases, the more can the working-day
be shortened; and the more the working-day is shortened, the more can the
intensity of labour increase. From a social point of view, the productiveness
increases in the same ratio as the economy of labour, which, in its turn,
includes not only economy of the means of production, but also the avoidance of
all useless labour. The capitalist mode of production, while on the one hand,
enforcing economy in each individual business, on the other hand, begets, by its
anarchical system of competition, the most outrageous squandering of labour-power
and of the social means of production, not to mention the creation of a vast
number of employments, at present indispensable, but in themselves superfluous.
The intensity and productiveness of labour being given, the time which
society is bound to devote to material production is shorter, and as a
consequence, the time at its disposal for the free development, intellectual and
social, of the individual is greater, in proportion as the work is more and more
evenly divided among all the able-bodied members of society, and as a particular
class is more and more deprived of the power to shift the natural burden of
labour from its own shoulders to those of another layer of society. In this
direction, the shortening of the working-day finds at last a limit in the
generalisation of labour. In capitalist society spare time is acquired for one
class by converting the whole life-time of the masses into labour-time.
Footnotes
1. Note
in the 3rd German edition. — The case considered at pages 300-302 is here
of course omitted. — F. E.
2.
To this third law MacCulloch has made, amongst others, this absurd addition,
that a rise in surplus-value, unaccompanied by a fall in the value of labour-power,
can occur through the abolition of taxes payable by the capitalist. The
abolition of such taxes makes no change whatever in the quantity of
surplus-value that the capitalist extorts at first-hand from the labourer. It
alters only the proportion in which that surplus-value is divided between
himself and third persons. It consequently makes no alteration whatever in the
relation between surplus-value and value of labour-power. MacCulloch's exception
therefore proves only his misapprehension of the rule, a misfortune that as
often happens to him in the vulgarisation of Ricardo, as it does to J. B. Say in
the vulgarisation of Adam Smith.
3.
“When an alteration takes place in the productiveness of industry, and that
either more or less is produced by a given quantity of labour and capital, the
proportion of wages may obviously vary, whilst the quantity, which that
proportion represents, remains the same, or the quantity may vary, whilst the
proportion remains the same.” (“Outlines of Political Economy, &c.,”
p. 67.)
4.
“All things being equal, the English manufacturer can turn out a considerably
larger amount of work in a given time than a foreign manufacturer, so much as to
counterbalance the difference of the working-days, between 60 hours a week here,
and 72 or 80 elsewhere.” (Rep. of Insp. of Fact. for 31st Oct., 1855, p. 65.)
The most infallible means for reducing this qualitative difference between the
English and Continental working hour would be a law shortening quantitatively
the length of the working-day in Continental factories.
5.
“There are compensating circumstances ... which the working of the Ten Hours'
Act has brought to light.” (Rep.of Insp. of Fact. for 31st Oct. 1848,” p.
7.)
6.
“The amount of labour which a man had undergone in the course of 24 hours
might be approximately arrived at by an examination of the chemical changes
which had taken place in his body, changed forms in matter indicating the
anterior exercise of dynamic force.” (Grove: “On the Correlation of Physical
Forces.”)
7.
“Corn and labour rarely march quite abreast; but there is an obvious limit,
beyond which they cannot be separated. With regard to the unusual exertions made
by the labouring classes in periods of dearness, which produce the fall of wages
noticed in the evidence” (namely, before the Parliamentary Committee of
Inquiry, 1814-15), “they are most meritorious in the individuals, and
certainly favour the growth of capital. But no man of humanity could wish to see
them constant and unremitted. They are most admirable as a temporary relief; but
if they were constantly in action, effects of a similar kind would result from
them, as from the population of a country being pushed to the very extreme
limits of its food.” (Malthus: “Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of
Rent,” Lond., 1815, p. 48, note.) All honour to Malthus that he lays stress on
the lengthening of the hours of labour, a fact to which he elsewhere in his
pamphlet draws attention, while Ricardo and others, in face of the most
notorious facts, make invariability in the length of the working-day the
groundwork of all their investigations. But the conservative interests, which
Malthus served, prevented him from seeing that an unlimited prolongation of the
working-day, combined with an extraordinary development of machinery, and the
exploitation of women and children, must inevitably have made a great portion of
the working-class “supernumerary,” particularly whenever the war should have
ceased, and the monopoly of England in the markets of the world should have come
to an end. It was, of course, far more convenient, and much more in conformity
with the interests of the ruling classes, whom Malthus adored like a true
priest, to explain this “over-population” by the eternal laws of Nature,
rather than by the historical laws of capitalist production.
8.
“A principal cause of the increase of capital, during the war, proceeded from
the greater exertions, and perhaps the greater privations of the labouring
classes, the most numerous in every society. More women and children were
compelled by necessitous circumstances, to enter upon laborious occupations, and
former workmen were, from the same cause, obliged to devote a greater portion of
their time to increase production.” (Essays on Pol. Econ., in which are
illustrated the principal causes of the present national distress. Lond., 1830,
p. 248.)
Transcribed by Alan Thurrott
Html Markup by Stephen Baird (1999)
Note
Earlier English translations have “6
sh.” instead of 3 shillings. This error was pointed out to us by a reader, we
have investigated and checked with the 1872 German Edition and duly corrected an
obvious error. See “A
three shilling mystery”.
Andy Blunden (2002)
|
