Das Kapital — Kap. 10 · semantic zoom

K.10

ZEHNTES KAPITEL. Begriff des relativen Mehrwerts

Chapter 9 measured the mass of surplus-value under a day that could still be lengthened; that whole result, it noted, held only for surplus-value won by extending the day. This chapter opens the other road: with the day fixed, raise the productive power of labour so the necessary part of the day shrinks and the surplus part grows — relative surplus-value. The guard is set at the door: this happens under full-value exchange, by cheapening labour-power, never by paying below its value. It hands the next chapters the particular methods — cooperation first.

Der Teil des Arbeitstags, der bloß ein Äquivalent für den vom Kapital gezahlten Wert der Arbeitskraft produziert, galt uns bisher als konstante Größe, was er in der Tat ist unter gegebnen Produktionsbedingungen, auf einer vorhandnen ökonomischen Entwicklungsstufe der Gesellschaft. Über diese seine notwendige Arbeitszeit hinaus konnte der Arbeiter 2, 3, 4, 6 usw. Stunden arbeiten. Von der Größe dieser Verlängrung hingen Rate des Mehrwerts und Größe des Arbeitstags ab. War die notwendige Arbeitszeit konstant, so dagegen der Gesamtarbeitstag variabel. Unterstelle jetzt einen Arbeitstag, dessen Größe und dessen Teilung in notwendige Arbeit und Mehrarbeit gegeben sind. Die Linie a c, a __________ b __ c, stelle z.B. einen zwölfstündigen Arbeitstag vor, das Stück a b 10 Stunden notwendige Arbeit, das Stück b c 2 Stunden Mehrarbeit. Wie kann nun die Produktion von Mehrwert vergrößert, d.h. die Mehrarbeit verlängert werden, ohne jede weitere Verlängrung oder unabhängig von jeder weiteren Verlängrung von a c?

fixed day, new question

So far we have treated the part of the working day where the worker just produces enough to cover the value of their labour-power as a fixed amount. Given the production conditions at a certain stage of society, that is exactly what it is. Beyond that necessary labour-time, the worker might put in 2, 3, 4, or 6 more hours. The rate of surplus-value and the length of the total working day depended on how much this extra time got stretched. The necessary labour-time was fixed; the total working day was variable.

But now suppose we have a working day whose length is already set, and whose split between necessary labour and surplus-labour is already given. Picture a 12-hour day as a line: a __________ b __ c. The piece a b is 10 hours of necessary labour, and the piece b c is 2 hours of surplus-labour. How can surplus-value be increased—how can the surplus-labour be stretched—without making the total day a c any longer?

Trotz gegebner Grenzen des Arbeitstags a c scheint b c verlängerbar, wenn nicht durch Ausdehnung über seinen Endpunkt c, der zugleich der Endpunkt des Arbeitstags a c ist, so durch Verschiebung seines Anfangspunkts b in entgegengesetzter Richtung nach a hin. Nimm an, b' _ b in a _________ b' _ b __ c sei gleich der Hälfte von b c oder gleich einer Arbeitsstunde. Wird nun in dem zwölfstündigen Arbeitstag a c der Punkt b nach b' verrückt, so dehnt sich b c aus zu b' c, die Mehrarbeit wächst um die Hälfte, von 2 auf 3 Stunden, obgleich der Arbeitstag nach wie vor nur 12 Stunden zählt. Diese Ausdehnung der Mehrarbeit von b c auf b' c, von 2 auf 3 Stunden, ist aber offenbar unmöglich ohne gleichzeitige Zusammenziehung der notwendigen Arbeit von a b auf a b', von 10 auf 9 Stunden. Der Verlängrung der Mehrarbeit entspräche die Verkürzung der notwendigen Arbeit, oder ein Teil der Arbeitszeit, die der Arbeiter bisher in der Tat für sich selbst verbraucht, verwandelt sich in Arbeitszeit für den Kapitalisten. Was verändert, wäre nicht die Länge des Arbeitstags, sondern seine Teilung in notwendige Arbeit und Mehrarbeit.

shifting the start-point backward

Even with the total day a c fixed, the surplus-labour b c appears stretchable. If it cannot grow by pushing past c (which is the end of the whole day), it can still grow by pushing its start-point b backward toward a.

Take a line a _________ b' _ b __ c. Say the distance b' to b is half of b c, or one hour. If we slide b back to b', the surplus-labour stretches from b c to b' c. The surplus-labour grows by half, from 2 hours to 3, while the total day stays exactly 12 hours.

But plainly, stretching the surplus-labour like this is impossible without simultaneously squeezing the necessary labour down from a b to a b', from 10 hours to 9. Stretching the surplus-labour means shrinking the necessary labour. A piece of the day the worker used to spend working for themselves transforms into time worked for the capitalist. What changes is not the length of the day, but its division into necessary labour and surplus-labour.

Andrerseits ist die Größe der Mehrarbeit offenbar selbst gegeben mit gegebner Größe des Arbeitstags und gegebnem Wert der Arbeitskraft. Der Wert der Arbeitskraft, d.h. die zu ihrer Produktion erheischte Arbeitszeit, bestimmt die zur Reproduktion ihres Werts notwendige Arbeitszeit. Stellt sich eine Arbeitsstunde in einem Goldquantum von einem halben Shilling oder 6 d. dar, und beträgt der Tageswert der Arbeitskraft 5 sh., so muß der Arbeiter täglich 10 Stunden arbeiten, um den ihm vom Kapital gezahlten Tageswert seiner Arbeitskraft zu ersetzen oder ein Äquivalent für den Wert seiner notwendigen täglichen Lebensmittel zu produzieren. Mit dem Wert dieser Lebensmittel ist der Wert seiner Arbeitskraft¹, mit dem Wert seiner Arbeitskraft ist die Größe seiner notwendigen Arbeitszeit gegeben. Die Größe der Mehrarbeit aber wird erhalten durch Subtraktion der notwendigen Arbeitszeit vom Gesamtarbeitstag. Zehn Stunden subtrahiert von zwölf lassen zwei, und es ist nicht abzusehn, wie die Mehrarbeit unter den gegebnen Bedingungen über zwei Stunden hinaus verlängert werden kann. Allerdings mag der Kapitalist statt 5 sh. dem Arbeiter nur 4 sh. 6 d. oder noch weniger zahlen. Zur Reproduktion dieses Werts von 4 sh. 6 d. würden 9 Arbeitsstunden genügen, von dem zwölfstündigen Arbeitstag daher 3 statt 2 Stunden der Mehrarbeit anheimfallen und der Mehrwert selbst von 1 sh. auf 1 sh. 6 d. steigen. Dies Resultat wäre jedoch nur erzielt durch Herabdrückung des Lohns des Arbeiters unter den Wert seiner Arbeitskraft. Mit den 4 sh. 6 d., die er in 9 Stunden produziert, verfügt er über 1/10 weniger Lebensmittel als vorher, und so findet nur eine verkümmerte Reproduktion seiner Arbeitskraft statt. Die Mehrarbeit würde hier nur verlängert durch Überschreitung ihrer normalen Grenzen, ihre Domäne nur ausgedehnt durch usurpatorischen Abbruch von der Domäne der notwendigen Arbeitszeit. Trotz der wichtigen Rolle, welche diese Methode in der wirklichen Bewegung des Arbeitslohnes spielt, ist sie hier ausgeschlossen durch die Voraussetzung, daß die Waren, also auch die Arbeitskraft, zu ihrem vollen Wert gekauft und verkauft werden. Dies einmal unterstellt, kann die zur Produktion der Arbeitskraft oder zur Reproduktion ihres Werts notwendige Arbeitszeit nicht abnehmen, weil der Lohn des Arbeiters unter den Wert seiner Arbeitskraft, sondern nur wenn dieser Wert selbst sinkt. Bei gegebner Länge des Arbeitstags muß die Verlängrung der Mehrarbeit aus der Verkürzung der notwendigen Arbeitszeit entspringen, nicht umgekehrt die Verkürzung der notwendigen Arbeitszeit aus der Verlängrung der Mehrarbeit. In unsrem Beispiel muß der Wert der Arbeitskraft wirklich um 1/10 sinken, damit die notwendige Arbeitszeit um 1/10 abnehme, von 10 auf 9 Stunden, und daher die Mehrarbeit sich von 2 auf 3 Stunden verlängre.

wage-cut route excluded

On the other hand, the amount of surplus-labour seems completely locked in place once the total day and the value of labour-power are given. The value of labour-power dictates the time needed to reproduce that value. Say one hour of work shows up as half a shilling (6 pence), and the daily value of labour-power is 5 shillings. The worker must labour 10 hours just to replace what the capitalist paid for their day's capacity to work—or to produce an equivalent for their daily necessities. The value of those necessities fixes the value of labour-power, which fixes the necessary labour-time. You get the surplus-labour by subtracting the necessary labour-time from the total day. Subtract 10 hours from 12, and 2 hours remain. It seems impossible for surplus-labour to grow beyond 2 hours under these conditions.

Of course, the capitalist might just pay the worker 4 shillings 6 pence instead of 5 shillings. Replacing 4 shillings 6 pence would only take 9 hours, which leaves 3 hours of surplus-labour instead of 2, raising surplus-value from 1 shilling to 1 shilling 6 pence.

But this result is achieved solely by pushing the worker's wage below the value of their labour-power. With 4 shillings 6 pence, the worker buys one-tenth fewer necessities, so their capacity to work only gets stunted, partially reproduced. This would stretch surplus-labour by breaking past its normal limits, invading the rightful territory of necessary labour-time.

Despite how much this method matters in actual wage battles, we rule it out entirely here by holding to our assumption: all commodities, including labour-power, are bought and sold at their full value. Given that assumption, the time needed to reproduce labour-power cannot drop just because the wage is pushed below its value. It can only drop if the value itself falls. With the day's length fixed, stretching the surplus-labour must spring from shrinking the necessary labour-time—not the other way around. In our example, the value of labour-power must actually fall by one-tenth for necessary labour-time to drop from 10 hours to 9, allowing surplus-labour to grow from 2 hours to 3.

Eine solche Senkung des Werts der Arbeitskraft um 1/10 bedingt aber ihrerseits, daß dieselbe Masse Lebensmittel, die früher in 10, jetzt in 9 Stunden produziert wird. Dies ist jedoch unmöglich ohne eine Erhöhung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit. Mit gegebnen Mitteln kann ein Schuster z.B. ein Paar Stiefel in einem Arbeitstag von 12 Stunden machen. Soll er in derselben Zeit zwei Paar Stiefel machen, so muß sich die Produktivkraft seiner Arbeit verdoppeln, und sie kann sich nicht verdoppeln ohne eine Änderung in seinen Arbeitsmitteln oder seiner Arbeitsmethode oder beiden zugleich. Es muß daher eine Revolution in den Produktionsbedingungen seiner Arbeit eintreten, d.h. in seiner Produktionsweise und daher im Arbeitsprozeß selbst. Unter Erhöhung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit verstehn wir hier überhaupt eine Verändrung im Arbeitsprozeß, wodurch die zur Produktion einer Ware gesellschaftlich erheischte Arbeitszeit verkürzt wird, ein kleinres Quantum Arbeit also die Kraft erwirbt, ein größres Quantum Gebrauchswert zu produzieren.² Während also bei der Produktion des Mehrwerts in der bisher betrachteten Form die Produktionsweise als gegeben unterstellt war, genügt es für die Produktion von Mehrwert durch Verwandlung notwendiger Arbeit in Mehrarbeit keineswegs, daß das Kapital sich des Arbeitsprozesses in seiner historisch überlieferten oder vorhandnen Gestalt bemächtigt und nur seine Dauer verlängert. Es muß die technischen und gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen des Arbeitsprozesses, also die Produktionsweise selbst umwälzen, um die Produktivkraft der Arbeit zu erhöhn, durch die Erhöhung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit den Wert der Arbeitskraft zu senken und so den zur Reproduktion dieses Werts notwendigen Teil des Arbeitstags zu verkürzen.

revolutionizing the mode of production

For the value of labour-power to drop by one-tenth, the exact same daily necessities that previously took 10 hours to make must now be produced in 9. This is impossible without a rise in the productive power of labour.

With his current tools, a shoemaker might make one pair of boots in a 12-hour day. To make two pairs in that same time, the productive power of his labour has to double. That cannot happen without a change in his tools, his method, or both. The conditions of production—his mode of production, and the very labour-process itself—must go through a revolution.

By a rise in the productive power of labour we mean any change in the labour-process that shortens the socially necessary labour-time needed to produce a commodity, so a smaller amount of labour gains the power to produce a larger amount of use-values.

Previously, when looking at surplus-value produced just by extending the working day, we assumed the mode of production was fixed. But to produce surplus-value by turning necessary labour into surplus-labour, it is nowhere near enough for capital to simply take over the labour-process as it has historically been handed down and stretch out its hours. Capital must revolutionize the technical and social conditions of the process. It must overturn the mode of production itself to raise the productive power of labour, use that rise to sink the value of labour-power, and thereby shrink the part of the day needed to replace that value.

Durch Verlängrung des Arbeitstags produzierten Mehrwert nenne ich absoluten Mehrwert; den Mehrwert dagegen, der aus Verkürzung der notwendigen Arbeitszeit und entsprechender Verändrung im Größenverhältnis der beiden Bestandteile des Arbeitstags entspringt - relativen Mehrwert.

absolute and relative surplus-value named

Surplus-value produced by lengthening the working day I call absolute surplus-value. The surplus-value that instead springs from shortening necessary labour-time, with the corresponding shift in how the two parts of the day measure up, I call relative surplus-value.

Um den Wert der Arbeitskraft zu senken, muß die Steigerung der Produktivkraft Industriezweige ergreifen, deren Produkte den Wert der Arbeitskraft bestimmen, also entweder dem Umkreis der gewohnheitsmäßigen Lebensmittel angehören oder sie ersetzen können. Der Wert einer Ware ist aber nicht nur bestimmt durch das Quantum der Arbeit, welche ihr die letzte Form gibt, sondern ebensowohl durch die in ihren Produktionsmitteln enthaltne Arbeitsmasse. Z.B. der Wert eines Stiefels nicht nur durch die Schusterarbeit, sondern auch durch den Wert von Leder, Pech, Draht usw. Steigerung der Produktivkraft und entsprechende Verwohlfeilerung der Waren in den Industrien, welche die stofflichen Elemente des konstanten Kapitals, die Arbeitsmittel und das Arbeitsmaterial, zur Erzeugung der notwendigen Lebensmittel liefern, senken also ebenfalls den Wert der Arbeitskraft. In Produktionszweigen dagegen, die weder notwendige Lebensmittel liefern noch Produktionsmittel zu ihrer Herstellung, läßt die erhöhte Produktivkraft den Wert der Arbeitskraft unberührt.

the wage-goods condition

To sink the value of labour-power, the rise in productive power has to grab hold of industries whose products set that value. These are either everyday necessities themselves, or things that can substitute for them.

But remember, the value of a commodity is set not just by the labour that gives it its final form, but also by the mass of labour tied up in its means of production. A pair of boots carries not just the shoemaker's labour, but the value of the leather, pitch, and thread. So when industries that supply the material elements—the tools and raw materials—used to make everyday necessities raise their productive power and turn out cheaper goods, that also sinks the value of labour-power.

But if a branch of production makes neither necessities nor the means to make them, a rise in its productive power leaves the value of labour-power completely untouched.

Die verwohlfeilerte Ware senkt natürlich den Wert der Arbeitskraft nur pro tanto, d.h. nur im Verhältnis, worin sie in die Reproduktion der Arbeitskraft eingeht. Hemden z.B. sind ein notwendiges Lebensmittel, aber nur eins von vielen. Ihre Verwohlfeilerung vermindert bloß die Ausgabe des Arbeiters für Hemden. Die Gesamtsumme der notwendigen Lebensmittel besteht jedoch nur aus verschiednen Waren, lauter Produkten besondrer Industrien, und der Wert jeder solchen Ware bildet stets einen aliquoten Teil vom Wert der Arbeitskraft. Dieser Wert nimmt ab mit der zu seiner Reproduktion notwendigen Arbeitszeit, deren Gesamtverkürzung gleich der Summe ihrer Verkürzungen in allen jenen besondren Produktionszweigen ist. Wir behandeln dies allgemeine Resultat hier so, als wäre es unmittelbares Resultat und unmittelbarer Zweck in jedem einzelnen Fall. Wenn ein einzelner Kapitalist durch Steigerung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit z.B. Hemden verwohlfeilert, schwebt ihm keineswegs notwendig der Zweck vor, den Wert der Arbeitskraft und daher die notwendige Arbeitszeit pro tanto zu senken, aber nur soweit er schließlich zu diesem Resultat beiträgt, trägt er bei zur Erhöhung der allgemeinen Rate des Mehrwerts.³ Die allgemeinen und notwendigen Tendenzen des Kapitals sind zu unterscheiden von ihren Erscheinungsformen.

appearance versus essence

A cheaper commodity obviously lowers the value of labour-power only pro tanto—only by the share it holds in reproducing that capacity to work. Shirts, for instance, are a necessity, but only one among many. Making shirts cheaper just trims what the worker spends on shirts. The whole basket of necessities is just different commodities, each the product of a specific industry, and the value of each one forms a fractional part of the value of labour-power. This total value drops as the labour-time needed to reproduce it drops, and its total drop is the sum of all the time saved across every one of those distinct industries.

Here we treat this overall result as if it were the direct goal in every single case. But when an individual capitalist raises productive power to make shirts cheaper, lowering the value of labour-power and shaving down necessary labour-time is not necessarily on their mind at all. Yet it is only insofar as they eventually contribute to this result that they help raise the general rate of surplus-value.

Capital's general, necessary tendencies must be kept separate from the forms in which they appear.

Die Art und Weise, wie die immanenten Gesetze der kapitalistischen Produktion in der äußern Bewegung der Kapitale erscheinen, sich als Zwangsgesetze der Konkurrenz geltend machen und daher als treibende Motive dem individuellen Kapitalisten zum Bewußtsein kommen, ist jetzt nicht zu betrachten, aber soviel erhellt von vornherein: Wissenschaftliche Analyse der Konkurrenz ist nur möglich, sobald die innere Natur des Kapitals begriffen ist, ganz wie die scheinbare Bewegung der Himmelskörper nur dem verständlich, der ihre wirkliche, aber sinnlich nicht wahrnehmbare Bewegung kennt. Dennoch ist zum Verständnis der Produktion des relativen Mehrwerts und bloß auf Grundlage der bereits gewonnenen Resultate folgendes zu bemerken.

competition enforces, does not cause

How the immanent laws of capitalist production show up in the outward movements of capital—how they press upon the individual capitalist as coercive laws of competition and register in their mind as driving motives—is not our subject just yet. But one thing is clear from the start: a scientific analysis of competition is only possible once the inner nature of capital is grasped. It is exactly like the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies, which only make sense to someone who knows their real, invisible motion.

Still, purely on the basis of what we have already worked out, we can note the following to help make sense of how relative surplus-value is produced.

Stellt sich eine Arbeitsstunde in einem Goldquantum von 6 d. oder 1/2 sh. dar, so wird in zwölfstündigem Arbeitstag ein Wert von 6 sh. produziert. Gesetzt, mit der gegebnen Produktivkraft der Arbeit würden 12 Stück Waren in diesen 12 Arbeitsstunden verfertigt. Der Wert der in jedem Stück vernutzten Produktionsmittel, Rohmaterial usw. sei 6 d. Unter diesen Umständen kostet die einzelne Ware 1 sh., nämlich 6 d. für den Wert der Produktionsmittel, 6 d. für den in ihrer Verarbeitung neu zugesetzten Wert. Es gelinge nun einem Kapitalisten, die Produktivkraft der Arbeit zu verdoppeln und daher 24 statt 12 Stück dieser Warenart in dem zwölfstündigen Arbeitstag zu produzieren. Bei unverändertem Wert der Produktionsmittel sinkt der Wert der einzelnen Ware jetzt auf 9 d., nämlich 6 d. für den Wert der Produktionsmittel, 3 d. für den durch die letzte Arbeit neu zugesetzten Wert. Trotz der verdoppelten Produktivkraft schafft der Arbeitstag nach wie vor nur einen Neuwert von 6 sh., welcher sich jedoch jetzt auf doppelt soviel Produkte verteilt. Auf jedes einzelne Produkt fällt daher nur noch 1/24 statt 1/12 dieses Gesamtwerts, 3 d. statt 6 d. oder, was dasselbe ist, den Produktionsmitteln wird bei ihrer Verwandlung in Produkt, jedes Stück berechnet, jetzt nur noch eine halbe statt wie früher eine ganze Arbeitsstunde zugesetzt. Der individuelle Wert dieser Ware steht nun unter ihrem gesellschaftlichen Wert, d.h., sie kostet weniger Arbeitszeit als der große Haufen derselben Artikel, produziert unter den gesellschaftlichen Durchschnittsbedingungen. Das Stück kostet im Durchschnitt 1 sh. oder stellt 2 Stunden gesellschaftlicher Arbeit dar; mit der veränderten Produktionsweise kostet es nur 9 d. oder enthält nur 1 1/2 Arbeitsstunden. Der wirkliche Wert einer Ware ist aber nicht ihr individueller, sondern ihr gesellschaftlicher Wert, d.h., er wird nicht durch die Arbeitszeit gemessen, die sie im einzelnen Fall dem Produzenten tatsächlich kostet, sondern durch die gesellschaftlich zu ihrer Produktion erheischte Arbeitszeit. Verkauft also der Kapitalist, der die neue Methode anwendet, seine Ware zu ihrem gesellschaftlichen Wert von 1 sh., so verkauft er sie 3 d. über ihrem individuellen Wert und realisiert so einen Extramehrwert von 3 d. Andrerseits stellt sich aber der zwölfstündige Arbeitstag jetzt für ihn in 24 Stück Ware dar statt früher in 12. Um also das Produkt eines Arbeitstags zu verkaufen, bedarf er doppelten Absatzes oder eines zweifach größern Markts. Unter sonst gleichbleibenden Umständen erobern seine Waren nur größern Marktraum durch Kontraktion ihrer Preise. Er wird sie daher über ihrem individuellen, aber unter ihrem gesellschaftlichen Wert verkaufen, sage zu 10 d. das Stück. So schlägt er an jedem einzelnen Stück immer noch einen Extramehrwert von 1 d. heraus. Diese Steigerung des Mehrwerts findet für ihn statt, ob oder ob nicht seine Ware dem Umkreis der notwendigen Lebensmittel angehört und daher bestimmend in den allgemeinen Wert der Arbeitskraft eingeht. Vom letztren Umstand abgesehn, existiert also für jeden einzelnen Kapitalisten das Motiv, die Ware durch erhöhte Produktivkraft der Arbeit zu verwohlfeilern.

extra surplus-value: no cheating

Say one hour of labour equals 6 pence. A 12-hour working day creates a new value of 6 shillings. Suppose that with the current productive power, 12 articles are made in those 12 hours. Let the value of the means of production used up in each article—raw materials, and so on—be 6 pence. Each article then costs 1 shilling: 6 pence for the means of production, 6 pence for the new value added by working them.

Now imagine a capitalist manages to double his productive power, turning out 24 articles instead of 12 in that same 12-hour day. If the value of the means of production stays the same, each article now costs only 9 pence: 6 pence for the means of production, and 3 pence for the new value added. Even with doubled output, the day’s labour still creates only 6 shillings of new value, but that sum is now spread across twice as many products. Each article now gets 1/24 of the total value instead of 1/12, or 3 pence instead of 6 pence. Put another way: only half an hour of labour is now added to the means of production for each article, instead of a full hour.

The individual value of these articles is now below their social value. They cost less labour-time than the great mass of identical articles produced under average social conditions. On average, an article costs 1 shilling and represents 2 hours of social labour; under the altered mode of production, it costs only 9 pence and holds 1½ hours of labour.

The real value of a commodity is not its individual value, but its social value—it is measured not by how much time it actually cost the specific producer, but by the socially required labour-time. So if the capitalist using the new method sells his article at its social value of 1 shilling, he sells it 3 pence above its individual value, and pockets an extra surplus-value of 3 pence.

Meanwhile, his 12-hour day now takes the shape of 24 articles instead of 12. To sell one day's product, he must sell twice as much — a market twice as large. All else being equal, his goods can only win more market space by dropping their price. He will therefore sell them above their individual value but below their social value—say, at 10 pence each. By doing this, he still squeezes out an extra surplus-value of 1 penny per article. He gets this boost whether or not his article belongs to the class of necessities that determine the value of labour-power. Setting that aside, every single capitalist has a motive to cheapen commodities by raising the productive power of labour.

Indes entspringt selbst in diesem Fall die gesteigerte Produktion von Mehrwert aus der Verkürzung der notwendigen Arbeitszeit und entsprechender Verlängrung der Mehrarbeit.^3a Die notwendige Arbeitszeit betrage 10 Stunden oder der Tageswert der Arbeitskraft 5 sh., die Mehrarbeit 2 Stunden, der täglich produzierte Mehrwert daher 1 sh. Unser Kapitalist produziert aber jetzt 24 Stück, die er zu 10 d. per Stück oder zusammen zu 20 sh. verkauft. Da der Wert der Produktionsmittel gleich 12 Schilling, ersetzen 14 2/5 Stück Ware nur das vorgeschoßne konstante Kapital. Der zwölfstündige Arbeitstag stellt sich in den übrigbleibenden 9 3/5 Stück dar. Da der Preis der Arbeitskraft = 5 sh., stellt sich im Produkt von 6 Stück die notwendige Arbeitszeit dar und in 3 3/5 Stück die Mehrarbeit. Das Verhältnis der notwendigen Arbeit zur Mehrarbeit, welches unter den gesellschaftlichen Durchschnittsbedingungen 5 : 1 betrug, beträgt jetzt nur noch 5 : 3. Dasselbe Resultat erhält man so: Der Produktenwert des zwölfstündigen Arbeitstags ist 20 sh. Davon gehören 12 sh. dem nur wieder erscheinenden Wert der Produktionsmittel. Bleiben also 8 sh. als Geldausdruck des Werts, worin sich der Arbeitstag darstellt. Dieser Geldausdruck ist höher als der Geldausdruck der gesellschaftlichen Durchschnittsarbeit von derselben Sorte, wovon sich 12 Stunden nur in 6 sh. ausdrücken. Die Arbeit von ausnahmsweiser Produktivkraft wirkt als potenzierte Arbeit oder schafft in gleichen Zeiträumen höhere Werte als die gesellschaftliche Durchschnittsarbeit derselben Art. Aber unser Kapitalist zahlt nach wie vor nur 5 sh. für den Tageswert der Arbeitskraft. Der Arbeiter bedarf daher, statt früher 10, jetzt nur noch 7 1/2 Stunden zur Reproduktion dieses Werts. Seine Mehrarbeit wächst daher um 2 1/2 Stunden, der von ihm produzierte Mehrwert von 1 auf 3 sh. Der Kapitalist, der die verbesserte Produktionsweise anwendet, eignet sich daher einen größern Teil des Arbeitstags für die Mehrarbeit an als die übrigen Kapitalisten in demselben Geschäft. Er tut im einzelnen, was das Kapital bei der Produktion des relativen Mehrwerts im großen und ganzen tut. Andrerseits aber verschwindet jener Extramehrwert, sobald die neue Produktionsweise sich verallgemeinert und damit die Differenz zwischen dem individuellen Wert der wohlfeiler produzierten Waren und ihrem gesellschaftlichen Wert verschwindet. Dasselbe Gesetz der Wertbestimmung durch die Arbeitszeit, das dem Kapitalisten mit der neuen Methode in der Form fühlbar wird, daß er seine Ware unter ihrem gesellschaftlichen Wert verkaufen muß, treibt seine Mitbewerber als Zwangsgesetz der Konkurrenz zur Einführung der neuen Produktionsweise.⁴ Die allgemeine Rate des Mehrwerts wird also durch den ganzen Prozeß schließlich nur berührt, wenn die Erhöhung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit Produktionszweige ergriffen, also Waren verwohlfeilert hat, die in den Kreis der notwendigen Lebensmittel eingehn, daher Elemente des Werts der Arbeitskraft bilden.

the micro mechanism goes macro

Nevertheless, even in this case, the increased production of surplus-value springs from shortening necessary labour-time and drawing out the corresponding surplus-labour.

Let necessary labour-time be 10 hours, meaning the day's labour-power costs 5 shillings, with 2 hours of surplus-labour producing 1 shilling of surplus-value. But our capitalist now produces 24 articles, selling them at 10 pence each, or 20 shillings total. Since the value of the means of production is 12 shillings, it takes 14 2/5 articles just to replace the constant capital advanced. The 12-hour working day is represented by the remaining 9 3/5 articles.

Since the price of labour-power is 5 shillings, the necessary labour-time shows up in 6 articles, leaving 3 3/5 articles representing surplus-labour. The ratio of necessary labour to surplus-labour, which under average social conditions was 5 : 1, is now 5 : 3.

You reach the same result this way: the product of the 12-hour day is worth 20 shillings. Of that, 12 shillings belong to the means of production, a value merely re-appearing. That leaves 8 shillings as the money expression of the value newly created during the day. This is higher than the money expression of average social labour of the same kind, where 12 hours show up as only 6 shillings. Labour of exceptional productive power acts as labour raised to a higher power; it creates greater values in the same amount of time than average social labour of its kind.

But our capitalist still pays only 5 shillings for the day's labour-power. So instead of needing 10 hours to reproduce this value, the worker now needs only 7½ hours. Surplus-labour therefore grows by 2½ hours, and the surplus-value produced jumps from 1 shilling to 3.

The capitalist using the improved method appropriates a larger part of the working day for surplus-labour than his competitors in the same trade. He does in the single case what capital as a whole does on a grand scale in producing relative surplus-value.

On the other hand, that extra surplus-value vanishes the moment the new mode of production generalizes, because the gap between the individual value of the cheapened commodities and their social value disappears. The very same law that forces the innovating capitalist to sell below social value now acts as a coercive law of competition, driving his rivals to adopt the new method. The general rate of surplus-value is touched by this whole process only at the end—only when the rise in productive power has grabbed hold of industries that make necessities, thereby cheapening the elements that form the value of labour-power.

Der Wert der Waren steht in umgekehrtem Verhältnis zur Produktivkraft der Arbeit. Ebenso, weil durch Warenwerte bestimmt, der Wert der Arbeitskraft. Dagegen steht der relative Mehrwert in direktem Verhältnis zur Produktivkraft der Arbeit. Er steigt mit steigender und fällt mit fallender Produktivkraft. Ein gesellschaftlicher Durchschnittsarbeitstag von 12 Stunden, Geldwert als gleichbleibend vorausgesetzt, produziert stets dasselbe Wertprodukt von 6 sh., wie diese Wertsumme sich immer verteile zwischen Äquivalent für den Wert der Arbeitskraft und Mehrwert. Fällt aber infolge gesteigerter Produktivkraft der Wert der täglichen Lebensmittel und daher der Tageswert der Arbeitskraft von 5 sh. auf 3 sh., so wächst der Mehrwert von 1 sh. auf 3 sh. Um den Wert der Arbeitskraft zu reproduzieren, waren 10 und sind jetzt nur noch 6 Arbeitsstunden nötig. Vier Arbeitsstunden sind frei geworden und können der Domäne der Mehrarbeit annexiert werden. Es ist daher der immanente Trieb und die beständige Tendenz des Kapitals, die Produktivkraft der Arbeit zu steigern, um die Ware und durch die Verwohlfeilerung der Ware den Arbeiter selbst zu verwohlfeilern.⁵

the inverse ratio and capital's drive

The value of commodities is inversely related to the productive power of labour. The value of labour-power, being determined by commodity values, is also inversely related to it. Relative surplus-value, by contrast, is directly related to the productive power of labour. It rises when productive power rises, and falls when it falls.

Assuming the value of money stays steady, a 12-hour social working day always produces the exact same new value of 6 shillings, no matter how that sum splits between replacing the value of labour-power and providing surplus-value.

But if a rise in productive power cheapens daily necessities, and the daily value of labour-power thereby drops from 5 shillings to 3 shillings, surplus-value grows from 1 shilling to 3. To reproduce the value of labour-power, 10 hours were needed; now only 6 are needed. Four working hours are set free and annexed to the domain of surplus-labour.

Therefore it is capital's built-in, constant drive to raise the productive power of labour, in order to cheapen commodities—and through the cheapening of commodities, to cheapen the worker himself.

Der absolute Wert der Ware ist dem Kapitalisten, der sie produziert, an und für sich gleichgültig. Ihn interessiert nur der in ihr steckende und im Verkauf realisierbare Mehrwert. Realisierung von Mehrwert schließt von selbst Ersatz des vorgeschoßnen Werts ein. Da nun der relative Mehrwert in direktem Verhältnis zur Entwicklung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit wächst, während der Wert der Waren in umgekehrtem Verhältnis zur selben Entwicklung fällt, da also derselbe identische Prozeß die Waren verwohlfeilert und den in ihnen enthaltnen Mehrwert steigert, löst sich das Rätsel, daß der Kapitalist, dem es nur um die Produktion von Tauschwert zu tun ist, den Tauschwert der Waren beständig zu senken strebt, ein Widerspruch, womit einer der Gründer der politischen Ökonomie, Quesnay, seine Gegner quälte und worauf sie ihm die Antwort schuldig blieben.

Quesnay's riddle solved

The absolute value of a commodity means nothing in itself to the capitalist who produces it. He only cares about the surplus-value trapped inside it, which he can realize by selling it. Realizing that surplus-value naturally includes getting back the value he advanced in the first place.

Since relative surplus-value grows in direct proportion to the development of the productive power of labour, while the value of commodities falls in inverse proportion to that exact same development, one identical process both cheapens commodities and raises the surplus-value they contain.

This solves a riddle: why does the capitalist, who only cares about exchange-value, constantly strive to depress the exchange-value of commodities? It was a contradiction that Quesnay, one of the founders of political economy, used to torment his opponents, and they could never give him an answer.

"Ihr gebt zu", sagt Quesnay, "daß, je mehr man, ohne Nachteil für die Produktion, Kosten oder kostspielige Arbeiten in der Fabrikation industrieller Produkte ersparen kann, desto vorteilhafter diese Ersparung, weil sie den Preis des Machwerks vermindert. Und trotzdem glaubt ihr, daß die Produktion des Reichtums, der aus den Arbeiten der Industriellen herkommt, in der Vermehrung des Tauschwerts ihres Machwerks besteht."⁶

Quesnay's own words

"You admit," Quesnay said, "that the more one can save in expense or costly operations in the making of industrial products, without hurting production, the more advantageous that saving is, because it lowers the price of the finished work. And yet you believe that the production of the wealth derived from the labour of industry consists of increasing the exchange-value of their manufactured goods."

Ökonomie der Arbeit durch Entwicklung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit⁷ bezweckt in der kapitalistischen Produktion also durchaus nicht Verkürzung des Arbeitstags. Sie bezweckt nur Verkürzung der für Produktion eines bestimmten Warenquantums notwendigen Arbeitszeit. Daß der Arbeiter bei gesteigerter Produktivkraft seiner Arbeit in einer Stunde z.B. 10mal mehr Ware als früher produziert, also für jedes Stück Ware 10mal weniger Arbeitszeit braucht, verhindert durchaus nicht, ihn nach wie vor 12 Stunden arbeiten und in den 12 Stunden 1.200 statt früher 120 Stück produzieren zu lassen. Ja, sein Arbeitstag mag gleichzeitig verlängert werden, so daß er jetzt in 14 Stunden 1.400 Stück produziert usw. Man kann daher bei Ökonomen vom Schlag eines MacCulloch, Ure, Senior und tutti quanti auf einer Seite lesen, daß der Arbeiter dem Kapital für die Entwicklung der Produktivkräfte Dank schuldet, weil sie die notwendige Arbeitszeit verkürzt, und auf der nächsten Seite, daß er diesen Dank beweisen muß, indem er statt 10 künftig 15 Stunden arbeitet. Die Entwicklung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit, innerhalb der kapitalistischen Produktion, bezweckt, den Teil des Arbeitstags, den der Arbeiter für sich selbst arbeiten muß, zu verkürzen, um grade dadurch den andren Teil des Arbeitstags, den er für den Kapitalisten umsonst arbeiten kann, zu verlängern. Wieweit dies Resultat auch ohne Verwohlfeilerung der Waren erreichbar, wird sich zeigen in den besondren Produktionsmethoden des relativen Mehrwerts, zu deren Betrachtung wir jetzt übergehn.

sealing against the win-win reading

The saving of labour gained by developing its productive power does not aim to shorten the working day. It aims only to shorten the labour-time needed to produce a given quantity of goods. If a worker produces ten times as much in an hour as before, needing a tenth of the time for each article, that does not stop the capitalist from keeping them at work for 12 hours and making them turn out 1,200 articles instead of 120. The working day might even be lengthened, so the worker produces 1,400 articles in 14 hours.

So you can read writers like MacCulloch, Ure, Senior and the rest saying on one page that the worker owes capital a debt of gratitude for developing productive power, since it shortens necessary labour-time—and on the next page, that the worker must prove this gratitude by working 15 hours instead of 10.

Within capitalist production, developing the productive power of labour aims to shorten the part of the day the worker must spend labouring for themselves, purely in order to lengthen the other part of the day they spend working for free for the capitalist. How far this can be achieved without cheapening commodities will become clear in the specific methods of producing relative surplus-value, which we now turn to.

K.10

Chapter Twelve - The Concept of Relative Surplus Value

That portion of the working day which merely produces an equivalent for the value paid by the capitalist for his labour-power, has, up to this point, been treated by us as a constant magnitude, and such in fact it is, under given conditions of production and at a given stage in the economic development of society. Beyond this, his necessary labour-time, the labourer, we saw, could continue to work for 2, 3, 4, 6, &c., hours. The rate of surplus-value and the length of the working day depended on the magnitude of this prolongation. Though the necessary labour-time was constant, we saw, on the other hand, that the total working day was variable. Now suppose we have a working day whose length, and whose apportionment between necessary labour and surplus-labour, are given. Let the whole line a c, a—b—c represent, for example, a working day of 12 hours; the portion of a b 10 hours of necessary labour, and the portion b c 2 hours of surplus-labour. How now can the production of surplus-value be increased, i.e., how can the surplus-labour be prolonged, without, or independently of, any prolongation of a c?

fixed day, new question

Although the length of a c is given, b c appears to be capable of prolongation, if not by extension beyond its end c, which is also the end of the working day a c, yet, at all events, by pushing back its starting-point b in the direction of a. Assume that b'—b in the line ab'bc is equal to half of b c

a——b'—b—c

or to one hour’s labour-time. If now, in a c, the working day of 12 hours, we move the point b to b', b c becomes b' c; the surplus-labour increases by one half, from 2 hours to 3 hours, although the working day remains as before at 12 hours. This extension of the surplus labour-time from b c to b' c, from 2 hours to 3 hours, is, however, evidently impossible, without a simultaneous contraction of the necessary labour-time from a b into a b', from 10 hours to 9 hours. The prolongation of the surplus-labour would correspond to a shortening of the necessary labour; or a portion of the labour-time previously consumed, in reality, for the labourer’s own benefit, would be converted into labour-time for the benefit of the capitalist. There would be an alteration, not in the length of the working day, but in its division into necessary labour-time and surplus labour-time.

shifting the start-point backward

On the other hand, it is evident that the duration of the surplus-labour is given, when the length of the working day, and the value of labour-power, are given. The value of labour-power, i.e., the labour-time requisite to produce labour-power, determines the labour-time necessary for the reproduction of that value. If one working-hour be embodied in sixpence, and the value of a day’s labour-power be five shillings, the labourer must work 10 hours a day, in order to replace the value paid by capital for his labour-power, or to produce an equivalent for the value of his daily necessary means of subsistence. Given the value of these means of subsistence, the value of his labour-power is given; ¹ and given the value of his labour-power, the duration of his necessary labour-time is given. The duration of the surplus-labour, however, is arrived at, by subtracting the necessary labour-time from the total working day. Ten hours subtracted from twelve, leave two, and it is not easy to see, how, under the given conditions, the surplus-labour can possibly be prolonged beyond two hours. No doubt, the capitalist can, instead of five shillings, pay the labourer four shillings and sixpence or even less. For the reproduction of this value of four shillings and sixpence, nine hours’ labour-time would suffice; and consequently three hours of surplus-labour, instead of two, would accrue to the capitalist, and the surplus-value would rise from one shilling to eighteen-pence. This result, however, would be obtained only by lowering the wages of the labourer below the value of his labour-power. With the four shillings and sixpence which he produces in nine hours, he commands one-tenth less of the necessaries of life than before, and consequently the proper reproduction of his labour-power is crippled. The surplus-labour would in this case be prolonged only by an overstepping of its normal limits; its domain would be extended only by a usurpation of part of the domain of necessary labour-time. Despite the important part which this method plays in actual practice, we are excluded from considering it in this place, by our assumption, that all commodities, including labour-power, are bought and sold at their full value. Granted this, it follows that the labour-time necessary for the production of labour-power, or for the reproduction of its value, cannot be lessened by a fall in the labourer’s wages below the value of his labour-power, but only by a fall in this value itself. Given the length of the working day, the prolongation of the surplus-labour must of necessity originate in the curtailment of the necessary labour-time; the latter cannot arise from the former. In the example we have taken, it is necessary that the value of labour-power should actually fall by one-tenth, in order that the necessary labour-time may be diminished by one-tenth, i.e., from ten hours to nine, and in order that the surplus labour may consequently be prolonged from two hours to three.

wage-cut route excluded

Such a fall in the value of labour-power implies, however, that the same necessaries of life which were formerly produced in ten hours, can now be produced in nine hours. But this is impossible without an increase in the productiveness of labour. For example, suppose a shoe-maker, with given tools, makes in one working day of twelve hours, one pair of boots. If he must make two pairs in the same time, the productiveness of his labour must be doubled; and this cannot be done, except by an alteration in his tools or in his mode of working, or in both. Hence, the conditions of production, i.e., his mode of production, and the labour-process itself, must be revolutionised. By increase in the productiveness of labour, we mean, generally, an alteration in the labour-process, of such a kind as to shorten the labour-time socially necessary for the production of a commodity, and to endow a given quantity of labour with the power of producing a greater quantity of use-value. ² Hitherto in treating of surplus-value, arising from a simple prolongation of the working day, we have assumed the mode of production to be given and invariable. But when surplus-value has to be produced by the conversion of necessary labour into surplus-labour, it by no means suffices for capital to take over the labour-process in the form under which it has been historically handed down, and then simply to prolong the duration of that process. The technical and social conditions of the process, and consequently the very mode of production must be revolutionised, before the productiveness of labour can be increased. By that means alone can the value of labour-power be made to sink, and the portion of the working day necessary for the reproduction of that value, be shortened.

revolutionizing the mode of production

The surplus-value produced by prolongation of the working day, I call absolute surplus-value. On the other hand, the surplus-value arising from the curtailment of the necessary labour-time, and from the corresponding alteration in the respective lengths of the two components of the working day, I call relative surplus-value.

absolute and relative surplus-value named

In order to effect a fall in the value of labour-power, the increase in the productiveness of labour must seize upon those branches of industry whose products determine the value of labour-power, and consequently either belong to the class of customary means of subsistence, or are capable of supplying the place of those means. But the value of a commodity is determined, not only by the quantity of labour which the labourer directly bestows upon that commodity, but also by the labour contained in the means of production. For instance, the value of a pair of boots depends not only on the cobbler’s labour, but also on the value of the leather, wax, thread, &c. Hence, a fall in the value of labour-power is also brought about by an increase in the productiveness of labour, and by a corresponding cheapening of commodities in those industries which supply the instruments of labour and the raw material, that form the material elements of the constant capital required for producing the necessaries of life. But an increase in the productiveness of labour in those branches of industry which supply neither the necessaries of life, nor the means of production for such necessaries, leaves the value of labour-power undisturbed.

the wage-goods condition

But if a branch of production makes neither necessities nor the means to make them, a rise in its productive power leaves the value of labour-power completely untouched.

The cheapened commodity, of course, causes only a pro tanto fall in the value of labour-power, a fall proportional to the extent of that commodity’s employment in the reproduction of labour-power. Shirts, for instance, are a necessary means of subsistence, but are only one out of many. The totality of the necessaries of life consists, however, of various commodities, each the product of a distinct industry; and the value of each of those commodities enters as a component part into the value of labour-power. This latter value decreases with the decrease of the labour-time necessary for its reproduction; the total decrease being the sum of all the different curtailments of labour-time effected in those various and distinct industries. This general result is treated, here, as if it were the immediate result directly aimed at in each individual case. Whenever an individual capitalist cheapens shirts, for instance, by increasing the productiveness of labour he by no means necessarily aims at reducing the value of labour-power and shortening, pro tanto the necessary labour-time. But it is only in so far as he ultimately contributes to this result, that he assists in raising the general rate of surplus-value. ³ The general and necessary tendencies of capital must be distinguished from their forms of manifestation.

appearance versus essence

Capital's general, necessary tendencies must be kept separate from the forms in which they appear.

It is not our intention to consider, here, the way in which the laws, immanent in capitalist production, manifest themselves in the movements of individual masses of capital, where they assert themselves as coercive laws of competition, and are brought home to the mind and consciousness of the individual capitalist as the directing motives of his operations. But this much is clear; a scientific analysis of competition is not possible, before we have a conception of the inner nature of capital, just as the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies are not intelligible to any but him, who is acquainted with their real motions, motions which are not directly perceptible by the senses. Nevertheless, for the better comprehension of the production of relative surplus-value, we may add the following remarks, in which we assume nothing more than the results we have already obtained.

competition enforces, does not cause

Still, purely on the basis of what we have already worked out, we can note the following to help make sense of how relative surplus-value is produced.

If one hour’s labour is embodied in sixpence, a value of six shillings will be produced in a working day of 12 hours. Suppose, that with the prevailing productiveness of labour, 12 articles are produced in these 12 hours. Let the value of the means of production used up in each article be sixpence. Under these circumstances, each article costs one shilling: sixpence for the value of the means of production, and sixpence for the value newly added in working with those means. Now let some one capitalist contrive to double the productiveness of labour, and to produce in the working day of 12 hours, 24 instead of 12 such articles. The value of the means of production remaining the same, the value of each article will fall to ninepence, made up of sixpence for the value of the means of production and threepence for the value newly added by the labour. Despite the doubled productiveness of labour, the day’s labour creates, as before, a new value of six shillings and no more, which, however, is now spread over twice as many articles. Of this value each article now has embodied in it 1/24th, instead of 1/12th, threepence instead of sixpence; or, what amounts to the same thing, only half an hour’s instead of a whole hour’s labour-time, is now added to the means of production while they are being transformed into each article. The individual value of these articles is now below their social value; in other words, they have cost less labour-time than the great bulk of the same article produced under the average social conditions. Each article costs, on an average, one shilling, and represents 2 hours of social labour; but under the altered mode of production it costs only ninepence, or contains only 1½ hours’ labour. The real value of a commodity is, however, not its individual value, but its social value; that is to say, the real value is not measured by the labour-time that the article in each individual case costs the producer, but by the labour-time socially required for its production. If therefore, the capitalist who applies the new method, sells his commodity at its social value of one shilling, he sells it for threepence above its individual value, and thus realises an extra surplus-value of threepence. On the other hand, the working day of 12 hours is, as regards him, now represented by 24 articles instead of 12. Hence, in order to get rid of the product of one working day, the demand must be double what it was, i.e., the market must become twice as extensive. Other things being equal, his commodities can command a more extended market only by a diminution of their prices. He will therefore sell them above their individual but under their social value, say at tenpence each. By this means he still squeezes an extra surplus-value of one penny out of each. This augmentation of surplus-value is pocketed by him, whether his commodities belong or not to the class of necessary means of subsistence that participate in determining the general value of labour-power. Hence, independently of this latter circumstance, there is a motive for each individual capitalist to cheapen his commodities, by increasing the productiveness of labour.

extra surplus-value: no cheating

Nevertheless, even in this case, the increased production of surplus-value arises from the curtailment of the necessary labour-time, and from the corresponding prolongation of the surplus-labour. ⁴ Let the necessary labour-time amount to 10 hours, the value of a day’s labour-power to five shillings, the surplus labour-time to 2 hours, and the daily surplus-value to one shilling. But the capitalist now produces 24 articles, which he sells at tenpence a-piece, making twenty shillings in all. Since the value of the means of production is twelve shillings, 14 2/5 of these articles merely replace the constant capital advanced. The labour of the 12 hours’ working day is represented by the remaining 9 3/5 articles. Since the price of the labour-power is five shillings, 6 articles represent the necessary labour-time, and 3 3/5 articles the surplus-labour. The ratio of the necessary labour to the surplus-labour, which under average social conditions was 5:1, is now only 5:3. The same result may be arrived at in the following way. The value of the product of the working day of 12 hours is twenty shillings. Of this sum, twelve shillings belong to the value of the means of production, a value that merely re-appears. There remain eight shillings, which are the expression in money, of the value newly created during the working day. This sum is greater than the sum in which average social labour of the same kind is expressed: twelve hours of the latter labour are expressed by six shillings only. The exceptionally productive labour operates as intensified labour; it creates in equal periods of time greater values than average social labour of the same kind. (See Ch. I. Sect 2. p. 44.) But our capitalist still continues to pay as before only five shillings as the value of a day’s labour-power. Hence, instead of 10 hours, the labourer need now work only 7½ hours, in order to reproduce this value. His surplus-labour is, therefore, increased by 2½ hours, and the surplus-value he produces grows from one, into three shillings. Hence, the capitalist who applies the improved method of production, appropriates to surplus-labour a greater portion of the working day, than the other capitalists in the same trade. He does individually, what the whole body of capitalists engaged in producing relative surplus-value, do collectively. On the other hand, however, this extra surplus-value vanishes, so soon as the new method of production has become general, and has consequently caused the difference between the individual value of the cheapened commodity and its social value to vanish. The law of the determination of value by labour-time, a law which brings under its sway the individual capitalist who applies the new method of production, by compelling him to sell his goods under their social value, this same law, acting as a coercive law of competition, forces his competitors to adopt the new method. ⁵ The general rate of surplus-value is, therefore, ultimately affected by the whole process, only when the increase in the productiveness of labour, has seized upon those branches of production that are connected with, and has cheapened those commodities that form part of, the necessary means of subsistence, and are therefore elements of the value of labour-power.

the micro mechanism goes macro

Nevertheless, even in this case, the increased production of surplus-value springs from shortening necessary labour-time and drawing out the corresponding surplus-labour.

The value of commodities is in inverse ratio to the productiveness of labour. And so, too, is the value of labour-power, because it depends on the values of commodities. Relative surplus-value is, on the contrary, directly proportional to that productiveness. It rises with rising and falls with falling productiveness. The value of money being assumed to be constant, an average social working day of 12 hours always produces the same new value, six shillings, no matter how this sum may be apportioned between surplus-value and wages. But if, in consequence of increased productiveness, the value of the necessaries of life fall, and the value of a day’s labour-power be thereby reduced from five shillings to three, the surplus-value increases from one shilling to three. Ten hours were necessary for the reproduction of the value of the labour-power; now only six are required. Four hours have been set free, and can be annexed to the domain of surplus-labour. Hence there is immanent in capital an inclination and constant tendency, to heighten the productiveness of labour, in order to cheapen commodities, and by such cheapening to cheapen the labourer himself. ⁶

the inverse ratio and capital's drive

Therefore it is capital's built-in, constant drive to raise the productive power of labour, in order to cheapen commodities—and through the cheapening of commodities, to cheapen the worker himself.

The value of a commodity is, in itself, of no interest to the capitalist. What alone interests him, is the surplus-value that dwells in it, and is realisable by sale. Realisation of the surplus-value necessarily carries with it the refunding of the value that was advanced. Now, since relative surplus-value increases in direct proportion to the development of the productiveness of labour, while, on the other hand, the value of commodities diminishes in the same proportion; since one and the same process cheapens commodities, and augments the surplus-value contained in them; we have here the solution of the riddle: why does the capitalist, whose sole concern is the production of exchange-value, continually strive to depress the exchange-value of commodities? A riddle with which Quesnay, one of the founders of Political Economy, tormented his opponents, and to which they could give him no answer.

Quesnay's riddle solved

“You acknowledge,” he says, “that the more expenses and the cost of labour can, in the manufacture of industrial products, be reduced without injury to production, the more advantageous is such reduction, because it diminishes the price of the finished article. And yet, you believe that the production of wealth, which arises from the labour of the workpeople, consists in the augmentation of the exchange-value of their products.” ⁷

Quesnay's own words

The shortening of the working day is, therefore, by no means what is aimed at, in capitalist production, when labour is economised by increasing its productiveness. ⁸ It is only the shortening of the labour-time, necessary for the production of a definite quantity of commodities, that is aimed at. The fact that the workman, when the productiveness of his labour has been increased, produces, say 10 times as many commodities as before, and thus spends one-tenth as much labour-time on each, by no means prevents him from continuing to work 12 hours as before, nor from producing in those 12 hours 1,200 articles instead of 120. Nay, more, his working day may be prolonged at the same time, so as to make him produce, say 1,400 articles in 14 hours. In the treatises, therefore, of economists of the stamp of MacCulloch, Ure, Senior, and tutti quanti [the like], we may read upon one page, that the labourer owes a debt of gratitude to capital for developing his productiveness, because the necessary labour-time is thereby shortened, and on the next page, that he must prove his gratitude by working in future for 15 hours instead of 10. The object of all development of the productiveness of labour, within the limits of capitalist production, is to shorten that part of the working day, during which the workman must labour for his own benefit, and by that very shortening, to lengthen the other part of the day, during which he is at liberty to work gratis for the capitalist. How far this result is also attainable, without cheapening commodities, will appear from an examination of the particular modes of producing relative surplus-value, to which examination we now proceed.

sealing against the win-win reading