Das Kapital — Kap. 14 · semantic zoom

§1

Produktive Arbeit und Gesamtarbeiter

Chapter 13 closed with capitalist production developing technique only by simultaneously undermining earth and worker. Chapter 14 begins the reckoning of how capital takes hold of the labour-process itself. Its first move does not yet name a new mechanism of control; it establishes the changing meaning of productive labour, so that neither useful work nor direct manual work can stand in for the capitalist surplus-value criterion.

Der Arbeitsprozeß wurde (sieh fünftes Kapitel) zunächst abstrakt betrachtet, unabhängig von seinen geschichtlichen Formen, als Prozeß zwischen Mensch und Natur. Es hieß dort: "Betrachtet man den ganzen Arbeitsprozeß vom Standpunkt seines Resultats, so erscheinen beide, Arbeitsmittel und Arbeitsgegenstand, als Produktionsmittel und die Arbeit selbst als produktive Arbeit." Und in Note 7 wurde ergänzt: "Diese Bestimmung produktiver Arbeit, wie sie sich vom Standpunkt des einfachen Arbeitsprozesses ergibt, reicht keineswegs hin für den kapitalistischen Produktionsprozeß." Dies ist hier weiter zu entwickeln.

An earlier definition, limited

Earlier, the labour-process was considered in the abstract, apart from its historical forms, as a process between people and nature. From the standpoint of its result, tools and materials are means of production, and labour itself is productive labour. But that definition, drawn from the simple labour-process, is not enough for capitalist production. This must now be developed further.

Soweit der Arbeitsprozeß ein rein individueller, vereinigt derselbe Arbeiter alle Funktionen, die sich später trennen. In der individuellen Aneignung von Naturgegenständen zu seinen Lebenszwecken kontrolliert er sich selbst. Später wird er kontrolliert. Der einzelne Mensch kann nicht auf die Natur wirken ohne Betätigung seiner eignen Muskeln unter Kontrolle seines eignen Hirns. Wie im Natursystem Kopf und Hand zusammengehören, vereint der Arbeitsprozeß Kopfarbeit und Handarbeit. Später scheiden sie sich bis zum feindlichen Gegensatz. Das Produkt verwandelt sich überhaupt aus dem unmittelbaren Produkt des individuellen Produzenten in ein gesellschaftliches, in das gemeinsame Produkt eines Gesamtarbeiters, d.h. eines kombinierten Arbeitspersonals, dessen Glieder der Handhabung des Arbeitsgegenstandes näher oder ferner stehn. Mit dem kooperativen Charakter des Arbeitsprozesses selbst erweitert sich daher notwendig der Begriff der produktiven Arbeit und ihres Trägers, des produktiven Arbeiters. Um produktiv zu arbeiten, ist es nun nicht mehr nötig, selbst Hand anzulegen; es genügt, Organ des Gesamtarbeiters zu sein, irgendeine seiner Unterfunktionen zu vollziehn. Die obige ursprüngliche Bestimmung der produktiven Arbeit, aus der Natur der materiellen Produktion selbst abgeleitet, bleibt immer wahr für den Gesamtarbeiter, als Gesamtheit betrachtet. Aber sie gilt nicht mehr für jedes seiner Glieder, einzeln genommen.

The collective labourer

When the labour-process is individual, one worker performs all the functions that later become divided. In taking natural things for their livelihood, people control themselves; later they are controlled by others. No one works on nature without using their muscles under the control of their brain. Mental and manual work belong together in the labour-process, as head and hand do in the body; later they separate and become hostile opponents. The product then stops being simply the product of one producer. It becomes a social product made in common by a collective labourer: a combined body of workers, whose members stand nearer to or farther from handling the object of work. As labour becomes cooperative, productive labour and the productive labourer must be understood more widely. A person need not personally do manual work; it can be enough to perform one subordinate function of the collective labourer. The original definition from material production remains true of the collective labourer as a whole, but not of every member separately.

Andrerseits aber verengt sich der Begriff der produktiven Arbeit. Die kapitalistische Produktion ist nicht nur Produktion von Ware, sie ist wesentlich Produktion von Mehrwert. Der Arbeiter produziert nicht für sich, sondern für das Kapital. Es genügt daher nicht länger, daß er überhaupt produziert. Er muß Mehrwert produzieren. Nur der Arbeiter ist produktiv, der Mehrwert für den Kapitalisten produziert oder zur Selbstverwertung des Kapitals dient. Steht es frei, ein Beispiel außerhalb der Sphäre der materiellen Produktion zu wählen, so ist ein Schulmeister produktiver Arbeiter, wenn er nicht nur Kinderköpfe bearbeitet, sondern sich selbst abarbeitet zur Bereicherung des Unternehmers. Daß letztrer sein Kapital in einer Lehrfabrik angelegt hat, statt in einer Wurstfabrik, ändert nichts an dem Verhältnis. Der Begriff des produktiven Arbeiters schließt daher keineswegs bloß ein Verhältnis zwischen Tätigkeit und Nutzeffekt, zwischen Arbeiter und Arbeitsprodukt ein, sondern auch ein spezifisch gesellschaftliches, geschichtlich entstandnes Produktionsverhältnis, welches den Arbeiter zum unmittelbaren Verwertungsmittel des Kapitals stempelt. Produktiver Arbeiter zu sein ist daher kein Glück, sondern ein Pech. Im Vierten Buch dieser Schrift, welches die Geschichte der Theorie behandelt, wird man näher sehn, daß die klassische politische Ökonomie von jeher die Produktion von Mehrwert zum entscheidenden Charakter des produktiven Arbeiters machte. Mit ihrer Auffassung von der Natur des Mehrwerts wechselt daher ihre Definition des produktiven Arbeiters. So erklären die Physiokraten, nur die Ackerbauarbeit sei produktiv, weil sie allein einen Mehrwert liefre. Für die Physiokraten existiert Mehrwert aber ausschließlich in der Form der Grundrente.

The capitalist test

At the same time, productive labour becomes a narrower idea. Capitalist production is not merely production of commodities; it is essentially production of surplus-value. The labourer works not for themselves but for capital. Simply producing is no longer enough: they must produce surplus-value. A productive labourer is one who produces it for the capitalist and so serves capital’s self-expansion. A schoolmaster can therefore be a productive labourer when, besides working on the heads of his pupils, he works himself to exhaustion to enrich the school proprietor. It makes no difference to the relation whether that proprietor has invested in a teaching factory or in a sausage factory. A productive labourer is not defined merely by work and useful effect, or by worker and product. The term names a specific, historically formed social relation that stamps the labourer as capital’s direct means of expansion. To be a productive labourer is not good luck but bad luck. A planned fourth book is to examine the history of this theory. Classical political economy made the production of surplus-value the distinguishing mark of the productive labourer, so its definition changed with its view of surplus-value. The Physiocrats, for example, said only agricultural labour was productive because only it yielded surplus-value. For them, surplus-value existed only as ground-rent.

§2

Absoluter und relativer Mehrwert; formelle und reelle Subsumtion

With productive labour tied to capital’s surplus-value relation, Chapter 14 turns from who serves capital’s expansion to how that expansion is increased. The next movement names longer-day extraction and transformed production, then prevents their linkage from hardening into a simple period story.

Die Verlängrung des Arbeitstags über den Punkt hinaus, wo der Arbeiter nur ein Äquivalent für den Wert seiner Arbeitskraft produziert hätte, und die Aneignung dieser Mehrarbeit durch das Kapital - das ist die Produktion des absoluten Mehrwerts. Sie bildet die allgemeine Grundlage des kapitalistischen Systems und den Ausgangspunkt der Produktion des relativen Mehrwerts. Bei dieser ist der Arbeitstag von vornherein in zwei Stücke geteilt: notwendige Arbeit und Mehrarbeit. Um die Mehrarbeit zu verlängern, wird die notwendige Arbeit verkürzt durch Methoden, vermittelst deren das Äquivalent des Arbeitslohns in weniger Zeit produziert wird. Die Produktion des absoluten Mehrwerts dreht sich nur um die Länge des Arbeitstags; die Produktion des relativen Mehrwerts revolutioniert durch und durch die technischen Prozesse der Arbeit und die gesellschaftlichen Gruppierungen.

Two ways of increasing surplus-value

Absolute surplus-value is produced when capital extends the working day beyond the time in which labourers produce an equivalent for the value of their labour-power, and then takes the extra labour. It is the general ground of the capitalist system and the starting-point for relative surplus-value. Relative surplus-value assumes that the day is already divided into necessary labour and surplus-labour. It increases the surplus part by reducing the time needed to produce the equivalent of wages. Absolute surplus-value works on the day’s length; relative surplus-value thoroughly changes the technical processes of labour and its social groupings.

Sie unterstellt also eine spezifisch kapitalistische Produktionsweise, die mit ihren Methoden, Mitteln und Bedingungen selbst erst auf Grundlage der formellen Subsumtion der Arbeit unter das Kapital naturwüchsig entsteht und ausgebildet wird. An die Stelle der formellen tritt die reelle Subsumtion der Arbeit unter das Kapital.

From formal to real subsumption

Relative surplus-value therefore requires a specifically capitalist way of producing. Its methods, means, and conditions arise and develop on the basis of formal subsumption of labour under capital. As that development proceeds, formal subsumption is replaced by real subsumption.

Es genügt bloßer Hinweis auf Zwitterformen, worin die Mehrarbeit weder durch direkten Zwang dem Produzenten ausgepumpt wird, noch auch dessen formelle Unterordnung unter das Kapital eingetreten ist. Das Kapital hat sich hier noch nicht unmittelbar des Arbeitsprozesses bemächtigt. Neben die selbständigen Produzenten, die in überlieferter, urväterlicher Betriebsweise handwerkern oder ackerbauen, tritt der Wucherer oder Kaufmann, das Wucherkapital oder das Handelskapital, das sie parasitenmäßig aussaugt. Vorherrschaft dieser Exploitationsform in einer Gesellschaft schließt die kapitalistische Produktionsweise aus, zu der sie andrerseits, wie im spätren Mittelalter, den Übergang bilden kann. Endlich, wie das Beispiel der modernen Hausarbeit zeigt, werden gewisse Zwitterformen auf dem Hintergrund der großen Industrie stellenweis reproduziert, wenn auch mit gänzlich veränderter Physiognomie.

Exploitation without direct control

Some intermediate forms need only be mentioned. Producers are neither directly compelled to yield surplus-labour nor formally subsumed under capital, and capital has not yet directly controlled their labour-process. Independent artisans and agricultural producers continue in traditional old-fashioned ways while the usurer or merchant, through usury or merchant’s capital, feeds on them like a parasite. The dominance of that form of exploitation excludes the capitalist mode of production, though it may form a transition toward it, as it did toward the close of the Middle Ages. Modern domestic industry can reproduce some such intermediate forms in the background of Modern Industry, but with a completely changed character.

Wenn zur Produktion des absoluten Mehrwerts die bloß formelle Subsumtion der Arbeit unter das Kapital genügt, z.B. daß Handwerker, die früher für sich selbst oder auch als Gesellen eines Zunftmeisters arbeiteten, nun als Lohnarbeiter unter die direkte Kontrolle des Kapitalisten treten, zeigt sich andrerseits, wie die Methoden zur Produktion des relativen Mehrwerts zugleich Methoden zur Produktion des absoluten Mehrwerts sind. Ja, die maßlose Verlängrung des Arbeitstags stellte sich als eigenstes Produkt der großen Industrie dar. Überhaupt hört die spezifisch kapitalistische Produktionsweise auf, bloßes Mittel zur Produktion des relativen Mehrwerts zu sein, sobald sie sich eines ganzen Produktionszweigs, und noch mehr, sobald sie sich aller entscheidenden Produktionszweige bemächtigt hat. Sie wird jetzt allgemeine, gesellschaftlich herrschende Form des Produktionsprozesses. Als besondre Methode zur Produktion des relativen Mehrwerts wirkt sie nur noch, erstens soweit sie dem Kapital bisher nur formell untergeordnete Industrien ergreift, also in ihrer Propaganda. Zweitens, soweit ihr bereits anheimgefallne Industrien fortwährend revolutioniert werden durch Wechsel der Produktionsmethoden.

Overlapping methods, ongoing change

Formal subsumption alone is enough for absolute surplus-value. Artisans who once worked for themselves, or as journeymen of a guild-master, can become wage-labourers under a capitalist’s direct control. Yet methods for producing relative surplus-value are at the same time methods for producing absolute surplus-value. Modern Industry’s own distinctive product was the excessive extension of the working day. Once the specifically capitalist mode of production has taken over an entire branch, and then the decisive branches, it is no longer merely a special means of producing relative surplus-value. It becomes the general, socially dominant form of production. It still works as a special means of producing relative surplus-value when it takes over industries that were previously only formally subsumed and when it repeatedly changes production methods in industries it has already taken over.

Von gewissem Gesichtspunkt scheint der Unterschied zwischen absolutem und relativem Mehrwert überhaupt illusorisch. Der relative Mehrwert ist absolut, denn er bedingt absolute Verlängrung des Arbeitstags über die zur Existenz des Arbeiters selbst notwendige Arbeitszeit. Der absolute Mehrwert ist relativ, denn er bedingt eine Entwicklung der Arbeitsproduktivität, welche erlaubt, die notwendige Arbeitszeit auf einen Teil des Arbeitstags zu beschränken. Faßt man aber die Bewegung des Mehrwerts ins Auge, so verschwindet dieser Schein der Einerleiheit. Sobald die kapitalistische Produktionsweise einmal hergestellt und allgemeine Produktionsweise geworden, macht sich der Unterschied zwischen absolutem und relativem Mehrwert fühlbar, sobald es gilt, die Rate des Mehrwerts überhaupt zu steigern. Vorausgesetzt, die Arbeitskraft werde zu ihrem Wert bezahlt, stehn wir dann vor dieser Alternative: Die Produktivkraft der Arbeit und ihren Normalgrad von Intensität gegeben, ist die Rate des Mehrwerts nur erhöhbar durch absolute Verlängrung des Arbeitstags; andrerseits, bei gegebner Grenze des Arbeitstags, ist die Rate des Mehrwerts nur erhöhbar durch relativen Größenwechsel seiner Bestandteile, der notwendigen Arbeit und der Mehrarbeit, was seinerseits, soll der Lohn nicht unter den Wert der Arbeitskraft sinken, Wechsel in der Produktivität oder Intensität der Arbeit voraussetzt.

A practical alternative

From one standpoint, the difference between absolute and relative surplus-value seems illusory. Relative surplus-value is “absolute” because it requires a working day that extends beyond the labour-time needed for the labourer’s own existence. Absolute surplus-value is “relative” because it requires productive development sufficient to confine necessary labour-time to part of the day. But when we follow the movement of surplus-value, that appearance of identity vanishes. Once the capitalist mode of production is established and general, the difference matters whenever the rate of surplus-value is to be raised. If labour-power is paid at its value, the choice is this: with the productive power of labour and normal intensity given, the rate can rise only through a longer working day. With the day’s length given, it can rise only by changing the relative sizes of necessary and surplus labour; if wages are not to fall below the value of labour-power, that requires a change in the productive power of labour or in intensity.

§3

Naturbasis, Naturbedingungen und geschichtliche Produktivität

The preceding movement separated the routes by which capital enlarges surplus-value. This movement blocks a different shortcut: productive conditions can alter the time needed for subsistence, but they neither create capital’s relation nor explain the source of its gain. The next movement turns to political economy’s account of that source.

Braucht der Arbeiter alle seine Zeit, um die zur Erhaltung seiner selbst und seiner Race nötigen Lebensmittel zu produzieren, so bleibt ihm keine Zeit, um unentgeltlich für dritte Personen zu arbeiten. Ohne einen gewissen Produktivitätsgrad der Arbeit keine solche disponible Zeit für den Arbeiter, ohne solche überschüssige Zeit keine Mehrarbeit und daher keine Kapitalisten, aber auch keine Sklavenhalter, keine Feudalbarone, in einem Wort keine Großbesitzerklasse.¹

Time beyond necessity

If the labourer needs all their time to produce the means of subsistence for themselves and their race, no time remains to work without payment for other people. Without a certain productive power of labour, there is no such spare time; without it, no surplus-labour, and therefore no capitalists, slave-owners, feudal lords, or class of large proprietors. [1]

So kann von einer Naturbasis des Mehrwerts gesprochen werden, aber nur in dem ganz allgemeinen Sinn, daß kein absolutes Naturhindernis den einen abhält, die zu seiner eignen Existenz nötige Arbeit von sich selbst ab- und einem andern aufzuwälzen, z.B. ebensowenig wie absolute Naturhindernisse die einen abhalten, das Fleisch der andern als Nahrung zu verwenden.^1a Es sind durchaus nicht, wie es hier und da geschehn, mystische Vorstellungen mit dieser naturwüchsigen Produktivität der Arbeit zu verbinden. Nur sobald die Menschen sich aus ihren ersten Tierzuständen herausgearbeitet, ihre Arbeit selbst also schon in gewissem Grad vergesellschaftet ist, treten Verhältnisse ein, worin die Mehrarbeit des einen zur Existenzbedingung des andern wird. In den Kulturanfängen sind die erworbnen Produktivkräfte der Arbeit gering, aber so sind die Bedürfnisse, die sich mit und an den Mitteln ihrer Befriedigung entwickeln. Ferner ist in jenen Anfängen die Proportion der Gesellschaftsteile, die von fremder Arbeit leben, verschwindend klein gegen die Masse der unmittelbaren Produzenten. Mit dem Fortschritt der gesellschaftlichen Produktivkraft der Arbeit wächst diese Proportion absolut und relativ.² Das Kapitalverhältnis entspringt übrigens auf einem ökonomischen Boden, der das Produkt eines langen Entwicklungsprozesses ist. Die vorhandne Produktivität der Arbeit, wovon es als Grundlage ausgeht, ist nicht Gabe der Natur, sondern einer Geschichte, die Tausende von Jahrhunderten umfaßt.

A limited natural basis

We may speak of a natural basis of surplus-value only in the very general sense that no absolute obstacle prevents one person from unloading the labour needed for their own existence onto another—just as no absolute obstacle prevents one person from eating another’s flesh. A recent calculation places at least 4,000,000 cannibals in explored parts of the earth. [2] No mystical idea belongs to the productivity that grows naturally. Only once people have risen above their first animal condition, and labour has become social to some degree, do relations arise in which one person’s surplus-labour becomes another’s condition of existence. At the beginnings of civilisation, acquired productive powers are small, but so are needs; the part of society living on others’ labour is also tiny beside the mass of direct producers. As the social productive power of labour advances, that part grows both absolutely and relatively. One cited comparison gives labour 99 parts out of 100 among “wild Indians in America,” while in England the labourer may not have even 2/3. [3] The capital relation also grows from an economic ground formed through a long process of development. The productive power from which it begins is not a gift of nature, but the gift of a history embracing thousands of centuries.

Von der mehr oder minder entwickelten Gestalt der gesellschaftlichen Produktion abgesehn, bleibt die Produktivität der Arbeit an Naturbedingungen gebunden. Sie sind alle rückführbar auf die Natur des Menschen selbst, wie Race usw., und die ihn umgebende Natur. Die äußeren Naturbedingungen zerfallen ökonomisch in zwei große Klassen, natürlichen Reichtum an Lebensmitteln, also Bodenfruchtbarkeit, fischreiche Gewässer usw., und natürlichen Reichtum an Arbeitsmitteln, wie lebendige Wassergefälle, schiffbare Flüsse, Holz, Metalle, Kohle usw. In den Kulturanfängen gibt die erstere, auf höherer Entwicklungsstufe die zweite Art des natürlichen Reichtums den Ausschlag. Man vergleiche z.B. England mit Indien oder, in der antiken Welt, Athen und Korinth mit den Uferländern des Schwarzen Meeres.

Conditions of productive power

Whatever the level of social production, the productive power of labour remains tied to physical conditions. These include the human constitution itself, including race, and the surrounding world. External conditions divide into two economic kinds: wealth in means of subsistence, such as fruitful soil and waters rich in fish; and wealth in means of labour, such as waterfalls, navigable rivers, wood, metals, and coal. At the dawn of civilisation, the first kind carries more weight; at a higher level of development, the second does. England and India, and in antiquity Athens and Corinth compared with the shores of the Black Sea, are examples.

Je geringer die Zahl der absolut zu befriedigenden Naturbedürfnisse und je größer die natürliche Bodenfruchtbarkeit und Gunst des Klimas, desto geringer die zur Erhaltung und Reproduktion des Produzenten notwendige Arbeitszeit. Desto größer kann also der Überschuß seiner Arbeit für andere über seine Arbeit für sich selbst sein. So bemerkt schon Diodor über die alten Ägypter:

Less necessary labour

The fewer natural needs that must be met, and the greater the favourableness of the soil and climate, the less labour-time is needed to maintain and reproduce the producer. The excess of labour for others over labour for oneself can therefore be larger. Diodorus already remarks on this in relation to the ancient Egyptians.

"Es ist ganz unglaublich, wie wenig Mühe und Kosten die Erziehung ihrer Kinder ihnen verursacht. Sie kochen ihnen die nächste beste einfache Speise; auch geben sie ihnen von der Papierstaude den untern Teil zu essen, soweit man ihn im Feuer rösten kann, und die Wurzeln und Stengel der Sumpfgewächse, teils roh, teils gesotten und gebraten. Die meisten Kinder gehn ohne Schuhe und unbekleidet, da die Luft so mild ist. Daher kostet ein Kind seinen Eltern, bis es erwachsen ist, im ganzen nicht über zwanzig Drachmen. Hieraus ist es hauptsächlich zu erklären, daß in Ägypten die Bevölkerung so zahlreich ist und darum so viele große Werke angelegt werden konnten."³

Diodorus on child-rearing

Diodorus reports that raising children costs the ancient Egyptians remarkably little trouble and expense. They give children the first simple food at hand: roasted lower papyrus stem, and roots and stalks of marsh plants, raw, boiled, or roasted. Most children go barefoot and unclothed because the air is mild. A child costs its parents no more than twenty drachmas until grown; this, he says, chiefly explains Egypt’s large population and the many great works it could undertake. [4]

Indes sind die großen Bauwerke des alten Ägyptens dem Umfang seiner Bevölkerung weniger geschuldet, als der großen Proportion, worin sie disponibel war. Wie der individuelle Arbeiter um so mehr Mehrarbeit liefern kann, je geringer seine notwendige Arbeitszeit, so, je geringer der zur Produktion der notwendigen Lebensmittel erheischte Teil der Arbeiterbevökerung, desto größer ihr für andres Werk disponibler Teil.

The disposable share

Ancient Egypt’s great structures are owed less to the size of its population than to the large proportion of it that was freely disposable. Just as an individual labourer can provide more surplus-labour when necessary labour-time is shorter, so a working population has more people available for other work when fewer are required to produce necessary means of subsistence.

Die kapitalistische Produktion einmal vorausgesetzt, wird, unter sonst gleichbleibenden Umständen und bei gegebner Länge des Arbeitstags, die Größe der Mehrarbeit mit den Naturbedingungen der Arbeit, namentlich auch der Bodenfruchtbarkeit, variieren. Es folgt aber keineswegs umgekehrt, daß der fruchtbarste Boden der geeignetste zum Wachstum der kapitalistischen Produktionsweise. Sie unterstellt Herrschaft des Menschen über die Natur. Eine zu verschwenderische Natur "hält ihn an ihrer Hand wie ein Kind am Gängelband". Sie macht seine eigne Entwicklung nicht zu einer Naturnotwendigkeit.⁴ Nicht das tropische Klima mit seiner überwuchernden Vegetation, sondern die gemäßigte Zone ist das Mutterland des Kapitals. Es ist nicht die absolute Fruchtbarkeit des Bodens, sondern seine Differenzierung, die Mannigfaltigkeit seiner natürlichen Produkte, welche die Naturgrundlage der gesellschaftlichen Teilung der Arbeit bildet und den Menschen durch den Wechsel der Naturumstände, innerhalb deren er haust, zur Vermannigfachung seiner eignen Bedürfnisse, Fähigkeiten, Arbeitsmittel und Arbeitsweisen spornt. Die Notwendigkeit, eine Naturkraft gesellschaftlich zu kontrollieren, damit hauszuhalten, sie durch Werke von Menschenhand auf großem Maßstab erst anzueignen oder zu zähmen, spielt die entscheidendste Rolle in der Geschichte der Industrie. So z.B. die Wasserreglung in Ägypten⁵, Lombardei, Holland usw. Oder in Indien, Persien usw., wo die Überrieslung durch künstliche Kanäle dem Boden nicht nur das unentbehrliche Wasser, sondern mit dessen Geschlämme zugleich den Minenaldünger von den Bergen zuführt. Das Geheimnis der Industrieblüte von Spanien und Sizilien unter arabischer Herrschaft war die Kanalisation.⁶

No converse from abundance

Once capitalist production is assumed, with other conditions unchanged and the working day given, the quantity of surplus-labour varies with physical conditions of labour, especially the fertility of the soil. But it does not follow that the most fertile soil is best suited to the growth of the capitalist mode of production. Capitalist production presupposes human dominion over nature. Where nature is too lavish, it keeps people in hand like children in leading-strings and does not make their own development a necessity. [5] The tropical climate with luxuriant vegetation is not the mother-country of capital; the temperate zone is. What matters is not mere fertility, but differentiated soil, varied natural products, and changing seasons, which form a basis for the social division of labour and spur the multiplication of needs, capacities, means, and ways of labour. The decisive part in the history of industry is first played by the need to bring a natural force under social control, use it economically, appropriate or subdue it on a large scale through human work. Examples include irrigation works in Egypt, Lombardy, and Holland; and in India and Persia, canals that bring both indispensable water and mineral fertilisers from the hills. The flourishing industry of Spain and Sicily under Arab rule rested on irrigation works. [6] [7]

Die Gunst der Naturbedingungen liefert immer nur die Möglichkeit, niemals die Wirklichkeit der Mehrarbeit, also des Mehrwerts oder des Mehrprodukts. Die verschiednen Naturbedingungen der Arbeit bewirken, daß dieselbe Quantität Arbeit in verschiednen Ländern verschiedne Bedürfnismassen befriedigt⁷, daß also, unter sonst analogen Umständen, die notwendige Arbeitszeit verschieden ist. Auf die Mehrarbeit wirken sie nur als Naturschranke, d.h. durch die Bestimmung des Punkts, wo die Arbeit für andre beginnen kann. In demselben Maß, worin die Industrie vortritt, weicht diese Naturschranke zurück. Mitten in der westeuropäischen Gesellschaft, wo der Arbeiter die Erlaubnis, für seine eigne Existenz zu arbeiten, nur durch Mehrarbeit erkauft, wird sich leicht eingebildet, es sei eine der menschlichen Arbeit eingeborne Qualität, ein Surplusprodukt zu liefern.⁸ Man nehme aber z.B. den Einwohner der östlichen Inseln des asiatischen Archipelagus, wo der Sago wild im Walde wächst.

Possibility, never reality

Favourable natural conditions provide only the possibility, never the reality, of surplus-labour, surplus-value, or a surplus-product. Different conditions mean that the same quantity of labour meets different masses of needs in different countries; under otherwise similar circumstances, necessary labour-time therefore differs. [8] They affect surplus-labour only as natural limits: they set the point at which labour for others can begin. As industry advances, those limits recede. In West European society, where the labourer buys the right to work for their own livelihood by paying in surplus-labour, it can easily seem that producing a surplus-product is an inborn quality of human labour. [9] Consider instead an inhabitant of the eastern islands of the Asiatic Archipelago, where sago grows wild in the forests.

"Wenn die Einwohner, indem sie ein Loch in den Baum bohren, sich davon überzeugt haben, daß das Mark reif ist, so wird der Stamm umgeschlagen und in mehrere Stücke geteilt, das Mark wird herausgekratzt, mit Wasser gemischt und geseiht, es ist dann vollkommen brauchbares Sagomehl. Ein Baum gibt gemeiniglich 300 Pfund und kann 500 bis 600 Pfund geben. Man geht dort also in den Wald und schneidet sich sein Brot, wie man bei uns sein Brennholz schlägt."⁹

Cutting bread in a forest

F. Schouw’s quoted account says that, once people have bored into a tree and found its pith ripe, they cut down the trunk, divide it, extract the pith, mix it with water, and filter it into usable sago. One tree commonly gives 300 pounds and sometimes 500–600 pounds. People go into the forest and cut bread for themselves as others cut firewood.

Gesetzt, ein solcher ostasiatischer Brotschneider brauche 12 Arbeitsstunden in der Woche zur Befriedigung aller seiner Bedürfnisse. Was ihm die Gunst der Natur unmittelbar gibt, ist viel Mußezeit. Damit er diese produktiv für sich selbst verwende, ist eine ganze Reihe geschichtlicher Umstände, damit er sie in Mehrarbeit für fremde Personen verausgabe, ist äußrer Zwang erheischt. Würde kapitalistische Produktion eingeführt, so müßte der Brave vielleicht 6 Tage in der Woche arbeiten, um sich selbst das Produkt eines Arbeitstags anzueignen. Die Gunst der Natur erklärt nicht, warum er jetzt 6 Tage in der Woche arbeitet oder warum er 5 Tage Mehrarbeit liefert. Sie erklärt nur, warum seine notwendige Arbeitszeit auf einen Tag in der Woche beschränkt ist. In keinem Fall aber entspränge sein Mehrprodukt aus einer der menschlichen Arbeit eingebornen, okkulten Qualität.

Leisure and compulsion

Suppose such an eastern bread-cutter needs 12 working hours a week to satisfy all wants. What favourable conditions give directly is plentiful leisure time. Before that time can be used productively for oneself, a whole series of historical events is required; before it is spent in surplus-labour for strangers, external compulsion is necessary. If capitalist production were introduced, the honest fellow might have to work six days a week in order to appropriate for himself the product of one working day. Favourable conditions do not explain why he then works six days a week or provides five days of surplus-labour. They explain only why necessary labour-time is limited to one day a week. In no case would his surplus-product arise from an occult quality inborn in human labour.

Wie die geschichtlich entwickelten, gesellschaftlichen, so erscheinen die naturbedingten Produktivkräfte der Arbeit als Produktivkräfte des Kapitals, dem sie einverleibt wird. -

Capital’s apparent power

Both historically developed social productive powers and productive powers conditioned by nature appear as productive powers of the capital into which labour has been incorporated.

§4

Ricardo und Mills Ableitung des Profits

The preceding movement separated favourable conditions for labour beyond subsistence from the historical relations that turn such time into surplus-labour for others. This final movement takes up political economy’s account of the resulting gain: productivity may affect its magnitude, but it neither supplies its origin nor makes capitalist production independent of the wage relation.

Ricardo kümmert sich nie um den Ursprung des Mehrwerts. Er behandelt ihn wie eine der kapitalistischen Produktionsweise, der in seinen Augen natürlichen Form der gesellschaftlichen Produktion, inhärente Sache. Wo er von der Produktivität der Arbeit spricht, da sucht er in ihr nicht die Ursache des Daseins von Mehrwert, sondern nur die Ursache, die seine Größe bestimmt. Dagegen hat seine Schule die Produktivkraft der Arbeit laut proklamiert als die Entstehungsursache des Profits (lies: Mehrwerts). Jedenfalls ein Fortschritt gegenüber den Merkantilisten, die ihrerseits den Überschuß des Preises der Produkte über ihre Produktionskosten aus dem Austausch herleiten, aus ihrem Verkauf über ihren Wert. Trotzdem hatte auch Ricardos Schule das Problem bloß umgangen, nicht gelöst. In der Tat hatten diese bürgerlichen Ökonomen den richtigen Instinkt, es sei sehr gefährlich, die brennende Frage nach dem Ursprung des Mehrwerts zu tief zu ergründen. Was aber sagen, wenn ein halbes Jahrhundert nach Ricardo Herr John Stuart Mill würdevoll seine Überlegenheit über die Merkantilisten konstatiert, indem er die faulen Ausflüchte der ersten Verflacher Ricardos schlecht wiederholt?

Ricardo’s unanswered origin

Ricardo never investigates the origin of surplus-value. He treats it as inherent in capitalist production, which he regards as the natural form of social production. When he discusses productive power, he seeks not the cause of surplus-value’s existence but only what determines its magnitude. Ricardo’s school openly proclaims productive power the originating cause of profit, meaning surplus-value. That is an advance on the mercantilists, who derived the excess of price over costs from exchange and sale above value. Yet the school too evades rather than solves the problem. Marx says these bourgeois economists rightly sensed the danger of probing the burning question too deeply, before asking what to say of Mill, who repeats the poor evasions of Ricardo’s earliest vulgarisers.

Mill sagt:

Mill says

Mill says:

"Die Ursache des Profits ist die, daß die Arbeit mehr produziert, als für ihren Unterhalt erforderlich ist."

More than support

“The cause of profit is that labour produces more than is required for its support.”

Soweit nicht als die alte Leier; aber Mill will auch Eignes hinzutun:

The old formula

Marx says that, so far, this is only the old story. Mill now wishes to add something of his own.

"Oder um die Form des Satzes zu variieren: der Grund, weshalb das Kapital einen Profit liefert, ist der, daß Nahrung, Kleider, Rohstoffe und Arbeitsmittel längere Zeit dauern, als zu ihrer Produktion erforderlich ist."

Mill’s variation

Mill varies the formula: capital yields profit, he says, because food, clothing, materials, and tools last longer than the time required to produce them.

Mill verwechselt hier die Dauer der Arbeitszeit mit der Dauer ihrer Produkte. Nach dieser Ansicht würde ein Bäcker, dessen Produkte nur einen Tag dauern, aus seinen Lohnarbeitern nie denselben Profit ziehen können wie ein Maschinenbauer, dessen Produkte zwanzig Jahre und länger dauern. Allerdings, wenn die Vogelnester nicht längere Zeit vorhielten, als zu ihrem Bau erforderlich, so würden die Vögel sich ohne Nester behelfen müssen.

Duration confused

Mill confuses the duration of labour-time with the duration of its products. On that view, a baker whose products last one day could never draw the same profit from wage-labourers as a machine-maker whose products last twenty years or more. And if birds’ nests did not last longer than the time needed to build them, birds would have to do without nests.

Diese Grundwahrheit einmal festgestellt, stellt Mill seine Überlegenheit über die Merkantilisten fest:

A claimed superiority

Having established this fundamental truth, Mill now establishes his superiority over the mercantilists.

"Wir sehn also, daß der Profit entsteht, nicht aus dem Zwischenfall der Austäusche, sondern aus der Produktivkraft der Arbeit; der Gesamtprofit eines Landes ist immer bestimmt durch die Produktivkraft der Arbeit, gleichviel ob Austausch stattfindet oder nicht. Bestände keine Teilung der Beschäftigungen, so gäbe es weder Kauf noch Verkauf, aber immer noch Profit."

Exchange as an incident

Mill says that profit arises not from the incident of exchange but from the productive power of labour; a country’s total profit is always determined by that power, whether exchange takes place or not. Even without a division of employments, buying, or selling, he says, profit would still exist.

Hier sind also Austausch, Kauf und Verkauf, die allgemeinen Bedingungen der kapitalistischen Produktion, ein purer Zwischenfall, und es gibt immer noch Profit ohne Kauf und Verkauf der Arbeitskraft!

A capitalist condition

For Mill, then, exchange, buying, and selling—the general conditions of capitalist production—are merely an incident, and profit exists even without the purchase and sale of labour-power.

Weiter:

Mill continues

Mill continues:

"Produziert die Gesamtheit der Arbeiter eines Landes 20% über ihre Lohnsumme, so werden die Profite 20% sein, was auch immer der Stand der Warenpreise."

The 20% claim

“If the labourers of a country collectively produce 20% over their wage total, profits will be 20%, whatever the level of commodity prices.”

Dies ist einerseits eine äußerst gelungne Tautologie, denn wenn Arbeiter einen Mehrwert von 20% für ihre Kapitalisten produzieren, so werden sich die Profite zum Gesamtlohn der Arbeiter verhalten wie 20 : 100. Andrerseits ist es absolut falsch, daß die Profite "20% sein werden". Sie müssen immer kleiner sein, weil Profite berechnet werden auf die Totalsumme des vorgeschoßnen Kapitals. Der Kapitalist habe z.B. 500 Pfd.St. vorgeschossen, davon 400 Pfd.St. in Produktionsmitteln, 100 Pfd.St. in Arbeitslohn. Die Rate des Mehrwerts sei, wie angenommen, 20%, so wird die Profitrate sein wie 20 : 500, d.h. 4% und nicht 20%.

Two denominators

This is a very successful tautology on one side: if workers produce 20% surplus-value for their capitalists, profit stands to the workers’ total wages as 20:100. On the other side, it is absolutely false that profits “will be 20%.” They must always be smaller, because profit is calculated on the total capital advanced. Suppose a capitalist advances £500 in total: £400 in means of production and £100 in wages. If the rate of surplus-value is 20%, the profit rate is 20:500, that is 4%, not 20%.

Folgt eine glänzende Probe, wie Mill die verschiednen geschichtlichen Formen der gesellschaftlichen Produktion behandelt:

Historical forms

Marx now gives what he calls a splendid example of Mill’s way of handling the different historical forms of social production.

"Ich setze überall den gegenwärtigen Stand der Dinge voraus, der bis auf wenige Ausnahmen überall herrscht, d.h. daß der Kapitalist alle Vorschüsse macht, die Bezahlung des Arbeiters einbegriffen."

Mill’s assumption

“I assume throughout the present state of things, which, with few exceptions, prevails everywhere: the capitalist makes all the advances, including payment of the worker.”

Seltsame optische Täuschung, überall einen Zustand zu sehn, der bis jetzt nur ausnahmsweise auf dem Erdball herrscht! Doch weiter. Mill ist gut genug, zuzugeben, "es sei nicht eine absolute Notwendigkeit, daß dem so sei". <In seinem Brief an N. F. Danielson vom 28. November 1878 schlug Marx folgende Fassung dieses Absatzes vor:

Optical illusion

Marx calls it a strange optical illusion to see everywhere a state which, so far, exists only exceptionally on earth. He continues that Mill is good enough to concede that this need not be an absolute necessity. The printed text then opens a bracket: in a letter to N. F. Danielson of 28 November 1878, Marx proposed the following replacement wording for the paragraph. [11]

Folgt eine glänzende Probe, wie Mill die verschiednen geschichtlichen Formen der gesellschaftlichen Produktion behandelt: "Ich setze überall", sagt er, "den gegenwärtigen Stand der Dinge voraus, der bis auf wenige Ausnahmen überall herrscht, wo Arbeiter und Kapitalisten einander als Klassen gegenüberstehen, d.h., daß der Kapitalist alle Vorschüsse macht, die Bezahlung des Arbeiters einbegriffen." Herr Mill will gern glauben, es sei nicht eine absolute Notwendigkeit, daß dem so sei - selbst in dem ökonomischen System, in dem Arbeiter und Kapitalisten einander als Klassen gegenüberstehen.> Im Gegenteil.

The proposed replacement

Inside that bracket, the proposed wording keeps Mill’s historical-forms example but restores the condition absent from the original quotation: the arrangement prevails where workers and capitalists confront one another as separate classes. It then says that Mill is willing to believe the arrangement is not an absolute necessity even in that economic system. The bracket closes; the main text resumes with: “On the contrary.” The editorial note records that earlier editions had omitted the separate-class clause from Mill’s quotation, and that Marx identified the omission in his Danielson letter. It also gives Mill’s bibliographical source.

"Der Arbeiter könnte, selbst mit seinem ganzen Lohnbetrage, die Zahlung abwarten, bis die Arbeit vollständig fertig ist, wenn er die zu seiner Erhaltung in der Zwischenzeit nötigen Mittel hätte. Aber in diesem Falle wäre er in gewissem Grade ein Kapitalist, der Kapital ins Geschäft legte, und einen Teil der zu seiner Fortführung nötigen Fonds lieferte."

Worker as capitalist

Mill says that a worker could wait for full payment until production is complete if they had the means needed for their maintenance in the meantime. In that case, he says, the worker is to some extent a capitalist, putting capital into the business and supplying part of the funds needed to carry it on.

Ebensogut könnte Mill sagen, der Arbeiter, der sich selbst nicht nur die Lebensmittel, sondern auch die Arbeitsmittel vorschießt, sei in Wirklichkeit sein eigner Lohnarbeiter. Oder der amerikanische Bauer sei sein eigner Sklave, der nur für sich selbst statt für einen fremden Herrn frondet.

Own wage-labourer

Marx says Mill could just as well call the worker who advances to themself not only means of subsistence but also means of production their own wage-labourer. Or the American peasant proprietor would be their own serf, performing forced labour for themself instead of for a lord.

Nachdem uns Mill derart klärlich erwiesen, daß die kapitalistische Produktion, selbst wenn sie nicht existierte, dennoch immer existieren würde, ist er nun konsequent genug, zu beweisen, daß sie selbst dann nicht existiert, wenn sie existiert:

Existence and non-existence

Mill has thus, Marx says, clearly proved that capitalist production would always exist even if it did not exist. He is now consistent enough to prove that it does not exist even when it does exist.

"Und selbst im vorigen Fall" (wenn der Kapitalist dem Lohnarbeiter seine sämtlichen Subsistenzmittel vorschießt) "kann der Arbeiter unter demselben Gesichtspunkt betrachtet werden" (d.h. als ein Kapitalist). "Denn indem er seine Arbeit unter dem Marktpreise (!) hergibt, kann er angesehn werden, als schösse er die Differenz (?) seinem Unternehmer vor usw."^9a

Labour as a loan

Mill says that even where the capitalist advances all the wage-worker’s means of subsistence, the worker may be viewed as a capitalist. By supplying labour below its market price, Mill says, the worker can be regarded as advancing the difference to the employer, and so on. [12]

In der tatsächlichen Wirklichkeit schießt der Arbeiter dem Kapitalisten seine Arbeit während einer Woche usw. umsonst vor, um am Ende der Woche usw. ihren Marktpreis zu erhalten; das macht ihn, nach Mill, zum Kapitalisten! In der platten Ebene erscheinen auch Erdhaufen als Hügel; man messe die Plattheit unsrer heutigen Bourgeoisie am Kaliber ihrer "großen Geister".

The actual advance

In actual reality, the labourer advances labour gratuitously to the capitalist during, say, one week, in order to receive its market price at the end of the week; according to Mill, this transforms the labourer into a capitalist. On the level plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the imbecile flatness of the present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects.

§1

Productive Labour and the Collective Labourer

In considering the labour-process, we began (see Chapter VII.) by treating it in the abstract, apart from its historical forms, as a process between man and Nature. We there stated, “If we examine the whole labour-process, from the point of view of its result, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour.” And in Note 2, same page, we further added: “This method of determining, from the standpoint of the labour-process alone, what is productive labour, is by no means directly applicable to the case of the capitalist process of production.” We now proceed to the further development of this subject.

An earlier definition, limited

So far as the labour-process is purely individual, one and the same labourer unites in himself all the functions, that later on become separated. When an individual appropriates natural objects for his livelihood, no one controls him but himself. Afterwards he is controlled by others. A single man cannot operate upon Nature without calling his own muscles into play under the control of his own brain. As in the natural body head and hand wait upon each other, so the labour-process unites the labour of the hand with that of the head. Later on they part company and even become deadly foes. The product ceases to be the direct product of the individual, and becomes a social product, produced in common by a collective labourer, i.e., by a combination of workmen, each of whom takes only a part, greater or less, in the manipulation of the subject of their labour. As the co-operative character of the labour-process becomes more and more marked, so, as a necessary consequence, does our notion of productive labour, and of its agent the productive labourer, become extended. In order to labour productively, it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work yourself; enough, if you are an organ of the collective labourer, and perform one of its subordinate functions. The first definition given above of productive labour, a definition deduced from the very nature of the production of material objects, still remains correct for the collective labourer, considered as a whole. But it no longer holds good for each member taken individually.

The collective labourer

On the other hand, however, our notion of productive labour becomes narrowed. Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune. In Book IV, which treats of the history of the theory, it will be more clearly seen, that the production of surplus-value has at all times been made, by classical political economists, the distinguishing characteristic of the productive labourer. Hence their definition of a productive labourer changes with their comprehension of the nature of surplus-value. Thus the Physiocrats insist that only agricultural labour is productive, since that alone, they say, yields a surplus-value. And they say so because, with them, surplus-value has no existence except in the form of rent.

The capitalist test

§2

Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value; Formal and Real Subsumption

The prolongation of the working-day beyond the point at which the labourer would have produced just an equivalent for the value of his labour-power, and the appropriation of that surplus-labour by capital, this is production of absolute surplus-value. It forms the general groundwork of the capitalist system, and the starting-point for the production of relative surplus-value. The latter presupposes that the working-day is already divided into two parts, necessary labour, and surplus-labour. In order to prolong the surplus-labour, the necessary labour is shortened by methods whereby the equivalent for the wages is produced in less time. The production of absolute surplus-value turns exclusively upon the length of the working-day; the production of relative surplus-value, revolutionises out and out the technical processes of labour, and the composition of society. It therefore presupposes a specific mode, the capitalist mode of production, a mode which, along with its methods, means, and conditions, arises and develops itself spontaneously on the foundation afforded by the formal subjection of labour to capital. In the course of this development, the formal subjection is replaced by the real subjection of labour to capital.

Two ways of increasing surplus-value

M–A merges

From formal to real subsumption

It will suffice merely to refer to certain intermediate forms, in which surplus-labour is not extorted by direct compulsion from the producer, nor the producer himself yet formally subjected to capital. In such forms capital has not yet acquired the direct control of the labour-process. By the side of independent producers who carry on their handicrafts and agriculture in the traditional old-fashioned way, there stands the usurer or the merchant, with his usurer’s capital or merchant’s capital, feeding on them like a parasite. The predominance, in a society, of this form of exploitation excludes the capitalist mode of production; to which mode, however, this form may serve as a transition, as it did towards the close of the Middle Ages. Finally, as is shown by modern “domestic industry,” some intermediate forms are here and there reproduced in the background of Modern Industry, though their physiognomy is totally changed.

Exploitation without direct control

If, on the one hand, the mere formal subjection of labour to capital suffices for the production of absolute surplus-value, if, e.g., it is sufficient that handicraftsmen who previously worked on their own account, or as apprentices of a master, should become wage labourers under the direct control of a capitalist; so, on the other hand, we have seen, how the methods of producing relative surplus-value, are, at the same time, methods of producing absolute surplus-value. Nay, more, the excessive prolongation of the working-day turned out to be the peculiar product of Modern Industry. Generally speaking, the specifically capitalist mode of production ceases to be a mere means of producing relative surplus-value, so soon as that mode has conquered an entire branch of production; and still more so, so soon as it has conquered all the important branches. It then becomes the general, socially predominant form of production. As a special method of producing relative surplus-value, it remains effective only, first, in so far as it seizes upon industries that previously were only formally subject to capital, that is, so far as it is propagandist; secondly, in so far as the industries that have been taken over by it, continue to be revolutionised by changes in the methods of production.

Overlapping methods, ongoing change

From one standpoint, any distinction between absolute and relative surplus-value appears illusory. Relative surplus-value is absolute, since it compels the absolute prolongation of the working-day beyond the labour-time necessary to the existence of the labourer himself. Absolute surplus-value is relative, since it makes necessary such a development of the productiveness of labour, as will allow of the necessary labour-time being confined to a portion of the working-day. But if we keep in mind the behaviour of surplus-value, this appearance of identity vanishes. Once the capitalist mode of production is established and become general, the difference between absolute and relative surplus-value makes itself felt, whenever there is a question of raising the rate of surplus-value. Assuming that labour-power is paid for at its value, we are confronted by this alternative: given the productiveness of labour and its normal intensity, the rate of surplus-value can be raised only by the actual prolongation of the working-day; on the other hand, given the length of the working-day, that rise can be effected only by a change in the relative magnitudes of the components of the working-day, viz., necessary labour and surplus-labour; a change which, if the wages are not to fall below the value of labour-power, presupposes a change either in the productiveness or in the intensity of the labour.

A practical alternative

§3

Natural Basis, Natural Conditions, and Historical Productivity

If the labourer wants all his time to produce the necessary means of subsistence for himself and his race, he has no time left in which to work gratis for others. Without a certain degree of productiveness in his labour, he has no such superfluous time at his disposal; without such superfluous time, no surplus-labour, and therefore no capitalists, no slave-owners, no feudal lords, in one word, no class of large proprietors. ¹

Time beyond necessity

Thus we may say that surplus-value rests on a natural basis; but this is permissible only in the very general sense, that there is no natural obstacle absolutely preventing one man from disburdening himself of the labour requisite for his own existence, and burdening another with it, any more, for instance, than unconquerable natural obstacle prevent one man from eating the flesh of another. ² No mystical ideas must in any way be connected, as sometimes happens, with this historically developed productiveness of labour. It is only after men have raised themselves above the rank of animals, when therefore their labour has been to some extent socialised, that a state of things arises in which the surplus-labour of the one becomes a condition of existence for the other. At the dawn of civilisation the productiveness acquired by labour is small, but so too are the wants which develop with and by the means of satisfying them. Further, at that early period, the portion of society that lives on the labour of others is infinitely small compared with the mass of direct producers. Along with the progress in the productiveness of labour, that small portion of society increases both absolutely and relatively. ³ Besides, capital with its accompanying relations springs up from an economic soil that is the product of a long process of development. The productiveness of labour that serves as its foundation and starting-point, is a gift, not of nature, but of a history embracing thousands of centuries.

A limited natural basis

Apart from the degree of development, greater or less, in the form of social production, the productiveness of labour is fettered by physical conditions. These are all referable to the constitution of man himself (race, &c.), and to surrounding nature. The external physical conditions fall into two great economic classes, (1) Natural wealth in means of subsistence, i.e., a fruitful soil, waters teeming with fish, &c., and (2), natural wealth in the instruments of labour, such as waterfalls, navigable rivers, wood, metal, coal, &c. At the dawn of civilisation, it is the first class that turns the scale; at a higher stage of development, it is the second. Compare, for example, England with India, or in ancient times, Athens and Corinth with the shores of the Black Sea.

Conditions of productive power

The fewer the number of natural wants imperatively calling for satisfaction, and the greater the natural fertility of the soil and the favourableness of the climate, so much less is the labour-time necessary for the maintenance and reproduction of the producer. So much greater therefore can be the excess of his labours for others over his labour for himself. Diodorus long ago remarked this in relation to the ancient Egyptians.

Less necessary labour

“It is altogether incredible how little trouble and expense the bringing up of their children causes them. They cook for them the first simple food at hand; they also give them the lower part of the papyrus stem to eat, so far as it can be roasted in the fire, and the roots and stalks of marsh plants, some raw, some boiled and roasted. Most of the children go without shoes and unclothed, for the air is so mild. Hence a child, until he is grown up, costs his parents not more, on the whole, than twenty drachmas. It is this, chiefly, which explains why the population of Egypt is so numerous, and, therefore, why so many great works can be undertaken.” ⁴

Diodorus on child-rearing

Nevertheless the grand structures of ancient Egypt are less due to the extent of its population than to the large proportion of it that was freely disposable. Just as the individual labourer can do more surplus-labour in proportion as his necessary labour-time is less, so with regard to the working population. The smaller the part of it which is required for the production of the necessary means of subsistence, so much the greater is the part that can be set to do other work.

The disposable share

Capitalist production once assumed, then, all other circumstances remaining the same, and given the length of the working day, the quantity of surplus-labour will vary with the physical conditions of labour, especially with the fertility of the soil. But it by no means follows from this that the most fruitful soil is the most fitted for the growth of the capitalist mode of production. This mode is based on the dominion of man over nature. Where nature is too lavish, she “keeps him in hand, like a child in leading-strings.” She does not impose upon him any necessity to develop himself. ⁵ It is not the tropics with their luxuriant vegetation, but the temperate zone, that is the mother-country of capital. It is not the mere fertility of the soil, but the differentiation of the soil, the variety of its natural products, the changes of the seasons, which form the physical basis for the social division of labour, and which, by changes in the natural surroundings, spur man on to the multiplication of his wants, his capabilities, his means and modes of labour. It is the necessity of bringing a natural force under the control of society, of economising, of appropriating or subduing it on a large scale by the work of man’s hand, that first plays the decisive part in the history of industry. Examples are, the irrigation works in Egypt, ⁶ Lombardy, Holland, or in India and Persia where irrigation by means of artificial canals, not only supplies the soil with the water indispensable to it, but also carries down to it, in the shape of sediment from the hills, mineral fertilisers. The secret of the flourishing state of industry in Spain and Sicily under the dominion of the Arabs lay in their irrigation works. ⁷

No converse from abundance

Favourable natural conditions alone, give us only the possibility, never the reality, of surplus-labour, nor, consequently, of surplus-value and a surplus-product. The result of difference in the natural conditions of labour is this, that the same quantity of labour satisfies, in different countries, a different mass of requirements, ⁸ consequently, that under circumstances in other respects analogous, the necessary labour-time is different. These conditions affect surplus-labour only as natural limits, i.e., by fixing the points at which labour for others can begin. In proportion as industry advances, these natural limits recede. In the midst of our West European society, where the labourer purchases the right to work for his own livelihood only by paying for it in surplus-labour, the idea easily takes root that it is an inherent quality of human labour to furnish a surplus-product. ⁹ But consider, for example, an inhabitant of the eastern islands of the Asiatic Archipelago, where sago grows wild in the forests.

Possibility, never reality

“When the inhabitants have convinced themselves, by boring a hole in the tree, that the pith is ripe, the trunk is cut down and divided into several pieces, the pith is extracted, mixed with water and filtered: it is then quite fit for use as sago. One tree commonly yields 300 lbs., and occasionally 500 to 600 lbs. There, then, people go into the forests, and cut bread for themselves, just as with us they cut fire-wood.”

Cutting bread in a forest

Suppose now such an eastern bread-cutter requires 12 working hours a week for the satisfaction of all his wants. Nature’s direct gift to him is plenty of leisure time. Before he can apply this leisure time productively for himself, a whole series of historical events is required; before he spends it in surplus-labour for strangers, compulsion is necessary. If capitalist production were introduced, the honest fellow would perhaps have to work six days a week, in order to appropriate to himself the product of one working day. The bounty of Nature does not explain why he would then have to work 6 days a week, or why he must furnish 5 days of surplus-labour. It explains only why his necessary labour-time would be limited to one day a week. But in no case would his surplus-product arise from some occult quality inherent in human labour.

Leisure and compulsion

Thus, not only does the historically developed social productiveness of labour, but also its natural productiveness, appear to be productiveness of the capital with which that labour is incorporated.

Capital’s apparent power

Both historically developed social productive powers and productive powers conditioned by nature appear as productive powers of the capital into which labour has been incorporated.

§4

Ricardo and Mill on the Origin of Profit

Ricardo never concerns himself about the origin of surplus-value. He treats it as a thing inherent in the capitalist mode of production, which mode, in his eyes, is the natural form of social production. Whenever he discusses the productiveness of labour, he seeks in it, not the cause of surplus-value, but the cause that determines the magnitude of that value. On the other hand, his school has openly proclaimed the productiveness of labour to be the originating cause of profit (read: Surplus-value). This at all events is a progress as against the mercantilists who, on their side, derived the excess of the price over the cost of production of the product, from the act of exchange, from the product being sold above its value. Nevertheless, Ricardo’s school simply shirked the problem, they did not solve it. In fact these bourgeois economists instinctively saw, and rightly so, that it is very dangerous to stir too deeply the burning question of the origin of surplus-value. But what are we to think of John Stuart Mill, who, half a century after Ricardo, solemnly claims superiority over the mercantilists, by clumsily repeating the wretched evasions of Ricardo’s earliest vulgarisers?

Ricardo’s unanswered origin

Mill says:

Mill says

Mill says:

“The cause of profit is that labour produces more than is required for its support.”

More than support

“The cause of profit is that labour produces more than is required for its support.”

So far, nothing but the old story; but Mill wishing to add something of his own, proceeds:

The old formula

Marx says that, so far, this is only the old story. Mill now wishes to add something of his own.

“To vary the form of the theorem; the reason why capital yields a profit, is because food, clothing, materials and tools, last longer than the time which was required to produce them.”

Mill’s variation

Mill varies the formula: capital yields profit, he says, because food, clothing, materials, and tools last longer than the time required to produce them.

He here confounds the duration of labour-time with the duration of its products. According to this view, a baker whose product lasts only a day, could never extract from his workpeople the same profit, as a machine maker whose products endure for 20 years and more. Of course it is very true, that if a bird’s nest did not last longer than the time it takes in building, birds would have to do without nests.

Duration confused

This fundamental truth once established, Mill establishes his own superiority over the mercantilists.

A claimed superiority

Having established this fundamental truth, Mill now establishes his superiority over the mercantilists.

“We thus see,” he proceeds, “that profit arises, not from the incident of exchange, but from the productive power of labour; and the general profit of the country is always what the productive power of labour makes it, whether any exchange takes place or not. If there were no division of employments, there would be no buying or selling, but there would still be profit.”

Exchange as an incident

For Mill then, exchange, buying and selling, those general conditions of capitalist production, are but an incident, and there would always be profits even without the purchase and sale of labour-power!

A capitalist condition

For Mill, then, exchange, buying, and selling—the general conditions of capitalist production—are merely an incident, and profit exists even without the purchase and sale of labour-power.

“If,” he continues, “the labourers of the country collectively produce twenty per cent more than their wages, profits will be twenty per cent, whatever prices may or may not be.” This is, on the one hand, a rare bit of tautology; for if labourers produce a surplus-value of 20% for the capitalist, his profit will be to the total wages of the labourers as 20:100. On the other hand, it is absolutely false to say that “profits will be 20%.” They will always be less, because they are calculated upon the sum total of the capital advanced. If, for example, the capitalist have advanced £500, of which £400 is laid out in means of production and £100 in wages, and if the rate of surplus-value be 20%, the rate of profit will be 20:500, i.e., 4% and not 20%.

Mill continues

Mill continues:

M–A merges

The 20% claim

“If the labourers of a country collectively produce 20% over their wage total, profits will be 20%, whatever the level of commodity prices.”

M–A merges

Two denominators

Then follows a splendid example of Mill’s method of handling the different historical forms of social production.

Historical forms

Marx now gives what he calls a splendid example of Mill’s way of handling the different historical forms of social production.

“I assume, throughout, the state of things which, where the labourers and capitalists are separate classes, prevails, with few exceptions, universally; namely, that the capitalist advances the whole expenses, including the entire remuneration of the labourer.”

Mill’s assumption

“I assume throughout the present state of things, which, with few exceptions, prevails everywhere: the capitalist makes all the advances, including payment of the worker.”

Strange optical illusion to see everywhere a state of things which as yet exists only exceptionally on our earth. ¹¹ But let us finish — Mill is willing to concede,

Optical illusion

Edition-correction apparatus moved to English footnote 11; the corrected quotation is represented in EN p12.

The proposed replacement

“that he should do so is not a matter of inherent necessity.” On the contrary: “the labourer might wait, until the production is complete, for all that part of his wages which exceeds mere necessaries: and even for the whole, if he has funds in hand sufficient for his temporary support. But in the latter case, the labourer is to that extent really a capitalist in the concern, by supplying a portion of the funds necessary for carrying it on.”

Worker as capitalist

Mill might have gone further and have added, that the labourer who advances to himself not only the necessaries of life but also the means of production, is in reality nothing but his own wage-labourer. He might also have said that the American peasant proprietor is but a serf who does enforced labour for himself instead of for his lord.

Own wage-labourer

After thus proving clearly, that even if capitalist production had no existence, still it would always exist, Mill is consistent enough to show, on the contrary, that it has no existence, even when it does exist.

Existence and non-existence

Mill has thus, Marx says, clearly proved that capitalist production would always exist even if it did not exist. He is now consistent enough to prove that it does not exist even when it does exist.

“And even in the former case” (when the workman is a wage labourer to whom the capitalist advances all the necessaries of life, he the labourer), “may be looked upon in the same light,” (i.e., as a capitalist), “since, contributing his labour at less than the market-price, (!) he may be regarded as lending the difference (?) to his employer and receiving it back with interest, &c.” ¹²

Labour as a loan

In reality, the labourer advances his labour gratuitously to the capitalist during, say one week, in order to receive the market price at the end of the week, &c., and it is this which, according to Mill, transforms him into a capitalist. On the level plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the imbecile flatness of the present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects.

The actual advance