Constant Capital and Variable Capital, 1 9 1 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 repro- duction; 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.
We know, however, from what has gone before, that the labour-process may continue beyond the time necessary to re- produce 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.
By our explanation of the different parts played by the vari- ous factors of the labour-process in the formation of the pro- duct'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 differ- ent 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. 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.
On the other hand, that part of capital, represented by labour-power, does, in the process of production, undergo an r92 Capitalist Production.
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 pro- cess of creating surplus-value, as constant and variable capital. The definition of constant capital given above by no means excludes the possibility of a change of value ia its elements. Sup]30se 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 six- pence, and worked up after tlie 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 it- self, 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 com- Const a7it Capital and Variable Capital 193 modity 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,^ and their value at any given time is measured by the labour sociall}^ necessary, i.e., by the labour necessary for their production under the then existinor social conditions.
As the value of the raw material may change, so, too, may that of the instruments of labour, of the machinery, &c., em- ployed 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 pro- duction. Once engaged in this process, the machine cannot transfer more value than it possesses apart from the process.
Just as a change in the value of the means of pro- duction, 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 tin 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 wo have an enormous increase in the constant cai)ital, that is re- presented by the total value of the means of production used, and at the same time a great reduction in the variable ca})ital, invested in labour-power. Such a revolution, however, alters only the quantitative relation between the constant and the 1 "Toutes les productions d'un meme genre ne foment proprement qu'une masse, dont le prix se determine eu general et sans egard aux circonstauces particulieres. " N 194 Capitalist Production, 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.
CHAPTER IX.
THE RATE OF SURPLUS-VALUE.
SECTION 1. — THE DEGREE OP EXPLOITATION OP LABOUR-POWER.
The surplus- value generated in the process of production by C, the capital advanced, or in other words, the self -expansion of the value of the capital C, presents itself for our consideration, in the first place, as a surplus, as the amount by which the value of the product exceeds the value of its constituent elements.
The capital C is made up of two components, one, the sum of money c laid out upon the means of production, and the other, the sum of money v expended upon the labour-power; c represents the portion that has become constant capital, and V the portion that has become variable capital. At first then, C=c+v: for example, if £500 is the capital advanced, its com- ponents may be such that the £500=£410 const. + £90 var. When the process of production is finished, we get a com- modity whose value=(c4-v) + s, where s is the surplus- value; or taking our former figures, the value of this commodity may be (£410 const. -f £90 var.) + £90 surpl. The original capital has now changed from C to C, from £500 to £590. The differ- ence is 8 or a surplus value of £90. Since the value of the constituent elements of the product is equal to the value of the advanced capital, it is mere tautology to say, that the ex- cess of the value of the product over the value of its constitu- ent elements, is equal to the expansion of the capital advanced or to the surplus- value produced.
Nevertheless, we must examine this tautology a little more closely. Tlie two things compared are, the value of the pro- duct and the value of its constituents consumed in the process of production. Now we have seen how that portion of the constant capital which consists of the instruments of labour, transfers to the product only a fraction of its value, while the remainder of that value continues to reside in those instru- ments. Since this remainder plays no part in the formation of value, we may at present leave it on one side. To introduce it into the calculation would make no difference. For instance, taking our former example, c=:£410: suppose this sum to con- sist of £312 value of raw material, £44 value of auxiliary material, and £54 value of the machinery worn away in the process; and suppose that the total value of the machinery employed is £1,054. Out of this latter sum, then, we reckon as advanced for the purpose of turning out the product, the sum of £54 alone, which the machinery loses by wear and tear in the process; for this is all it parts with to the product. Now if we also reckon the remaining £1,000, which still con- tinues in the machinery, as transferred to the product, we ought also to reckon it as part of the value advanced, and thus make it appear on both sides of our calculation.^ We should, in this way, get £1,500 on one side and £1,590 on the other. The difference of these two sums, or the surplus-value, would still be £90. Throughout this Book therefore, by constant capital advanced for the production of value, we always mean, unless the context is repugnant thereto, the value of the means of production actually consumed in the process, and that value alone.
This being so, let us return to the formula C=^c-i-v, which we saw was transformed into C =(c -h v) -f s, C becoming C We know that the value of the constant capital is transferred to, and merely re-appears in the product. The new value actually created in the process, the value produced, or value- product, is therefore not the same as the value of the product; it is not, as it would at first sight appear (c-|-v)-f s or £410 1 " If we reckon the value of the fixed capital employed as a part of the advances, Tre must reckon the remaining value of such capital at the end of the year as a part of the annual returns." (Malthus, "Princ. of Pol. Econ."2nded.,Lond., 1836, p. 269.)
ig6 Capitalist Production.
const. + £90 var. 4-^90 surpl.; bat v-hs or £90 var.-f£90 surpL not £590 but £180. If c=o, or in other words, if there were branches of industry in which the capitahst could dispense with all means of production made by previous labour, whether tliey be raw material, auxiliary material, or instruments of labour, employing only labour-power and materials supplied by Nature, in that case, there would be no constant capital to transfer to the pn)duct. This component of the value of the product, Le,y the £410 in our example, would be eliminated, but the sum of £180, the amount of new value ci^ated, or the value produced, which contains £90 of surplus- value, would remain just as great as if c represented the highest value imaginable. We should have C=(0+v)=v or C the expanded capital=v-f s and therefore C — C=s as before. On the other hand, if s=0, or in other words, if the labour-power, whose value is advanced in the form of variable capital, weie to pio- duce only its equivalent, we should have C=c4v or C the value of the product==(c-fv)+0 or C=Cr. The capital advanced would, in this case, not have expanded its value.
From what has gone before, we know that surplus-value is purely the result of a variation in the value of v, of that portion of the capital which is transformed into labour-power; con- sequently, V + s = V + v' or v plus an increment of v. But the fact that it is v alone that varies, and the conditions of that variation, are obscured by the circumstance that in consequence of the increase in the variable component of the capital, there is also an increase in the sum total of the advanced capital. It was originally £500 and becomes £590. Therefore in order that our investigation may lead to accurate results, we must make abstraction from that portion of the value of the pro- duct, in which constant capital alone appears, and consequently must equate the constant capital to zero or make c = 0. This is merely an application of a mathematical rule, employed \7henever we operate with constant and variable magnitudes, related to each other by the symbols of addition and sub- traction only.
A further difficulty is caused by the original form of the •variable capital. In our example, C'= £410 const, + £90 var The Rate of Surplus-value, 197 + £00 surpl.; but £90 is a given and therefore a constant quantity; hence it appears absurd to treat it as variable. But in fact, the terra £90 var. is here merely a symbol to show that this value undergoes a process. The portion of the capital in- vested in the purchase of labour-power is a definite quantity of materialised labour, a constant value like the value of the labour-power purchased. But in the process of production the place of the £90 is taken by the labour-power in action, dead labour is replaced by living labour, something stagnant by something flowing, a constant by a variable. The result is the reproduction of v plus an increment of v. From the point of view then of capitalist production, the whole process appears as the spontaneous variation of the originally constant value, which is transformed into labour-power. Both the process and its result, appear to be owing to this value. If, therefore, such expressions as " £90 variable capital," or " so much self- expanding value," appear contradictory, this is only because they bring to the surface a contradiction immanent in capitalist production.
At first sight it appears a strange proceeding, to equate the constant capital to zero. Yet it is what we do every day. If, for example, we wish to calculate the amount of England's profits from the cotton industry, we first of all deduct the sums paid for cotton to the United States, India, Egypt and other countries; in other words, the value of the capital that merely re-appears in the value of the product, is put = 0.
Of course the ratio of surplus-value not only to that portion of the capital from which it immediately springs, and whose change of value it represents, but also to the sum total of the capital advanced is economically of very great importance. We shall, therefore, in the third book, treat of this ratio ex- haustively. In order to enable one portion of a capital to ex- pand its value by being converted into labour-power, it is necessary that another portion be converted into means of pro- duction. In order that variable capital may perform its function, constant capital must be advanced in proper proportion, a proportion given by the special technical conditions of each labour-process. The circumstance, however, that retorts and 19^ Capitalist Production.
other vessels, are necessary to a chemical process, does not compel the chemist to notice them in the result of his analysis. If we look at the means of production, in their relation to the creation of value, and to the variation in the quantity of value, apart from anything else, they appear simply as the material in which labour-power, the value-creator, incorporates itself. Neither the nature, nor the value of this material is of an}^ importance. The only requisite is that there be a sufficient supply to absorb the labour expended in the process of pro- duction. Tliat supply once given, the material may rise or fall in value, or even be, as land and the sea, without any value in itself; but this will have no influence on the creation of value or on the variation in the quantity of value.^ In the first place then we equate the constant capital to zero. The capital advanced is consequently reduced from c+v to v, and instead of the value of the product (c+v)4s we have now the value produced (v-f s). Given the new value produced = fl80, which sum consequently represents the whole labour ex- pended during the process, then subtracting from it £90 the value of the variable capital, we have remaining £90, the amount of the surplus- value. This sum of £90 or s expresses the absolute quantity of surplus-value produced. The relative quantity produced, or the increase per cent of the variable capital, is determined, it is plain, by the ratio of the surplus- value to the variable capital, or is expressed by *. In our example this ratio is %%, which gives an increase of 100 %. This relative increase in the value of the variable capital, or the relative magnitude of the surplus-value, I call, " The rate of surplus- value.'* We have seen that the labourer, during one portion of the labour-process, produces only the value of his labour-power, that is, the value of Jiis means of subsistence. Now since his 1 What Lucretius says is self-evident; " nil posse creari de nihilo," oat of nothing, nothing can be created. Creation of value is transformation of labour-power into labour. Labour-power itself is energy transferred to a human organism by means of nourishing matter.
2 In the same way that the English use the terms "rate of profit," "rate of in- terest." We shall see, in Book III., that the rate of profit is no mystery, so soon as we know the laws of surplus-value. If we reverse the process, we cannot compre- hend either the one or the other.
work forms part of a system, based on the social division of labour, he does not directly produce the actual necessaries which he himself consumes; he produces instead a particular commodity, yarn for example, whose value is equal to the value of those necessaries or of the money with which they can be bought. The portion of his day's labour devoted to this purpose, will be greater or less, in proportion to the value of the necessaries that he daily requires on an average, or, what amounts to the same thing, in proportion to the labour- time required on an average to produce them. If the value of those necessaries represent on an average the expenditure of six hours' labour, the workman must on an average work for six hours to produce that value. If instead of working for the capitalist, he worked independently on his own account, he would, other things being equal, still be obliged to labour for the same number of hours, in order to produce the value of his labour-power, and thereby to gain the means of subsistence necessary for his conservation or continued reproduction. But as we have seen, during that portion of his day's labour in which he produces the value of his labour-power, say three shillings, he produces only an equivalent for the value of his labour-power already advanced by the capitalist; the new value created only replaces the variable capital advanced. It is owing to this fact, that the production of the new value of three shillings takes the semblance of a mere reproduction. That portion of the working day, then, during which this re- production take place, I call " necessai^ " labour- time, and the labour expended during that time I call " necessary " labour.^ Necessary, as regards the labourer, because independent of the particular social form of his labour; necessary, as regards capital, and the world of capitalists, because on the continued existence of the labourer depends their existence also.
During the second period of the labcjur-process, that in 1 In this work, we have, up to now, employed the term " necessary labour-time," to designate the time necessary under given social conditions for the production of any commodity. Henceforward we use it to designate also the time necessary for the production of the particular commodity labour-power. The use of one and the same technical term in different senses is inconvenient, but in no science can it be altogether avoided. Compare, for instance, the higher with the lower branches of mathematics.
200 Capitalist Production.
which his labour is no longer necessary labour, the workman, it is true, labours, expends labour-power; but his labour, being no longer necessary labour, he creates no value for himself. He creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the charms of a creation out of nothing. This portion of the working day, I name surplus labour-time, and to the labour expended during that time, I give the name of surplus-labour. It is every bit as important, for a correct understanding of surplus- value, to conceive it as a mere congelation of surplus- labour-time, as nothing but materialised surplus-labour, as it is, for a pi'oper comprehension of value, to conceive it as a mere congelation of so many hours of labour, as nothing but ma- terialised labour. The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society based on slave labour, and one based on wage labour, lies only in the mode in which this surplus-labour is in each case ex- tracted from the actual producer, the labourer.^ Since, on the one hand, the values of the variable capital and of the labour-power purchased by that capital are equal, and the value of this labour-power determines the necessary portion of the working day; and since, on the other hand, the surplus-value is determined by the surplus portion of the working day, it follows that surplus- value bears the same ratio to variable capital, tliat surplus-labour does to necessary labour, or in other words, the rate of surplus- value \ = neS^^ro^* Both ratios,?^ and i"n>iu8jaT>our express the same thinor in different ways; in the one case by reference to materialised, incorporated labour, in tlie other by reference to living, fluent labour.
The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression 1 Herr Wilhelm Thucy elides Eoscher has found a mare's nest. He has made the important discovery that if, on the one hand, the formation of surplus-value, or surplus-produce, and the consequent accumulation of capital, is now-a-days due to the thrift of the capitalist, on the other hand, in the lowest stages of civilisation it is the strong who compel the weak to economise (1. c. p. 78). To economise what? Labour? Or superfluous wealth that does not exist? What is it that makes such men as Roscher account for the origin of surplus-value, by a mere rechauffe of the more or less plausible excuses by the capitalist, for his appropriation of surplus-value? It is, besides their real ignorance, their apologetic dread of a scientific analysis of value and surplus-value, and of obtaining a result, possibly not altogether palatable to the powers that be.
The Rate of Surphis-value, 201 for the degree of exploitation of labour-power by capital, or of the labourer by the capitalist.^ We assumed in our example, that the value of the product =£410 const. + £90 var. + £90 surpL, and that the capital advanced = £500. Since the surplus- value = £90, and the ad- vanced capital = £500, we should, according to the usual way of reckoning, get as the rate of surplus value (generally con- founded with rate of profits) 18%, a rate so low as possibly to cause a pleasant surprise to Mr. Carey and other harraon- isers. But in truth, the rate of surplus-value is not equal to ^ cr -^ but to ^: thus it is not i§ but fg or 100%, which is more than five times the apparent degree of exploitation. Although, in the case we have supposed, we are ignorant of the actual length of the working day, and of the duration in days or weeks of the labour-process, as also of the number of labourers employed, yet the rate of surplus-value ^ accurately discloses to us, by means of its equivalent expression, ^2^^^SSr the relation between the two parts of the working day. This relation is here one of equality, the rate being 100%. Hence, it is plain, the labourei-, in our example, works one half of the day for himself, the other half for the capitalist.
The method of calculating the rate of surplus- value is there- fore, shortly, as follows. We take the total value of the product and put the constant capital which merely re-appears in it, equal to zero. What remains, is the only value that has, in the process of producing the commodity, been actually created. If the amount of surplus-value be given, we have only to deduct it from this remainder, to find the variable capital. And vice versdy if the latter be given, and we require to find the surplus- value. If both be given, we have only to perform the conclud- ing operation, viz., to calculate ^, the ratio of the surplus- value to the variable capital.
1 Although the rate of surplus-value is an exact expression for the degree of ex- ploitation of labour-power, it is, in no sense, an expression for the absolute amount of exploitation. For example, if the necessary labour?=^ 5 hours and the surplus- labour =i 5 hours, the degree of exploitation is 100%. The amount of exploitation is here measured by 5 hours. If, on the other hand, the necessary labour;= 6 hours and the surplus-labour ^= 6 hours, the degree of exploitation remains, as before, 100%, while the actual amount of exploitation has increased 20%, namely from five hou s to six.
2'02 Capitalist Production, Though the method is so simple, yet it may not be amiss, by means of a few examples, to exercise the reader in the applica- tion of the novel principles underlying it.
First we will take the case of a spinning mill containing 10,000 mule spindles, spinning No. 32 yarn from American cotton, and producing 1 lb. of yarn weekly per spindle. We assume the waste to be 6 %: under these circumstances 10,600 lbs. of cotton are consumed weekly, of which 600 lbs. go to waste. The price of the cotton in April, 1871, was 7|d. ])er lb.; the raw material therefo^-e costs in round numbers £342. The 10,000 spindles, inchiding preparation -machinery, and motive power, cost, we will assume, £1 per spindle, amounting to a total of £10,000. The wear and tear we put at 10 %, or £1000 yearly =: £20 weekly. The rent of the building we suppose to be £300 a year, or £6 a week. Coal consumed (for 100 horse-power indicated, at 4 lbs. of coal per horse-power per hour durinor 60 hours, and inclusive of that consumed in heatinor the mill), 11 tons a week at 8s. 6d. a ton, amounts to about £4J a week: gas, £1 a week, oil,«fec.,£4J a week. Total costof theabove auxiliary materials, £10 weekly. Therefore the constant portion of the value of the week s product is £378. Wages amount to £52 a week. The price of the yarn is 12Jd. per lb., which gives for the value of 10,000 lbs. the sum of £510. The surplus value is therefore in this case £510 — £430 ~ £80. We put the constant part of the value of the product •=. 0, as it plays no part in the creation of value. There remains £132 as the weekly value cieated, which =: £52 var. £80 surpl. The rate of surplus-value is therefore |o = 153H %. In a working day of 10 hours with average labour the result is: necessary labour = 3f^ hours, and surplus-labour = 61?%.^