thebase.works · Das Kapital Kap. 6 · semantic zoom
Z3
linear reader › fork map ›
K.6
SECHSTES KAPITEL. Konstantes Kapital und variables Kapital
The preceding chapter showed labour-power producing more value than its own value; this chapter separates that new value from the old value merely carried over by the means of production and names the two capital-functions built on the split.
Die verschiednen Faktoren des Arbeitsprozesses nehmen verschiednen Anteil an der Bildung des Produkten-Werts.
Different factors, different roles

The different factors in the labour-process take different parts in forming the value of the product.

Der Arbeiter setzt dem Arbeitsgegenstand neuen Wert zu durch Zusatz eines bestimmten Quantums von Arbeit, abgesehn vom bestimmten Inhalt, Zweck und technischen Charakter seiner Arbeit. Andrerseits finden wir die Werte der verzehrten Produktionsmittel wieder als Bestandteile des Produkten-Werts, z.B. die Werte von Baumwolle und Spindel im Garnwert. Der Wert der Produktionsmittel wird also erhalten durch seine Übertragung auf das Produkt. Dies Übertragen geschieht während der Verwandlung der Produktionsmittel in Produkt, im Arbeitsprozeß. Es ist vermittelt durch die Arbeit. Aber wie?
New value and transferred value

The worker adds new value to the thing he works on by adding a definite amount of labour, whatever the content, aim, or technical character of that labour may be. On the other side, the values of the used-up means of production show up again as parts of the product's value: the values of cotton and spindle, for example, in the value of the yarn. So the value of the means of production is preserved by being transferred to the product. This transfer happens while the means of production are being turned into the product, in the labour-process. Labour makes this transfer happen. But how?

Der Arbeiter arbeitet nicht doppelt in derselben Zeit, nicht einmal, um der Baumwolle durch seine Arbeit einen Wert zuzusetzen, und das andremal, um ihren alten Wert zu erhalten, oder, was dasselbe, um den Wert der Baumwolle, die er verarbeitet, und der Spindel, womit er arbeitet, auf das Produkt, das Garn, zu übertragen. Sondern durch bloßes Zusetzen von neuem Wert erhält er den alten Wert. Da aber der Zusatz von neuem Wert zum Arbeitsgegenstand und die Erhaltung der alten Werte im Produkt zwei ganz verschiedne Resultate sind, die der Arbeiter in derselben Zeit hervorbringt, obgleich er nur einmal in derselben Zeit arbeitet, kann diese Doppelseitigkeit des Resultats offenbar nur aus der Doppelseitigkeit seiner Arbeit selbst erklärt werden. In demselben Zeitpunkt muß sie in einer Eigenschaft Wert schaffen und in einer andren Eigenschaft Wert erhalten oder übertragen.
One labour, two effects

The worker does not work twice in the same time: not once to add value to the cotton by his labour, and then again to preserve its old value, or what is the same thing, to transfer the value of the cotton he works up and the spindle he works with to the product, the yarn. Rather, simply by adding new value, he preserves the old value.

But adding new value to the object worked on and preserving old values in the product are two quite different results, even though the worker produces them in the same time and works only once in that time. So this two-sided result can plainly be explained only by the two-sidedness of the labour itself. At the same moment, labour must create value in one capacity and preserve or transfer value in another.

Wie setzt jeder Arbeiter Arbeitszeit und daher Wert zu? Immer nur in der Form seiner eigentümlich produktiven Arbeitsweise. Der Spinner setzt nur Arbeitszeit zu, indem er spinnt, der Weber, indem er webt, der Schmied, indem er schmiedet. Durch die zweckbestimmte Form aber, worin sie Arbeit überhaupt zusetzen und daher Neuwert, durch das Spinnen, Weben, Schmieden werden die Produktionsmittel, Baumwolle und Spindel, Garn und Webstuhl, Eisen und Amboß, zu Bildungselementen eines Produkts, eines neuen Gebrauchswerts.20 Die alte Form ihres Gebrauchswerts vergeht, aber nur um in einer neuen Form von Gebrauchswert aufzugehn. Bei Betrachtung des Wertbildungsprozesses ergab sich aber, daß, soweit ein Gebrauchswert zweckgemäß vernutzt wird zur Produktion eines neuen Gebrauchswerts, die zur Herstellung des vernutzten Gebrauchswerts notwendige Arbeitszeit einen Teil der zur Herstellung des neuen Gebrauchswerts notwendigen Arbeitszeit bildet, also Arbeitszeit ist, die vom vernutzten Produktionsmittel auf das neue Produkt übertragen wird. Der Arbeiter erhält also die Werte der vernutzten Produktionsmittel oder überträgt sie als Wertbestandteile auf das Produkt, nicht durch sein Zusetzen von Arbeit überhaupt, sondern durch den besondren nützlichen Charakter, durch die spezifisch produktive Form dieser zusätzlichen Arbeit. Als solche zweckgemäße produktive Tätigkeit, Spinnen, Weben, Schmieden, erweckt die Arbeit durch ihren bloßen Kontakt die Produktionsmittel von den Toten, begeistet sie zu Faktoren des Arbeitsprozesses und verbindet sich mit ihnen zu Produkten.
Useful labour carries old value

How does any worker add labour-time, and therefore value? Only by doing a particular kind of work: the spinner spins, the weaver weaves, the smith forges. Because the work has that useful shape, it turns means of production into a new useful thing: cotton and spindle become yarn, yarn and loom become cloth, iron and anvil become something forged. The old useful shape disappears so it can enter a new useful shape.

When a useful thing is properly used up to make a new useful thing, the labour-time needed to make the used-up thing counts as part of the labour-time needed to make the new one. That labour-time is carried over from the used-up means of production to the new product. So the worker preserves the value of the used-up means of production, or transfers it into the product, not by adding labour in general, but by adding labour in a particular useful form.

As spinning, weaving, or forging, labour brings the means of production into the labour-process and joins with them in products.

Wäre die spezifische produktive Arbeit des Arbeiters nicht Spinnen, so würde er die Baumwolle nicht in Garn verwandeln, also auch die Werte von Baumwolle und Spindel nicht auf das Garn übertragen. Wechselt dagegen derselbe Arbeiter das Metier und wird Tischler, so wird er nach wie vor durch einen Arbeitstag seinem Material Wert zusetzen. Er setzt ihn also zu durch seine Arbeit, nicht soweit sie Spinnarbeit oder Tischlerarbeit, sondern soweit sie abstrakte, gesellschaftliche Arbeit überhaupt, und er setzt eine bestimmte Wertgröße zu, nicht weil seine Arbeit einen besondren nützlichen Inhalt hat, sondern weil sie eine bestimmte Zeit dauert. In ihrer abstrakten, allgemeinen Eigenschaft also, als Verausgabung menschlicher Arbeitskraft, setzt die Arbeit des Spinners den Werten von Baumwolle und Spindel Neuwert zu, und in ihrer konkreten, besondren, nützlichen Eigenschaft als Spinnprozeß, überträgt sie den Wert dieser Produktionsmittel auf das Produkt und erhält so ihren Wert im Produkt. Daher die Doppelseitigkeit ihres Resultats in demselben Zeitpunkt.
Abstract adds, concrete transfers

If the worker's specific productive labour were not spinning, he would not turn cotton into yarn, and so would not transfer the values of cotton and spindle to the yarn. But if the same worker changes trade and becomes a joiner, he still adds value to his material by a day's work. So he adds value through his labour not insofar as it is spinning or joinery, but insofar as it is abstract, social labour in general. And he adds a definite amount of value not because his labour has a particular useful content, but because it lasts a definite time.

In its abstract, general capacity, then, as expenditure of human labour-power, the spinner's labour adds new value to the values of cotton and spindle. In its concrete, particular, useful capacity as a spinning process, it transfers the value of those means of production to the product and so preserves their value in the product. That is why the labour has a two-sided result at the same moment.

Durch das bloß quantitative Zusetzen von Arbeit wird neuer Wert zugesetzt, durch die Qualität der zugesetzten Arbeit werden die alten Werte der Produktionsmittel im Produkt erhalten. Diese doppelseitige Wirkung derselben Arbeit infolge ihres doppelseitigen Charakters zeigt sich handgreiflich an verschiednen Erscheinungen.
Quantity adds, quality preserves

By the merely quantitative addition of labour, new value is added. By the quality of the added labour, the old values of the means of production are preserved in the product. This two-sided effect of the same labour, because of its two-sided character, shows itself clearly in several phenomena.

Nimm an, irgendeine Erfindung befähige den Spinner, in 6 Stunden so viel Baumwolle zu verspinnen wie früher in 36 Stunden. Als zweckmäßig nützliche, produktive Tätigkeit hat seine Arbeit ihre Kraft versechsfacht. Ihr Produkt ist ein sechsfaches, 36 statt 6 Pfund Garn. Aber die 36 Pfund Baumwolle saugen jetzt nur so viel Arbeitszeit ein als früher 6 Pfund. Sechsmal weniger neue Arbeit wird ihnen zugesetzt als mit der alten Methode, daher nur noch ein Sechstel des früheren Werts. Andrerseits existiert jetzt der sechsfache Wert von Baumwolle im Produkt, den 36 Pfund Garn. In den 6 Spinnstunden wird ein sechsmal größerer Wert von Rohmaterial erhalten und auf das Produkt übertragen, obgleich demselben Rohmaterial ein sechsmal kleinerer Neuwert zugesetzt wird. Dies zeigt, wie die Eigenschaft, worin die Arbeit während desselben unteilbaren Prozesses Werte erhält, wesentlich unterschieden ist von der Eigenschaft, worin sie Wert schafft. Je mehr notwendige Arbeitszeit während der Spinnoperation auf dasselbe Quantum Baumwolle geht, desto größer der Neuwert, der der Baumwolle zugesetzt wird, aber je mehr Pfunde Baumwolle in derselben Arbeitszeit versponnen werden, desto größer der alte Wert, der im Produkt erhalten wird.
Productive power splits results

Suppose some invention enables the spinner to spin as much cotton in 6 hours as he formerly spun in 36. As useful, productive activity, his labour has become six times as powerful. Its product is sixfold: 36 pounds of yarn instead of 6. But the 36 pounds of cotton now soak up only as much labour-time as 6 pounds did before. Six times less new labour is added to each pound than under the old method, and so only one-sixth of the former value.

On the other side, the sixfold value of cotton now exists in the product, the 36 pounds of yarn. In the 6 spinning hours, a six times greater value of raw material is preserved and transferred to the product, even though a six times smaller new value is added to the same raw material. This shows how the capacity in which labour preserves value during the same indivisible process is essentially different from the capacity in which it creates value. The more necessary labour-time that goes into the same amount of cotton during spinning, the greater the new value added to the cotton; but the more pounds of cotton spun in the same labour-time, the greater the old value preserved in the product.

Nimm umgekehrt an, die Produktivität der Spinnarbeit bleibe unverändert, der Spinner brauche also nach wie vor gleich viel Zeit, um ein Pfund Baumwolle in Garn zu verwandeln. Aber der Tauschwert der Baumwolle selbst wechsle, ein Pfund Baumwolle steige oder falle um das Sechsfache seines Preises. In beiden Fällen fährt der Spinner fort, demselben Quantum Baumwolle dieselbe Arbeitszeit zuzusetzen, also denselben Wert, und in beiden Fällen produziert er in gleicher Zeit gleich viel Garn. Dennoch ist der Wert, den er von der Baumwolle auf das Garn, das Produkt, überträgt, das eine Mal sechsmal kleiner, das andre Mal sechsmal größer als zuvor. Ebenso wenn die Arbeitsmittel sich verteuern oder verwohlfeilern, aber stets denselben Dienst im Arbeitsprozeß leisten.
Input value changes transfer

Now suppose the opposite: the productive power of spinning labour stays unchanged, so the spinner still needs the same time as before to turn one pound of cotton into yarn. But the exchange-value of the cotton itself changes: one pound of cotton rises to six times its price or falls to one-sixth of it. In both cases the spinner still adds the same labour-time to the same amount of cotton, and therefore the same value; and in both cases he produces the same amount of yarn in the same time. Yet the value he transfers from the cotton to the yarn, the product, is in one case six times smaller and in the other six times larger than before. The same holds when the instruments of labour become dearer or cheaper but keep doing the same service in the labour-process.

Bleiben die technischen Bedingungen des Spinnprozesses unverändert und geht gleichfalls kein Wertwechsel mit seinen Produktionsmitteln vor, so verbraucht der Spinner nach wie vor in gleichen Arbeitszeiten gleiche Quanta Rohmaterial und Maschinerie von gleichbleibenden Werten. Der Wert, den er im Produkt erhält, steht dann in direktem Verhältnis zu dem Neuwert, den er zusetzt. In zwei Wochen setzt er zweimal mehr Arbeit zu als in einer Woche, also zweimal mehr Wert, und zugleich vernutzt er zweimal mehr Material von zweimal mehr Wert, und verschleißt zweimal mehr Maschinerie von zweimal mehr Wert, erhält also im Produkt von zwei Wochen zweimal mehr Wert als im Produkt einer Woche. Unter gegebnen gleichbleibenden Produktionsbedingungen erhält der Arbeiter um so mehr Wert, je mehr Wert er zusetzt, aber er erhält nicht mehr Wert, weil er mehr Wert zusetzt, sondern weil er ihn unter gleichbleibenden und von seiner eignen Arbeit unabhängigen Bedingungen zusetzt.
Fixed conditions, proportional transfer

If the technical conditions of spinning stay unchanged, and if no change in value happens to its means of production, then the spinner continues to use up equal amounts of raw material and machinery of unchanged value in equal working-times. The value he preserves in the product then stands in direct proportion to the new value he adds. In two weeks he adds twice as much labour as in one week, and therefore twice as much value. At the same time, he uses up twice as much material of twice the value and wears out twice as much machinery of twice the value, so he preserves twice as much value in the two-week product as in the one-week product.

Under given and unchanged conditions of production, the worker preserves more value the more value he adds. But he does not preserve more value because he adds more value. He preserves it because he adds the value under unchanged conditions, conditions independent of his own labour.

Allerdings kann in einem relativen Sinn gesagt werden, daß der Arbeiter stets in derselben Proportion alte Werte erhält, worin er Neuwert zusetzt. Ob die Baumwolle von 1 sh. auf 2 sh. steige oder auf 6 d. falle, er erhält in dem Produkt einer Stunde stets nur halb soviel Baumwollwert, wie der auch wechsle, als in dem Produkt von zwei Stunden. Wechselt ferner die Produktivität seiner eignen Arbeit, sie steige oder falle, so wird er z.B. in einer Arbeitsstunde mehr oder weniger Baumwolle verspinnen als früher, und dementsprechend mehr oder weniger Baumwollwert im Produkt einer Arbeitsstunde erhalten. Mit alledem wird er in zwei Arbeitsstunden zweimal mehr Wert erhalten als in einer Arbeitsstunde.
Only a relative proportion

In a relative sense, of course, it can be said that the worker always preserves old values in the same proportion in which he adds new value. Whether cotton rises from 1 shilling to 2 shillings, or falls to 6 pence, he always preserves in the product of one hour only half as much cotton-value, whatever that value may be, as in the product of two hours. If the productive power of his own labour changes, rising or falling, he will spin more or less cotton in one working hour than before, and will therefore preserve more or less cotton-value in the product of one hour. Even so, he will preserve twice as much value in two working hours as in one.

Wert, von seiner nur symbolischen Darstellung im Wertzeichen abgesehn, existiert nur in einem Gebrauchswert, einem Ding. (Der Mensch selbst, als bloßes Dasein von Arbeitskraft betrachtet, ist ein Naturgegenstand, ein Ding, wenn auch lebendiges, selbstbewußtes Ding, und die Arbeit selbst ist dingliche Äußerung jener Kraft.) Geht daher der Gebrauchswert verloren, so geht auch der Wert verloren. Die Produktionsmittel verlieren mit ihrem Gebrauchswert nicht zugleich ihren Wert, weil sie durch den Arbeitsprozeß die ursprüngliche Gestalt ihres Gebrauchswerts in der Tat nur verlieren, um im Produkt die Gestalt eines andren Gebrauchswerts zu gewinnen. So wichtig es aber für den Wert ist, in irgendeinem Gebrauchswert zu existieren, so gleichgültig ist es, in welchem er existiert, wie die Metamorphose der Waren zeigt. Es folgt hieraus, daß im Arbeitsprozeß Wert vom Produktionsmittel auf das Produkt nur übergeht, soweit das Produktionsmittel mit seinem selbständigen Gebrauchswert auch seinen Tauschwert verliert. Es gibt nur den Wert an das Produkt ab, den es als Produktionsmittel verliert. Die gegenständlichen Faktoren des Arbeitsprozesses verhalten sich aber in dieser Hinsicht verschieden.
Value needs a useful body

Leave aside tokens that only stand for value. Value exists only in a use-value, in some useful thing. Labour-power too exists in a human being, a living, self-aware thing, and labour is that power being put to work. So if the useful thing is lost, its value is lost too.

Means of production do not lose their value at the same moment they lose their old useful shape. In the labour-process, they lose that old shape only by taking on a new useful shape in the product. Value has to be in some use-value, but it does not matter which one.

So, in the labour-process, value passes from a means of production to the product only as that means of production loses its own separate use-value and exchange-value. It gives the product only the value it loses as a means of production. The different things used in the labour-process behave differently here.

Die Kohle, womit die Maschine geheizt wird, verschwindet spurlos, ebenso das Öl, womit man die Achse des Rades schmiert usw. Farbe und andre Hilfsstoffe verschwinden, zeigen sich aber in den Eigenschaften des Produkts. Das Rohmaterial bildet die Substanz des Produkts, hat aber seine Form verändert. Rohmaterial und Hilfsstoffe verlieren also die selbständige Gestalt, womit sie in den Arbeitsprozeß als Gebrauchswerte eintraten. Anders mit den eigentlichen Arbeitsmitteln. Ein Instrument, eine Maschine, ein Fabrikgebäude, ein Gefäß usw. dienen im Arbeitsprozeß nur, solange sie ihre ursprüngliche Gestalt bewahren und morgen wieder in ebenderselben Form in den Arbeitsprozeß eingehn wie gestern. Wie sie während ihres Lebens, des Arbeitsprozesses, ihre selbständige Gestalt dem Produkt gegenüber bewahren, so auch nach ihrem Tode. Die Leichen von Maschinen, Werkzeugen, Arbeitsgebäuden usw. existieren immer noch getrennt von den Produkten, die sie bilden halfen. Betrachten wir nun die ganze Periode, während deren ein solches Arbeitsmittel dient, von dem Tag seines Eintritts in die Werkstätte bis zum Tage seiner Verbannung in die Rumpelkammer, so ist während dieser Periode sein Gebrauchswert von der Arbeit vollständig verzehrt worden und sein Tauschwert daher vollständig auf das Produkt übergegangen. Hat eine Spinnmaschine z.B. in 10 Jahren ausgelebt, so ist während des zehnjährigen Arbeitsprozesses ihr Gesamtwert auf das zehnjährige Produkt übergegangen. Die Lebensperiode eines Arbeitsmittels umfängt also eine größere oder kleinere Anzahl stets von neuem mit ihm wiederholter Arbeitsprozesse. Und es geht dem Arbeitsmittel wie dem Menschen. Jeder Mensch stirbt täglich um 24 Stunden ab. Man sieht aber keinem Menschen genau an, wieviel Tage er bereits verstorben ist. Dies verhindert Lebensversicherungsgesellschaften jedoch nicht, aus dem Durchschnittsleben der Menschen sehr sichre, und was noch viel mehr ist, sehr profitliche Schlüsse zu ziehn. So mit dem Arbeitsmittel. Man weiß aus der Erfahrung, wie lang ein Arbeitsmittel, z.B. eine Maschine von gewisser Art, durchschnittlich vorhält. Gesetzt, sein Gebrauchswert im Arbeitsprozeß daure nur 6 Tage. So verliert es im Durchschnitt jeden Arbeitstag 1/6 seines Gebrauchswerts und gibt daher 1/6 seines Werts an das tägliche Produkt ab. In dieser Art wird der Verschleiß aller Arbeitsmittel berechnet, also z.B. ihr täglicher Verlust an Gebrauchswert und ihre entsprechende tägliche Wertabgabe an das Produkt.
Different means wear differently

The coal used to heat the machine disappears without a trace, and so does the oil used to grease the axle of the wheel. Dye and other auxiliary materials disappear too, but show up in the properties of the product. Raw material forms the substance of the product, but in a changed form. So raw material and auxiliary materials lose the independent shape in which they entered the labour-process as use-values.

The actual instruments of labour are different. An instrument, a machine, a factory building, a vessel, and so on serve in the labour-process only as long as they keep their original shape and can enter tomorrow's labour-process in the same form as yesterday. As they keep their independent shape over against the product during their life, the labour-process, so they keep it after their death. The corpses of machines, tools, work-buildings, and the like still exist apart from the products they helped form.

Now take the whole period during which such an instrument of labour serves, from the day it enters the workshop to the day it is banished to the lumber room. During that period its use-value has been completely consumed by labour, and therefore its exchange-value has passed completely to the product. If a spinning machine, for example, has lived itself out in 10 years, then during the 10-year labour-process its whole value has passed to the 10-year product. The life-period of an instrument of labour therefore covers a larger or smaller number of labour-processes repeated over and over with it.

And the instrument of labour is like a human being. Every human being dies off daily by 24 hours, but by looking at someone you cannot tell exactly how many days of life have already been used up. That does not stop life insurance companies from drawing very secure, and, what is far more important, highly profitable, conclusions from the average life of human beings. So it is with instruments of labour. Experience tells how long, on average, an instrument of labour, say a machine of a certain kind, lasts. Suppose its use-value in the labour-process lasts only 6 days. Then, on average, it loses one-sixth of its use-value each working day, and therefore gives one-sixth of its value to the daily product. In this way the wear of all instruments of labour is calculated: their daily loss of use-value and the corresponding daily giving-up of value to the product.

Es zeigt sich so schlagend, daß ein Produktionsmittel nie mehr Wert an das Produkt abgibt, als es im Arbeitsprozeß durch Vernichtung seines eignen Gebrauchswerts verliert. Hätte es keinen Wert zu verlieren, d.h. wäre es nicht selbst Produkt menschlicher Arbeit, so würde es keinen Wert an das Produkt abgeben. Es diente als Bildner von Gebrauchswert, ohne als Bildner von Tauschwert zu dienen. Dies ist daher der Fall mit allen Produktionsmitteln, die von Natur, ohne menschliches Zutun, vorhanden sind, mit Erde, Wind, Wasser, dem Eisen in der Erzader, dem Holze des Urwaldes usw.
Nature helps without value

So a means of production never gives the product more value than it loses when its own use-value is used up. If it has no value to lose, because no human labour produced it, it gives no value to the product. It helps make the new useful thing, but it does not help make exchange-value. That is true of means of production found in nature without human help: land, wind, water, iron in the ore seam, timber in the virgin forest, and so on.

Ein andres interessantes Phänomen tritt uns hier entgegen. Eine Maschine sei z.B. 1.000 Pfd.St. wert und schleiße sich in 1.000 Tagen ab. In diesem Fall geht täglich 1/1.000 des Werts der Maschine von ihr selbst auf ihr tägliches Produkt über. Zugleich, wenn auch mit abnehmender Lebenskraft, wirkt stets die Gesamtmaschine im Arbeitsprozeß. Es zeigt sich also, daß ein Faktor des Arbeitsprozesses, ein Produktionsmittel, ganz in den Arbeitsprozeß, aber nur zum Teil in den Verwertungsprozeß eingeht. Der Unterschied von Arbeitsprozeß und Verwertungsprozeß reflektiert sich hier an ihren gegenständlichen Faktoren, indem dasselbe Produktionsmittel als Element des Arbeitsprozesses ganz und als Element der Wertbildung nur stückweis in demselben Produktionsprozeß zählt.21
Whole machine, fractional value

Now take another case. Suppose a machine is worth 1,000 pounds sterling and wears out over 1,000 days. Each day, one one-thousandth of its value passes into that day's product. But the whole machine is still working in the labour-process, even as it wears down.

So the same machine enters the labour-process as a whole machine, but enters capital's value-growth only a piece at a time. In making the product, the whole machine is needed. In forming value, only the worn-out slice of its value counts that day.

Andrerseits kann umgekehrt ein Produktionsmittel ganz in den Verwertungsprozeß eingehn, obgleich nur stückweis in den Arbeitsprozeß. Nimm an, beim Verspinnen der Baumwolle fielen täglich auf 115 Pfund 15 Pfund ab, die kein Garn, sondern nur devil's dust <Baumwollstaub> bilden. Dennoch, wenn dieser Abfall von 15 Pfund normal, von der Durchschnittsverarbeitung der Baumwolle unzertrennlich ist, geht der Wert der 15 Pfund Baumwolle, die kein Element des Garns, ganz ebensosehr in den Garnwert ein, wie der Wert der 100 Pfund, die seine Substanz bilden. Der Gebrauchswert von 15 Pfund Baumwolle muß verstauben, um 100 Pfund Garn zu machen. Der Untergang dieser Baumwolle ist also eine Produktionsbedingung des Garns. Ebendeswegen gibt sie ihren Wert an das Garn ab. Dies gilt von allen Exkrementen des Arbeitsprozesses, in dem Grad wenigstens, worin diese Exkremente nicht wieder neue Produktionsmittel und daher neue selbständige Gebrauchswerte bilden. So sieht man in den großen Maschinenfabriken zu Manchester Berge von Eisenabfällen, durch zyklopische Maschinen gleich Hobelspänen abgeschält, am Abend auf großen Wagen aus der Fabrik in die Eisengießerei wandern, um den andren Tag wieder als massives Eisen aus der Eisengießerei in die Fabrik zurückzuwandern.
Normal waste carries value

Conversely, a means of production can enter the process of value-growth as a whole, even though it enters the labour-process only bit by bit. Suppose that, in spinning cotton, 15 pounds out of every 115 pounds fall away each day and form no yarn, only devil's dust. Even so, if this waste of 15 pounds is normal and inseparable from the average processing of cotton, then the value of the 15 pounds of cotton that form no part of the yarn enters the value of the yarn just as much as the value of the 100 pounds that form its substance.

The use-value of 15 pounds of cotton has to turn to dust in order to make 100 pounds of yarn. The destruction of this cotton is therefore a condition of producing the yarn. For that very reason it gives its value to the yarn. This holds for all waste products of the labour-process, at least to the extent that these waste products do not themselves again form new means of production and therefore new independent use-values. In the great machine factories of Manchester, for example, mountains of iron scraps, shaved off by giant machines like wood shavings, can be seen moving out of the factory in large wagons in the evening to the iron foundry, only to move back the next day from the foundry to the factory as solid iron.

Nur soweit Produktionsmittel während des Arbeitsprozesses Wert in der Gestalt ihrer alten Gebrauchswerte verlieren, übertragen sie Wert auf die neue Gestalt des Produkts. Das Maximum des Wertverlustes, den sie im Arbeitsprozeß erleiden können, ist offenbar beschränkt durch die ursprüngliche Wertgröße, womit sie in den Arbeitsprozeß eintreten, oder durch die zu ihrer eignen Produktion erheischte Arbeitszeit. Produktionsmittel können dem Produkt daher nie mehr Wert zusetzen, als sie unabhängig vom Arbeitsprozeß, dem sie dienen, besitzen. Wie nützlich auch ein Arbeitsmaterial, eine Maschine, ein Produktionsmittel: wenn es 150 Pfd. St., sage 500 Arbeitstage, kostet, setzt es dem Gesamtprodukt, zu dessen Bildung es dient, nie mehr als 150 Pfd.St. zu. Sein Wert ist bestimmt nicht durch den Arbeitsprozeß, worin es als Produktionsmittel eingeht, sondern durch den Arbeitsprozeß, woraus es als Produkt herauskommt. In dem Arbeitsprozeß dient es nur als Gebrauchswert, als Ding mit nützlichen Eigenschaften, und gäbe daher keinen Wert an das Produkt ab, hätte es nicht Wert besessen vor seinem Eintritt in den Prozeß.22
The transfer limit

Means of production transfer value to the new shape of the product only insofar as, during the labour-process, they lose value in the shape of their old use-values. The maximum value-loss they can suffer in the labour-process is plainly limited by the original amount of value with which they enter it, or by the labour-time required for their own production. Means of production can therefore never pass on to the product more value than they possess independently of the labour-process they serve.

However useful a working material, a machine, or any means of production may be, if it costs 150 pounds sterling, say 500 working days, it never passes more than 150 pounds sterling to the total product whose formation it serves. Its value is determined not by the labour-process into which it enters as a means of production, but by the labour-process out of which it comes as a product. In the labour-process it serves only as a use-value, a thing with useful properties, and therefore would give no value to the product if it had not possessed value before entering the process.

Indem die produktive Arbeit Produktionsmittel in Bildungselemente eines neuen Produkts verwandelt, geht mit deren Wert eine Seelenwandrung vor. Er geht aus dem verzehrten Leib in den neu gestalteten Leib über. Aber diese Seelenwandrung ereignet sich gleichsam hinter dem Rücken der wirklichen Arbeit. Der Arbeiter kann neue Arbeit nicht zusetzen, also nicht neuen Wert schaffen, ohne alte Werte zu erhalten, denn er muß die Arbeit immer in bestimmter nützlicher Form zusetzen, und er kann sie nicht in nützlicher Form zusetzen, ohne Produkte zu Produktionsmitteln eines neuen Produkts zu machen und dadurch ihren Wert auf das neue Produkt zu übertragen. Es ist also eine Naturgabe der sich betätigenden Arbeitskraft, der lebendigen Arbeit, Wert zu erhalten, indem sie Wert zusetzt, eine Naturgabe, die dem Arbeiter nichts kostet, aber dem Kapitalisten viel einbringt, die Erhaltung des vorhandnen Kapitalwerts.22a Solange das Geschäft flott geht, ist der Kapitalist zu sehr in die Plusmacherei vertieft, um diese Gratisgabe der Arbeit zu sehn. Gewaltsame Unterbrechungen des Arbeitsprozesses, Krisen, machen sie ihm empfindlich bemerksam.23
Free gift of living labour

As productive labour turns means of production into formative elements of a new product, their value undergoes a kind of soul-migration. It leaves the consumed body and passes into the newly formed body. But this migration happens, so to speak, behind the back of actual labour.

The worker cannot add new labour, and therefore cannot create new value, without preserving old values, because he must always add the labour in a definite useful form. And he cannot add it in a useful form without making products into means of production of a new product and thereby transferring their value to the new product.

So it is a natural gift of labour-power in action, of living labour, to preserve value while it adds value: a natural gift that costs the worker nothing but brings the capitalist a great deal, the preservation of existing capital-value. As long as business is going well, the capitalist is too absorbed in his money-making to see this free gift of labour. Violent interruptions of the labour-process, crises, make him painfully aware of it.

Was überhaupt an den Produktionsmitteln verzehrt wird, ist ihr Gebrauchswert, durch dessen Konsumtion die Arbeit Produkte bildet. Ihr Wert wird in der Tat nicht konsumiert24, kann also auch nicht reproduziert werden. Er wird erhalten, aber nicht weil eine Operation mit ihm selbst im Arbeitsprozeß vorgeht, sondern weil der Gebrauchswert, worin er ursprünglich existiert, zwar verschwindet, aber nur in einem andren Gebrauchswert verschwindet. Der Wert der Produktionsmittel erscheint daher wieder im Wert des Produkts, aber er wird, genau gesprochen, nicht reproduziert. Was produziert wird, ist der neue Gebrauchswert, worin der alte Tauschwert wieder erscheint.25
Reappearance, not reproduction

What labour uses up in the means of production is their use-value. By using that use-value, labour forms products. Their value is not actually consumed, so it cannot be reproduced. It is preserved, not because anything is done to the value itself, but because the old useful thing disappears only into another useful thing.

So the value of the means of production appears again in the value of the product. Strictly speaking, it is not reproduced. What is produced is the new use-value in which the old exchange-value appears again.

Anders mit dem subjektiven Faktor des Arbeitsprozesses, der sich betätigenden Arbeitskraft. Während die Arbeit durch ihre zweckmäßige Form den Wert der Produktionsmittel auf das Produkt überträgt und erhält, bildet jedes Moment ihrer Bewegung zusätzlichen Wert, Neuwert. Gesetzt, der Produktionsprozeß breche ab beim Punkt, wo der Arbeiter ein Äquivalent für den Wert seiner eignen Arbeitskraft produziert, durch sechsstündige Arbeit z.B. einen Wert von 3 sh. zugesetzt hat. Dieser Wert bildet den Überschuß des Produktenwerts über seine dem Wert der Produktionsmittel geschuldeten Bestandteile. Er ist der einzige Originalwert, der innerhalb dieses Prozesses entstand, der einzige Wertteil des Produkts, der durch den Prozeß selbst produziert ist. Allerdings ersetzt er nur das vom Kapitalisten beim Kauf der Arbeitskraft vorgeschoßne, vom Arbeiter selbst in Lebensmitteln verausgabte Geld. Mit Bezug auf die verausgabten 3 sh. erscheint der Neuwert von 3 sh. nur als Reproduktion. Aber er ist wirklich reproduziert, nicht nur scheinbar, wie der Wert der Produktionsmittel. Der Ersatz eines Werts durch den andren ist hier vermittelt durch neue Wertschöpfung.
Labour-power really reproduces value

Labour-power in action is different. Labour's useful form carries the value of the means of production into the product and preserves it. At the same time, every moment of labour creates additional value, new value.

Suppose production stops at the point where the worker has produced an equivalent for the value of his own labour-power, say 3 shillings in 6 hours. This 3 shillings is the part of the product's value left after the means-of-production parts are counted. It is the only new value that arose inside this process.

Of course, it only replaces the money the capitalist advanced to buy labour-power, money the worker then spent on means of subsistence. Compared with that 3 shillings spent, the new value of 3 shillings appears only as reproduction. But it is really reproduced, not merely reappearing like the value of the means of production. One value is replaced by another through the creation of new value.

Wir wissen jedoch bereits, daß der Arbeitsprozeß über den Punkt hinaus fortdauert, wo ein bloßes Äquivalent für den Wert der Arbeitskraft reproduziert und dem Arbeitsgegenstand zugesetzt wäre. Statt der 6 Stunden, die hierzu genügen, währt der Prozeß z.B. 12 Stunden. Durch die Betätigung der Arbeitskraft wird also nicht nur ihr eigner Wert reproduziert, sondern ein überschüssiger Wert produziert. Dieser Mehrwert bildet den Überschuß des Produktenwerts über den Wert der verzehrten Produktbildner, d.h. der Produktionsmittel und der Arbeitskraft.
Surplus-value as excess

We already know, however, that the labour-process continues beyond the point where a mere equivalent for the value of labour-power would be reproduced and added to the object worked on. Instead of the 6 hours sufficient for this, the process lasts, for example, 12 hours. Through the action of labour-power, then, not only is its own value reproduced, but a surplus value is produced. This surplus-value forms the excess of the product's value over the value of the consumed formative elements of the product: the means of production and labour-power.

Indem wir die verschiednen Rollen dargestellt, welche die verschiednen Faktoren des Arbeitsprozesses in der Bildung des Produktenwerts spielen, haben wir in der Tat die Funktionen der verschiednen Bestandteile des Kapitals in seinem eignen Verwertungsprozeß charakterisiert. Der Überschuß des Gesamtwerts des Produkts über die Wertsumme seiner Bildungselemente ist der Überschuß des verwerteten Kapitals über den ursprünglich vorgeschoßnen Kapitalwert. Produktionsmittel auf der einen Seite, Arbeitskraft auf der andren sind nur die verschiednen Existenzformen, die der ursprüngliche Kapitalwert annahm bei Abstreifung seiner Geldform und seiner Verwandlung in die Faktoren des Arbeitsprozesses.
Capital parts by function

We have now described what each factor in the labour-process does in forming the product's value. That also describes what each part of capital does as capital grows in value.

If the product is worth more than the things used to make it, then the capital has grown beyond the value first advanced. Means of production and labour-power are the two forms that the original value took after it left the money-form and entered the labour-process.

Der Teil des Kapitals also, der sich in Produktionsmittel, d.h. in Rohmaterial, Hilfsstoffe und Arbeitsmittel umsetzt, verändert seine Wertgröße nicht im Produktionsprozeß. Ich nenne ihn daher konstanten Kapitalteil, oder kürzer: konstantes Kapital.
Constant capital coined

The part of capital that is converted into means of production, that is, into raw material, auxiliary materials, and instruments of labour, does not change the amount of its value in the production process. I therefore call it the constant part of capital, or more briefly, constant capital.

Der in Arbeitskraft umgesetzte Teil des Kapitals verändert dagegen seinen Wert im Produktionsprozeß. Er reproduziert sein eignes Äquivalent und einen Überschuß darüber, Mehrwert, der selbst wechseln, größer oder kleiner sein kann. Aus einer konstanten Größe verwandelt sich dieser Teil des Kapitals fortwährend in eine variable. Ich nenne ihn daher variablen Kapitalteil, oder kürzer: variables Kapital. Dieselben Kapitalbestandteile, die sich vom Standpunkt des Arbeitsprozesses als objektive und subjektive Faktoren, als Produktionsmittel und Arbeitskraft unterscheiden, unterscheiden sich vom Standpunkt des Verwertungsprozesses als konstantes Kapital und variables Kapital.
Variable capital coined

By contrast, the part of capital converted into labour-power changes its value in the production process. It reproduces its own equivalent and an excess over that equivalent, surplus-value, which can itself change, becoming larger or smaller. This part of capital continually transforms itself from a constant amount into a variable one. I therefore call it the variable part of capital, or more briefly, variable capital.

The same parts of capital can be sorted in two ways. In the labour-process, they are the things used to make the product and the labour-power doing the work. In the process where capital grows in value, they are constant capital and variable capital.

Der Begriff des konstanten Kapitals schließt eine Wertrevolution seiner Bestandteile in keiner Weise aus. Nimm an, das Pfund Baumwolle koste heute 6 d. und steige morgen, infolge eines Ausfalls der Baumwollernte, auf 1 sh. Die alte Baumwolle, die fortfährt, verarbeitet zu werden, ist zum Wert von 6 d. gekauft, fügt aber jetzt dem Produkt einen Wertteil von 1 sh. zu. Und die bereits versponnene, vielleicht schon als Garn auf dem Markt zirkulierende Baumwolle fügt dem Produkt ebenfalls das Doppelte ihres ursprünglichen Werts zu. Man sieht jedoch, daß diese Wertwechsel unabhängig sind von der Verwertung der Baumwolle im Spinnprozeß selbst. Wäre die alte Baumwolle noch gar nicht in den Arbeitsprozeß eingegangen, so könnte sie jetzt zu 1 sh. statt zu 6 d. wieder verkauft werden. Umgekehrt: Je weniger Arbeitsprozesse sie noch durchlaufen hat, desto sichrer ist dies Resultat. Es ist daher Gesetz der Spekulation, bei solchen Wertrevolutionen auf das Rohmaterial in seiner mindest verarbeiteten Form zu spekulieren, also eher auf Garn als auf Gewebe und eher auf die Baumwolle selbst als auf das Garn. Die Wertänderung entspringt hier in dem Prozeß, der Baumwolle produziert, nicht in dem Prozeß, worin sie als Produktionsmittel und daher als konstantes Kapital funktioniert. Der Wert einer Ware ist zwar bestimmt durch das Quantum der in ihr enthaltnen Arbeit, aber dies Quantum selbst ist gesellschaftlich bestimmt. Hat sich die gesellschaftlich zu ihrer Produktion erheischte Arbeitszeit verändert - und dasselbe Quantum Baumwolle z.B. stellt in ungünstigen Ernten größeres Quantum Arbeit dar, als in günstigen - , so findet eine Rückwirkung auf die alte Ware statt, die immer nur als einzelnes Exemplar ihrer Gattung gilt26, deren Wert stets durch gesellschaftlich notwendige, also auch stets unter gegenwärtigen gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen notwendige Arbeit gemessen wird.
Value changes in constant capital

The concept of constant capital in no way rules out a change in the value of its components. Suppose a pound of cotton costs 6 pence today and rises tomorrow, because of a failed cotton harvest, to 1 shilling. The old cotton, which continues to be worked up, was bought at 6 pence, but now passes a value-part of 1 shilling to the product. And the cotton already spun, perhaps already circulating on the market as yarn, likewise passes on twice its original value.

It is clear, however, that these changes in value are independent of the value-growth of the cotton in the spinning process itself. If the old cotton had not entered the labour-process at all, it could now be resold for 1 shilling instead of 6 pence. Conversely, the fewer labour-processes it has already passed through, the surer this result is. It is therefore a law of speculation, in such value-revolutions, to speculate on the raw material in its least worked-up form: on yarn rather than cloth, and on cotton itself rather than yarn.

The change in value arises here in the process that produces cotton, not in the process where cotton functions as a means of production and therefore as constant capital. The value of a commodity is indeed determined by the amount of labour contained in it, but that amount is itself socially determined. If the labour-time socially required for its production has changed, and the same amount of cotton represents more labour in a bad harvest than in a good one, then this has a backward effect on the old commodity. That old commodity always counts only as a single specimen of its kind, whose value is measured by socially necessary labour, and therefore by labour necessary under present social conditions.

Wie der Wert des Rohmaterials, mag der Wert bereits im Produktionsprozeß dienender Arbeitsmittel, der Maschinerie usw., wechseln, also auch der Wertteil, den sie dem Produkt abgeben. Wird z.B. infolge einer neuen Erfindung Maschinerie derselben Art mit verminderter Ausgabe von Arbeit reproduziert, so entwertet die alte Maschinerie mehr oder minder und überträgt daher auch verhältnismäßig weniger Wert auf das Produkt. Aber auch hier entspringt der Wertwechsel außerhalb des Produktionsprozesses, worin die Maschine als Produktionsmittel funktioniert. In diesem Prozeß gibt sie nie mehr Wert ab, als sie unabhängig von diesem Prozeß besitzt.
Machines can lose value too

As with the value of raw material, the value of instruments of labour already serving in the production process, such as machinery, can also change, and so can the value-part they give to the product. If, for example, a new invention allows machinery of the same kind to be reproduced with less labour spent, the old machinery loses more or less value and therefore transfers proportionally less value to the product. But here too the change in value arises outside the production process in which the machine functions as a means of production. In that process it never gives more value than it possesses independently of that process.

Wie ein Wechsel im Wert der Produktionsmittel, ob auch rückwirkend nach ihrem bereits erfolgten Eintritt in den Prozeß, ihren Charakter als konstantes Kapital nicht verändert, ebensowenig berührt ein Wechsel in der Proportion zwischen konstantem und variablem Kapital ihren funktionellen Unterschied. Die technischen Bedingungen des Arbeitsprozesses mögen z.B. so umgestaltet werden, daß, wo früher 10 Arbeiter mit 10 Werkzeugen von geringem Wert eine verhältnismäßig kleine Masse von Rohmaterial verarbeiteten, jetzt 1 Arbeiter mit einer teuren Maschine das hundertfache Rohmaterial verarbeitet. In diesem Fall wäre das konstante Kapital, d.h. die Wertmasse der angewandten Produktionsmittel, sehr gewachsen und der variable Teil des Kapitals, der in Arbeitskraft vorgeschoßne, sehr gefallen. Dieser Wechsel ändert jedoch nur das Größenverhältnis zwischen konstantem und variablem Kapital oder die Proportion, worin das Gesamtkapital in konstante und variable Bestandteile zerfällt, berührt dagegen nicht den Unterschied von konstant und variabel.
Proportion changes, function remains

Just as a change in the value of the means of production, even one that works backward after they have already entered the process, does not change their character as constant capital, a change in the proportion between constant and variable capital likewise does not touch their functional difference.

The technical conditions of the labour-process may be transformed so that where 10 workers with 10 cheap tools once worked up a relatively small mass of raw material, now 1 worker with an expensive machine works up a hundred times as much raw material. In that case the constant capital, that is, the total value of the means of production used, would have grown greatly, and the variable part of capital, advanced in labour-power, would have fallen greatly.

But this change alters only the size relation between constant and variable capital, or the proportion in which total capital splits into constant and variable components. It does not touch the difference between constant and variable.

K.6
Chapter Eight — Constant Capital and Variable Capital
The preceding chapter showed labour-power producing more value than its own value; this chapter separates that new value from the old value merely carried over by the means of production and names the two capital-functions built on the split.
The various factors of the labour-process play different parts in forming the value of the product.
Different factors, different roles

The different factors in the labour-process take different parts in forming the value of the product.

The labourer adds fresh value to the subject of his labour by expending upon it a given amount of additional labour, no matter what the specific character and utility of that labour may be. On the other hand, the values of the means of production used up in the process are preserved, and present themselves afresh as constituent parts of the value of the product; the values of the cotton and the spindle, for instance, re-appear again in the value of the yarn. The value of the means of production is therefore preserved, by being transferred to the product. This transfer takes place during the conversion of those means into a product, or in other words, during the labour-process. It is brought about by labour; but how?
New value and transferred value

The worker adds new value to the thing he works on by adding a definite amount of labour, whatever the content, aim, or technical character of that labour may be. On the other side, the values of the used-up means of production show up again as parts of the product's value: the values of cotton and spindle, for example, in the value of the yarn. So the value of the means of production is preserved by being transferred to the product. This transfer happens while the means of production are being turned into the product, in the labour-process. Labour makes this transfer happen. But how?

The labourer does not perform two operations at once, one in order to add value to the cotton, the other in order to preserve the value of the means of production, or, what amounts to the same thing, to transfer to the yarn, to the product, the value of the cotton on which he works, and part of the value of the spindle with which he works. But, by the very act of adding new value, he preserves their former values. Since, however, the addition of new value to the subject of his labour, and the preservation of its former value, are two entirely distinct results, produced simultaneously by the labourer, during one operation, it is plain that this two-fold nature of the result can be explained only by the two-fold nature of his labour; at one and the same time, it must in one character create value, and in another character preserve or transfer value.
One labour, two effects

The worker does not work twice in the same time: not once to add value to the cotton by his labour, and then again to preserve its old value, or what is the same thing, to transfer the value of the cotton he works up and the spindle he works with to the product, the yarn. Rather, simply by adding new value, he preserves the old value.

But adding new value to the object worked on and preserving old values in the product are two quite different results, even though the worker produces them in the same time and works only once in that time. So this two-sided result can plainly be explained only by the two-sidedness of the labour itself. At the same moment, labour must create value in one capacity and preserve or transfer value in another.

Now, in what manner does every labourer add new labour and consequently new value? Evidently, only by labouring productively in a particular way; the spinner by spinning, the weaver by weaving, the smith by forging. But, while thus incorporating labour generally, that is value, it is by the particular form alone of the labour, by the spinning, the weaving and the forging respectively, that the means of production, the cotton and spindle, the yarn and loom, and the iron and anvil become constituent elements of the product, of a new use-value. 1 Each use-value disappears, but only to re-appear under a new form in a new use-value. Now, we saw, when we were considering the process of creating value, that, if a use-value be effectively consumed in the production of a new use-value, the quantity of labour expended in the production of the consumed article, forms a portion of the quantity of labour necessary to produce the new use-value; this portion is therefore labour transferred from the means of production to the new product. Hence, the labourer preserves the values of the consumed means of production, or transfers them as portions of its value to the product, not by virtue of his additional labour, abstractedly considered, but by virtue of the particular useful character of that labour, by virtue of its special productive form. In so far then as labour is such specific productive activity, in so far as it is spinning, weaving, or forging, it raises, by mere contact, the means of production from the dead, makes them living factors of the labour-process, and combines with them to form the new products.
Useful labour carries old value

How does any worker add labour-time, and therefore value? Only by doing a particular kind of work: the spinner spins, the weaver weaves, the smith forges. Because the work has that useful shape, it turns means of production into a new useful thing: cotton and spindle become yarn, yarn and loom become cloth, iron and anvil become something forged. The old useful shape disappears so it can enter a new useful shape.

When a useful thing is properly used up to make a new useful thing, the labour-time needed to make the used-up thing counts as part of the labour-time needed to make the new one. That labour-time is carried over from the used-up means of production to the new product. So the worker preserves the value of the used-up means of production, or transfers it into the product, not by adding labour in general, but by adding labour in a particular useful form.

As spinning, weaving, or forging, labour brings the means of production into the labour-process and joins with them in products.

If the special productive labour of the workman were not spinning, he could not convert the cotton into yarn, and therefore could not transfer the values of the cotton and spindle to the yarn. Suppose the same workman were to change his occupation to that of a joiner, he would still by a day’s labour add value to the material he works upon. Consequently, we see, first, that the addition of new value takes place not by virtue of his labour being spinning in particular, or joinering in particular, but because it is labour in the abstract, a portion of the total labour of society; and we see next, that the value added is of a given definite amount, not because his labour has a special utility, but because it is exerted for a definite time. On the one hand, then, it is by virtue of its general character, as being expenditure of human labour-power in the abstract, that spinning adds new value to the values of the cotton and the spindle; and on the other hand, it is by virtue of its special character, as being a concrete, useful process, that the same labour of spinning both transfers the values of the means of production to the product, and preserves them in the product. Hence at one and the same time there is produced a two-fold result.
Abstract adds, concrete transfers

If the worker's specific productive labour were not spinning, he would not turn cotton into yarn, and so would not transfer the values of cotton and spindle to the yarn. But if the same worker changes trade and becomes a joiner, he still adds value to his material by a day's work. So he adds value through his labour not insofar as it is spinning or joinery, but insofar as it is abstract, social labour in general. And he adds a definite amount of value not because his labour has a particular useful content, but because it lasts a definite time.

In its abstract, general capacity, then, as expenditure of human labour-power, the spinner's labour adds new value to the values of cotton and spindle. In its concrete, particular, useful capacity as a spinning process, it transfers the value of those means of production to the product and so preserves their value in the product. That is why the labour has a two-sided result at the same moment.

By the simple addition of a certain quantity of labour, new value is added, and by the quality of this added labour, the original values of the means of production are preserved in the product. This two-fold effect, resulting from the two-fold character of labour, may be traced in various phenomena.
Quantity adds, quality preserves

By the merely quantitative addition of labour, new value is added. By the quality of the added labour, the old values of the means of production are preserved in the product. This two-sided effect of the same labour, because of its two-sided character, shows itself clearly in several phenomena.

Let us assume, that some invention enables the spinner to spin as much cotton in 6 hours as he was able to spin before in 36 hours. His labour is now six times as effective as it was, for the purposes of useful production. The product of 6 hours’ work has increased six-fold, from 6 lbs. to 36 lbs. But now the 36 lbs. of cotton absorb only the same amount of labour as formerly did the 6 lbs. One-sixth as much new labour is absorbed by each pound of cotton, and consequently, the value added by the labour to each pound is only one-sixth of what it formerly was. On the other hand, in the product, in the 36 lbs. of yarn, the value transferred from the cotton is six times as great as before. By the 6 hours’ spinning, the value of the raw material preserved and transferred to the product is six times as great as before, although the new value added by the labour of the spinner to each pound of the very same raw material is one-sixth what it was formerly. This shows that the two properties of labour, by virtue of which it is enabled in one case to preserve value, and in the other to create value, are essentially different. On the one hand, the longer the time necessary to spin a given weight of cotton into yarn, the greater is the new value added to the material; on the other hand, the greater the weight of the cotton spun in a given time, the greater is the value preserved, by being transferred from it to the product.
Productive power splits results

Suppose some invention enables the spinner to spin as much cotton in 6 hours as he formerly spun in 36. As useful, productive activity, his labour has become six times as powerful. Its product is sixfold: 36 pounds of yarn instead of 6. But the 36 pounds of cotton now soak up only as much labour-time as 6 pounds did before. Six times less new labour is added to each pound than under the old method, and so only one-sixth of the former value.

On the other side, the sixfold value of cotton now exists in the product, the 36 pounds of yarn. In the 6 spinning hours, a six times greater value of raw material is preserved and transferred to the product, even though a six times smaller new value is added to the same raw material. This shows how the capacity in which labour preserves value during the same indivisible process is essentially different from the capacity in which it creates value. The more necessary labour-time that goes into the same amount of cotton during spinning, the greater the new value added to the cotton; but the more pounds of cotton spun in the same labour-time, the greater the old value preserved in the product.

Let us now assume, that the productiveness of the spinner’s labour, instead of varying, remains constant, that he therefore requires the same time as he formerly did, to convert one pound of cotton into yarn, but that the exchange-value of the cotton varies, either by rising to six times its former value or falling to one-sixth of that value. In both these cases, the spinner puts the same quantity of labour into a pound of cotton, and therefore adds as much value, as he did before the change in the value: he also produces a given weight of yarn in the same time as he did before. Nevertheless, the value that he transfers from the cotton to the yarn is either one-sixth of what it was before the variation, or, as the case may be, six times as much as before. The same result occurs when the value of the instruments of labour rises or falls, while their useful efficacy in the process remains unaltered.
Input value changes transfer

Now suppose the opposite: the productive power of spinning labour stays unchanged, so the spinner still needs the same time as before to turn one pound of cotton into yarn. But the exchange-value of the cotton itself changes: one pound of cotton rises to six times its price or falls to one-sixth of it. In both cases the spinner still adds the same labour-time to the same amount of cotton, and therefore the same value; and in both cases he produces the same amount of yarn in the same time. Yet the value he transfers from the cotton to the yarn, the product, is in one case six times smaller and in the other six times larger than before. The same holds when the instruments of labour become dearer or cheaper but keep doing the same service in the labour-process.

Again, if the technical conditions of the spinning process remain unchanged, and no change of value takes place in the means of production, the spinner continues to consume in equal working-times equal quantities of raw material, and equal quantities of machinery of unvarying value. The value that he preserves in the product is directly proportional to the new value that he adds to the product. In two weeks he incorporates twice as much labour, and therefore twice as much value, as in one week, and during the same time he consumes twice as much material, and wears out twice as much machinery, of double the value in each case: he therefore preserves, in the product of two weeks, twice as much value as in the product of one week. So long as the conditions of production remain the same, the more value the labourer adds by fresh labour, the more value he transfers and preserves; but he does so merely because this addition of new value takes place under conditions that have not varied and are independent of his own labour.
Fixed conditions, proportional transfer

If the technical conditions of spinning stay unchanged, and if no change in value happens to its means of production, then the spinner continues to use up equal amounts of raw material and machinery of unchanged value in equal working-times. The value he preserves in the product then stands in direct proportion to the new value he adds. In two weeks he adds twice as much labour as in one week, and therefore twice as much value. At the same time, he uses up twice as much material of twice the value and wears out twice as much machinery of twice the value, so he preserves twice as much value in the two-week product as in the one-week product.

Under given and unchanged conditions of production, the worker preserves more value the more value he adds. But he does not preserve more value because he adds more value. He preserves it because he adds the value under unchanged conditions, conditions independent of his own labour.

Of course, it may be said in one sense, that the labourer preserves old value always in proportion to the quantity of new value that he adds. Whether the value of cotton rise from one shilling to two shillings, or fall to sixpence, the workman invariably preserves in the product of one hour only one half as much value as he preserves in two hours. In like manner, if the productiveness of his own labour varies by rising or falling, he will in one hour spin either more or less cotton, as the case may be, than he did before, and will consequently preserve in the product of one hour, more or less value of cotton; but, all the same, he will preserve by two hours’ labour twice as much value as he will by one.
Only a relative proportion

In a relative sense, of course, it can be said that the worker always preserves old values in the same proportion in which he adds new value. Whether cotton rises from 1 shilling to 2 shillings, or falls to 6 pence, he always preserves in the product of one hour only half as much cotton-value, whatever that value may be, as in the product of two hours. If the productive power of his own labour changes, rising or falling, he will spin more or less cotton in one working hour than before, and will therefore preserve more or less cotton-value in the product of one hour. Even so, he will preserve twice as much value in two working hours as in one.

Value exists only in articles of utility, in objects: we leave out of consideration its purely symbolical representation by tokens. (Man himself, viewed as the impersonation of labour-power, is a natural object, a thing, although a living conscious thing, and labour is the manifestation of this power residing in him.) If therefore an article loses its utility, it also loses its value. The reason why means of production do not lose their value, at the same time that they lose their use-value, is this: they lose in the labour-process the original form of their use-value, only to assume in the product the form of a new use-value. But, however important it may be to value, that it should have some object of utility to embody itself in, yet it is a matter of complete indifference what particular object serves this purpose; this we saw when treating of the metamorphosis of commodities. Hence it follows that in the labour-process the means of production transfer their value to the product only so far as along with their use-value they lose also their exchange-value. They give up to the product that value alone which they themselves lose as means of production. But in this respect the material factors of the labour-process do not all behave alike.
Value needs a useful body

Leave aside tokens that only stand for value. Value exists only in a use-value, in some useful thing. Labour-power too exists in a human being, a living, self-aware thing, and labour is that power being put to work. So if the useful thing is lost, its value is lost too.

Means of production do not lose their value at the same moment they lose their old useful shape. In the labour-process, they lose that old shape only by taking on a new useful shape in the product. Value has to be in some use-value, but it does not matter which one.

So, in the labour-process, value passes from a means of production to the product only as that means of production loses its own separate use-value and exchange-value. It gives the product only the value it loses as a means of production. The different things used in the labour-process behave differently here.

The coal burnt under the boiler vanishes without leaving a trace; so, too, the tallow with which the axles of wheels are greased. Dye stuffs and other auxiliary substances also vanish but re-appear as properties of the product. Raw material forms the substance of the product, but only after it has changed its form. Hence raw material and auxiliary substances lose the characteristic form with which they are clothed on entering the labour-process. It is otherwise with the instruments of labour. Tools, machines, workshops, and vessels, are of use in the labour-process, only so long as they retain their original shape, and are ready each morning to renew the process with their shape unchanged. And just as during their lifetime, that is to say, during the continued labour-process in which they serve, they retain their shape independent of the product, so, too, they do after their death. The corpses of machines, tools, workshops, &c., are always separate and distinct from the product they helped to turn out. If we now consider the case of any instrument of labour during the whole period of its service, from the day of its entry into the workshop, till the day of its banishment into the lumber room, we find that during this period its use-value has been completely consumed, and therefore its exchange-value completely transferred to the product. For instance, if a spinning machine lasts for 10 years, it is plain that during that working period its total value is gradually transferred to the product of the 10 years. The lifetime of an instrument of labour, therefore, is spent in the repetition of a greater or less number of similar operations. Its life may be compared with that of a human being. Every day brings a man 24 hours nearer to his grave: but how many days he has still to travel on that road, no man can tell accurately by merely looking at him. This difficulty, however, does not prevent life insurance offices from drawing, by means of the theory of averages, very accurate, and at the same time very profitable conclusions. So it is with the instruments of labour. It is known by experience how long on the average a machine of a particular kind will last. Suppose its use-value in the labour-process to last only six days. Then, on the average, it loses each day one-sixth of its use-value, and therefore parts with one-sixth of its value to the daily product. The wear and tear of all instruments, their daily loss of use-value, and the corresponding quantity of value they part with to the product, are accordingly calculated upon this basis.
Different means wear differently

The coal used to heat the machine disappears without a trace, and so does the oil used to grease the axle of the wheel. Dye and other auxiliary materials disappear too, but show up in the properties of the product. Raw material forms the substance of the product, but in a changed form. So raw material and auxiliary materials lose the independent shape in which they entered the labour-process as use-values.

The actual instruments of labour are different. An instrument, a machine, a factory building, a vessel, and so on serve in the labour-process only as long as they keep their original shape and can enter tomorrow's labour-process in the same form as yesterday. As they keep their independent shape over against the product during their life, the labour-process, so they keep it after their death. The corpses of machines, tools, work-buildings, and the like still exist apart from the products they helped form.

Now take the whole period during which such an instrument of labour serves, from the day it enters the workshop to the day it is banished to the lumber room. During that period its use-value has been completely consumed by labour, and therefore its exchange-value has passed completely to the product. If a spinning machine, for example, has lived itself out in 10 years, then during the 10-year labour-process its whole value has passed to the 10-year product. The life-period of an instrument of labour therefore covers a larger or smaller number of labour-processes repeated over and over with it.

And the instrument of labour is like a human being. Every human being dies off daily by 24 hours, but by looking at someone you cannot tell exactly how many days of life have already been used up. That does not stop life insurance companies from drawing very secure, and, what is far more important, highly profitable, conclusions from the average life of human beings. So it is with instruments of labour. Experience tells how long, on average, an instrument of labour, say a machine of a certain kind, lasts. Suppose its use-value in the labour-process lasts only 6 days. Then, on average, it loses one-sixth of its use-value each working day, and therefore gives one-sixth of its value to the daily product. In this way the wear of all instruments of labour is calculated: their daily loss of use-value and the corresponding daily giving-up of value to the product.

It is thus strikingly clear, that means of production never transfer more value to the product than they themselves lose during the labour-process by the destruction of their own use-value. If such an instrument has no value to lose, if, in other words, it is not the product of human labour, it transfers no value to the product. It helps to create use-value without contributing to the formation of exchange-value. In this class are included all means of production supplied by Nature without human assistance, such as land, wind, water, metals in situ, and timber in virgin forests.
Nature helps without value

So a means of production never gives the product more value than it loses when its own use-value is used up. If it has no value to lose, because no human labour produced it, it gives no value to the product. It helps make the new useful thing, but it does not help make exchange-value. That is true of means of production found in nature without human help: land, wind, water, iron in the ore seam, timber in the virgin forest, and so on.

Yet another interesting phenomenon here presents itself. Suppose a machine to be worth £1,000, and to wear out in 1,000 days. Then one thousandth part of the value of the machine is daily transferred to the day’s product. At the same time, though with diminishing vitality, the machine as a whole continues to take part in the labour-process. Thus it appears, that one factor of the labour-process, a means of production, continually enters as a whole into that process, while it enters into the process of the formation of value by fractions only. The difference between the two processes is here reflected in their material factors, by the same instrument of production taking part as a whole in the labour-process, while at the same time as an element in the formation of value, it enters only by fractions. 2
Whole machine, fractional value

Now take another case. Suppose a machine is worth 1,000 pounds sterling and wears out over 1,000 days. Each day, one one-thousandth of its value passes into that day's product. But the whole machine is still working in the labour-process, even as it wears down.

So the same machine enters the labour-process as a whole machine, but enters capital's value-growth only a piece at a time. In making the product, the whole machine is needed. In forming value, only the worn-out slice of its value counts that day.

On the other hand, a means of production may take part as a whole in the formation of value, while into the labour-process it enters only bit by bit. Suppose that in spinning cotton, the waste for every 115 lbs. used amounts to 15 lbs., which is converted, not into yarn, but into “devil’s dust.” Now, although this 15 lbs. of cotton never becomes a constituent element of the yarn, yet assuming this amount of waste to be normal and inevitable under average conditions of spinning, its value is just as surely transferred to the value of the yarn, as is the value of the 100 lbs. that form the substance of the yarn. The use-value of 15 lbs. of cotton must vanish into dust, before 100 lbs. of yarn can be made. The destruction of this cotton is therefore a necessary condition in the production of the yarn. And because it is a necessary condition, and for no other reason, the value of that cotton is transferred to the product. The same holds good for every kind of refuse resulting from a labour-process, so far at least as such refuse cannot be further employed as a means in the production of new and independent use-values. Such an employment of refuse may be seen in the large machine works at Manchester, where mountains of iron turnings are carted away to the foundry in the evening, in order the next morning to re-appear in the workshops as solid masses of iron.
Normal waste carries value

Conversely, a means of production can enter the process of value-growth as a whole, even though it enters the labour-process only bit by bit. Suppose that, in spinning cotton, 15 pounds out of every 115 pounds fall away each day and form no yarn, only devil's dust. Even so, if this waste of 15 pounds is normal and inseparable from the average processing of cotton, then the value of the 15 pounds of cotton that form no part of the yarn enters the value of the yarn just as much as the value of the 100 pounds that form its substance.

The use-value of 15 pounds of cotton has to turn to dust in order to make 100 pounds of yarn. The destruction of this cotton is therefore a condition of producing the yarn. For that very reason it gives its value to the yarn. This holds for all waste products of the labour-process, at least to the extent that these waste products do not themselves again form new means of production and therefore new independent use-values. In the great machine factories of Manchester, for example, mountains of iron scraps, shaved off by giant machines like wood shavings, can be seen moving out of the factory in large wagons in the evening to the iron foundry, only to move back the next day from the foundry to the factory as solid iron.

We have seen that the means of production transfer value to the new product, so far only as during the labour-process they lose value in the shape of their old use-value. The maximum loss of value that they can suffer in the process, is plainly limited by the amount of the original value with which they came into the process, or in other words, by the labour-time necessary for their production. Therefore, the means of production can never add more value to the product than they themselves possess independently of the process in which they assist. However useful a given kind of raw material, or a machine, or other means of production may be, though it may cost £150, or, say, 500 days’ labour, yet it cannot, under any circumstances, add to the value of the product more than £150. Its value is determined not by the labour-process into which it enters as a means of production, but by that out of which it has issued as a product. In the labour-process it only serves as a mere use-value, a thing with useful properties, and could not, therefore, transfer any value to the product, unless it possessed such value previously. 3
The transfer limit

Means of production transfer value to the new shape of the product only insofar as, during the labour-process, they lose value in the shape of their old use-values. The maximum value-loss they can suffer in the labour-process is plainly limited by the original amount of value with which they enter it, or by the labour-time required for their own production. Means of production can therefore never pass on to the product more value than they possess independently of the labour-process they serve.

However useful a working material, a machine, or any means of production may be, if it costs 150 pounds sterling, say 500 working days, it never passes more than 150 pounds sterling to the total product whose formation it serves. Its value is determined not by the labour-process into which it enters as a means of production, but by the labour-process out of which it comes as a product. In the labour-process it serves only as a use-value, a thing with useful properties, and therefore would give no value to the product if it had not possessed value before entering the process.

While productive labour is changing the means of production into constituent elements of a new product, their value undergoes a metempsychosis. It deserts the consumed body, to occupy the newly created one. But this transmigration takes place, as it were, behind the back of the labourer. He is unable to add new labour, to create new value, without at the same time preserving old values, and this, because the labour he adds must be of a specific useful kind; and he cannot do work of a useful kind, without employing products as the means of production of a new product, and thereby transferring their value to the new product. The property therefore which labour-power in action, living labour, possesses of preserving value, at the same time that it adds it, is a gift of Nature which costs the labourer nothing, but which is very advantageous to the capitalist inasmuch as it preserves the existing value of his capital. 4 So long as trade is good, the capitalist is too much absorbed in money-grubbing to take notice of this gratuitous gift of labour. A violent interruption of the labour-process by a crisis, makes him sensitively aware of it. 5
Free gift of living labour

As productive labour turns means of production into formative elements of a new product, their value undergoes a kind of soul-migration. It leaves the consumed body and passes into the newly formed body. But this migration happens, so to speak, behind the back of actual labour.

The worker cannot add new labour, and therefore cannot create new value, without preserving old values, because he must always add the labour in a definite useful form. And he cannot add it in a useful form without making products into means of production of a new product and thereby transferring their value to the new product.

So it is a natural gift of labour-power in action, of living labour, to preserve value while it adds value: a natural gift that costs the worker nothing but brings the capitalist a great deal, the preservation of existing capital-value. As long as business is going well, the capitalist is too absorbed in his money-making to see this free gift of labour. Violent interruptions of the labour-process, crises, make him painfully aware of it.

As regards the means of production, what is really consumed is their use-value, and the consumption of this use-value by labour results in the product. There is no consumption of their value, 6 and it would therefore be inaccurate to say that it is reproduced. It is rather preserved; not by reason of any operation it undergoes itself in the process; but because the article in which it originally exists, vanishes, it is true, but vanishes into some other article. Hence, in the value of the product, there is a reappearance of the value of the means of production, but there is, strictly speaking, no reproduction of that value. That which is produced is a new use-value in which the old exchange-value reappears. 7
Reappearance, not reproduction

What labour uses up in the means of production is their use-value. By using that use-value, labour forms products. Their value is not actually consumed, so it cannot be reproduced. It is preserved, not because anything is done to the value itself, but because the old useful thing disappears only into another useful thing.

So the value of the means of production appears again in the value of the product. Strictly speaking, it is not reproduced. What is produced is the new use-value in which the old exchange-value appears again.

It is otherwise with the subjective factor of the labour-process, with labour-power in action. While the labourer, by virtue of his labour being of a specialised kind that has a special object, preserves and transfers to the product the value of the means of production, he at the same time, by the mere act of working, creates each instant an additional or new value. Suppose the process of production to be stopped just when the workman has produced an equivalent for the value of his own labour-power, when, for example, by six hours’ labour, he has added a value of three shillings. This value is the surplus, of the total value of the product, over the portion of its value that is due to the means of production. It is the only original bit of value formed during this process, the only portion of the value of the product created by this process. Of course, we do not forget that this new value only replaces the money advanced by the capitalist in the purchase of the labour-power, and spent by the labourer on the necessaries of life. With regard to the money spent, the new value is merely a reproduction; but, nevertheless, it is an actual, and not, as in the case of the value of the means of production, only an apparent, reproduction. The substitution of one value for another, is here effected by the creation of new value.
Labour-power really reproduces value

Labour-power in action is different. Labour's useful form carries the value of the means of production into the product and preserves it. At the same time, every moment of labour creates additional value, new value.

Suppose production stops at the point where the worker has produced an equivalent for the value of his own labour-power, say 3 shillings in 6 hours. This 3 shillings is the part of the product's value left after the means-of-production parts are counted. It is the only new value that arose inside this process.

Of course, it only replaces the money the capitalist advanced to buy labour-power, money the worker then spent on means of subsistence. Compared with that 3 shillings spent, the new value of 3 shillings appears only as reproduction. But it is really reproduced, not merely reappearing like the value of the means of production. One value is replaced by another through the creation of new value.

We know, however, from what has gone before, that the labour-process may continue beyond the time necessary to reproduce and incorporate in the product a mere equivalent for the value of the labour-power. Instead of the six hours that are sufficient for the latter purpose, the process may continue for twelve hours. The action of labour-power, therefore, not only reproduces its own value, but produces value over and above it. This surplus-value is the difference between the value of the product and the value of the elements consumed in the formation of that product, in other words, of the means of production and the labour-power.
Surplus-value as excess

We already know, however, that the labour-process continues beyond the point where a mere equivalent for the value of labour-power would be reproduced and added to the object worked on. Instead of the 6 hours sufficient for this, the process lasts, for example, 12 hours. Through the action of labour-power, then, not only is its own value reproduced, but a surplus value is produced. This surplus-value forms the excess of the product's value over the value of the consumed formative elements of the product: the means of production and labour-power.

By our explanation of the different parts played by the various factors of the labour-process in the formation of the product’s value, we have, in fact, disclosed the characters of the different functions allotted to the different elements of capital in the process of expanding its own value. The surplus of the total value of the product, over the sum of the values of its constituent factors, is the surplus of the expanded capital over the capital originally advanced. The means of production on the one hand, labour-power on the other, are merely the different modes of existence which the value of the original capital assumed when from being money it was transformed into the various factors of the labour-process.
Capital parts by function

We have now described what each factor in the labour-process does in forming the product's value. That also describes what each part of capital does as capital grows in value.

If the product is worth more than the things used to make it, then the capital has grown beyond the value first advanced. Means of production and labour-power are the two forms that the original value took after it left the money-form and entered the labour-process.

That part of capital then, which is represented by the means of production, by the raw material, auxiliary material and the instruments of labour does not, in the process of production, undergo any quantitative alteration of value. I therefore call it the constant part of capital, or, more shortly, constant capital.
Constant capital coined

The part of capital that is converted into means of production, that is, into raw material, auxiliary materials, and instruments of labour, does not change the amount of its value in the production process. I therefore call it the constant part of capital, or more briefly, constant capital.

On the other hand, that part of capital, represented by labour-power, does, in the process of production, undergo an alteration of value. It both reproduces the equivalent of its own value, and also produces an excess, a surplus-value, which may itself vary, may be more or less according to circumstances. This part of capital is continually being transformed from a constant into a variable magnitude. I therefore call it the variable part of capital, or, shortly, variable capital. The same elements of capital which, from the point of view of the labour-process, present themselves respectively as the objective and subjective factors, as means of production and labour-power, present themselves, from the point of view of the process of creating surplus-value, as constant and variable capital.
Variable capital coined

By contrast, the part of capital converted into labour-power changes its value in the production process. It reproduces its own equivalent and an excess over that equivalent, surplus-value, which can itself change, becoming larger or smaller. This part of capital continually transforms itself from a constant amount into a variable one. I therefore call it the variable part of capital, or more briefly, variable capital.

The same parts of capital can be sorted in two ways. In the labour-process, they are the things used to make the product and the labour-power doing the work. In the process where capital grows in value, they are constant capital and variable capital.

The definition of constant capital given above by no means excludes the possibility of a change of value in its elements. Suppose the price of cotton to be one day sixpence a pound, and the next day, in consequence of a failure of the cotton crop, a shilling a pound. Each pound of the cotton bought at sixpence, and worked up after the rise in value, transfers to the product a value of one shilling; and the cotton already spun before the rise, and perhaps circulating in the market as yarn, likewise transfers to the product twice its original value. It is plain, however, that these changes of value are independent of the increment or surplus-value added to the value of the cotton by the spinning itself. If the old cotton had never been spun, it could, after the rise, be resold at a shilling a pound instead of at sixpence. Further, the fewer the processes the cotton has gone through, the more certain is this result. We therefore find that speculators make it a rule when such sudden changes in value occur, to speculate in that material on which the least possible quantity of labour has been spent: to speculate, therefore, in yarn rather than in cloth, in cotton itself, rather than in yarn. The change of value in the case we have been considering, originates, not in the process in which the cotton plays the part of a means of production, and in which it therefore functions as constant capital, but in the process in which the cotton itself is produced. The value of a commodity, it is true, is determined by the quantity of labour contained in it, but this quantity is itself limited by social conditions. If the time socially necessary for the production of any commodity alters — and a given weight of cotton represents, after a bad harvest, more labour than after a good one — all previously existing commodities of the same class are affected, because they are, as it were, only individuals of the species, 8 and their value at any given time is measured by the labour socially necessary, i.e., by the labour necessary for their production under the then existing social conditions.
Value changes in constant capital

The concept of constant capital in no way rules out a change in the value of its components. Suppose a pound of cotton costs 6 pence today and rises tomorrow, because of a failed cotton harvest, to 1 shilling. The old cotton, which continues to be worked up, was bought at 6 pence, but now passes a value-part of 1 shilling to the product. And the cotton already spun, perhaps already circulating on the market as yarn, likewise passes on twice its original value.

It is clear, however, that these changes in value are independent of the value-growth of the cotton in the spinning process itself. If the old cotton had not entered the labour-process at all, it could now be resold for 1 shilling instead of 6 pence. Conversely, the fewer labour-processes it has already passed through, the surer this result is. It is therefore a law of speculation, in such value-revolutions, to speculate on the raw material in its least worked-up form: on yarn rather than cloth, and on cotton itself rather than yarn.

The change in value arises here in the process that produces cotton, not in the process where cotton functions as a means of production and therefore as constant capital. The value of a commodity is indeed determined by the amount of labour contained in it, but that amount is itself socially determined. If the labour-time socially required for its production has changed, and the same amount of cotton represents more labour in a bad harvest than in a good one, then this has a backward effect on the old commodity. That old commodity always counts only as a single specimen of its kind, whose value is measured by socially necessary labour, and therefore by labour necessary under present social conditions.

As the value of the raw material may change, so, too, may that of the instruments of labour, of the machinery, &c., employed in the process; and consequently that portion of the value of the product transferred to it from them, may also change. If in consequence of a new invention, machinery of a particular kind can be produced by a diminished expenditure of labour, the old machinery becomes depreciated more or less, and consequently transfers so much less value to the product. But here again, the change in value originates outside the process in which the machine is acting as a means of production. Once engaged in this process, the machine cannot transfer more value than it possesses apart from the process.
Machines can lose value too

As with the value of raw material, the value of instruments of labour already serving in the production process, such as machinery, can also change, and so can the value-part they give to the product. If, for example, a new invention allows machinery of the same kind to be reproduced with less labour spent, the old machinery loses more or less value and therefore transfers proportionally less value to the product. But here too the change in value arises outside the production process in which the machine functions as a means of production. In that process it never gives more value than it possesses independently of that process.

Just as a change in the value of the means of production, even after they have commenced to take a part in the labour-process, does not alter their character as constant capital, so, too, a change in the proportion of constant to variable capital does not affect the respective functions of these two kinds of capital. The technical conditions of the labour-process may be revolutionised to such an extent, that where formerly ten men using ten implements of small value worked up a relatively small quantity of raw material, one man may now, with the aid of one expensive machine, work up one hundred times as much raw material. In the latter case we have an enormous increase in the constant capital, that is represented by the total value of the means of production used, and at the same time a great reduction in the variable capital, invested in labour-power. Such a revolution, however, alters only the quantitative relation between the constant and the variable capital, or the proportions in which the total capital is split up into its constant and variable constituents; it has not in the least degree affected the essential difference between the two.
Proportion changes, function remains

Just as a change in the value of the means of production, even one that works backward after they have already entered the process, does not change their character as constant capital, a change in the proportion between constant and variable capital likewise does not touch their functional difference.

The technical conditions of the labour-process may be transformed so that where 10 workers with 10 cheap tools once worked up a relatively small mass of raw material, now 1 worker with an expensive machine works up a hundred times as much raw material. In that case the constant capital, that is, the total value of the means of production used, would have grown greatly, and the variable part of capital, advanced in labour-power, would have fallen greatly.

But this change alters only the size relation between constant and variable capital, or the proportion in which total capital splits into constant and variable components. It does not touch the difference between constant and variable.