here of a difference in substance, so far as it affects the process of circulation, it is only this: It follows from the nature of value which is nothing but materialized labor, and from the nature of active labor-power which is nothing but labor in process of materialization, that labor-power continu- ally creates value and surplus-value during the process of its function; that the thing which on the part of labor- power appears as motion and a creation of value, appears on the part of its product as rest and as a created value. If the labor-power has performed its function, then capital no longer consists of labor-power on one side, and means of production on the other. The capital value invested in labor is then value added with a surplus-value to the prod- uct. In order to repeat the process, the product must be sold, and new labor-power must be bought with the money so obtained, in order to be once more embodied in the pro- ductive capital. It is this which then gives to the capital invested in labor-power, and to that invested in raw mate- rials, etc., the character of circulating capital as distin- guished from the capital remaining fixed in instruments of labor.
But if the secondary quality of the circulating capital, which it shares with a part of the constant capital (raw and auxiliary materials), is made the essential mark of capital invested in labor-power, to wit, the transfer of the full value invested in it to the product in whose manufacture it is consumed, instead of a gradual and successive transfer such as takes place in the case of the fixed capital, and the conse- quent total reproduction of this value by the sale of the product, then the value invested in wages must likewise consist, not of active labor-power, but of the material ele- ments which the laborer buys with his wages, in other words, it must consist of that part of the social commodity-capi- tal which passes into the individual consumption of the laborer, of means of subsistence. In that case, the fixed capital would consist of the more durable instruments of labor which are reproduced more slowly, and the capital invested in labor-power would consist of the means of sub- sistence, which must be more rapidly reproduced.
However, the boundaries of greater or smaller durability pass imperceptibly into one another.
254 Capital.
"The food and clothing consumed by the laborer, the buildings in which he works, the implements with which his labor is assisted, are all of a perishable nature. There is, however, a vast difference in the time for which these dif- ferent capitals will endure: a steam-engine will last longer than a ship, a ship than the clothing of the laborer, and the clothing of the laborer longer than the food which he con- sumes." (Ricardo, etc., page 27.)
Ricardo does not mention the house, in which the laborer lives, his tools of consumption, such as knives, forks, dishes, etc., all of which have the same quality of durability as the instruments of labor. The same things, the same classes of things, appear in one place as means of consumption, in another as instruments of labor.
The difference, as stated by Ricardo, is this: "According as capital is rapidly perishable and requires to be frequently reproduced or is of slow consumption, it is classed under the heads of circulating or fixed capital."
He remarks in addition thereto: "A division not essen- tial, and in which the line of demarcation cannot be ac- curately drawn."
Thus we have once more arrived among the physiocrats, where the distinction between avarices annuelles and avances primitives was one referring to the period of consumption, and consequently also to the different time of reproduction of the invested capital. Only, that which in their case con- stitutes a phenomenon important for society and for this reason is assigned in the Tableau Economique a place of interrelation with the process of circulation, becomes here, in Ricardo's own words, a subjective and unessential divi- sion.
As soon as the capital-value invested in labor-power dif- fers from that invested in instruments of labor only by its period of reproduction and term of circulation, as soon as one part of capital consists of means of subsistence, an- other of instruments of labor, so that these differ from those only by the degree of their durability, which durability is further different for the various kinds of each class, it fol- lows as a matter of course that all specific difference be- Theories oj Fixed and Circulating Capital. 255 tween the capital invested in labor-power and that invested in means of production is obliterated.
This runs very much counter to Ricardo's theory of value, likewise to his. theory of profit, which is actually a theory of surplus-value. He does not consider the difference between fixed and circulating capital any further than is required by the way in which different proportions of both of them, in equal capitals invested in different branches of produc- tion, influence the law of value, particularly the extent to which an increase or decrease of wages in consequence of these conditions affects prices. But even within this re- stricted analysis, he commits the gravest errors on account of the confusion in the definitions of fixed and circulating, constant and variable capital. Indeed, he starts his analysis on an entirely wrong basis. In the first place, in so far as the capital-value invested in labor-power has to be considered under the head of circulating capital, he gives a wrong defi- nition of circulating capital and misunderstands particu- larly the circumstances which place the capital-value in- vested in labor-power under this heading. In the second place, he confounds the definition, according to which the capital-value invested in labor-power is a variable capital, with that according to which it is circulating as distin- guished from fixed capital.
It is evident from the beginning that the definition of capital-value invested in labor-power as circulating capital is a secondary one, obliterating its specific difference in the process of production. For on one hand, the values in- vested in labor-power are identified in this definition with those invested in raw materials. A classification which iden- tifies a part of the constant capital with the circulating capi- tal does not " appreciate the specific difference of variable from constant capital. On the other hand, while the values invested in labor-power are indeed distinguished from those invested in instruments of labor, the distinction is based only on the fact that the values incorporated in them are transferred to the product in different periods of time, not on the fact that this transfer is significant for the radically different manner in which either of them passes into the production of values.
256 Capital.
256 Capital.
In all of these cases, it is a question of the manner in which a given value, invested in the process of production of commodities, whether the investment be made in wages, in the price of raw materials, or in that of instruments of labor, is transferred to the product, then circulated by it, and returned to its starting point by the sale of the product. or reproduced. The only difference lies here in the "how," in the particular manner of the transfer, and therefore also in the circulation of this value.
Whether the price of labor-power previously agreed upon by contract in each case is paid in money or in means of subsistence, does not alter in any way the fact that it is a fixed price. However, it is evident in the case of wage? paid in money, that it is not the money which passes into the process of production in the way that the value as well as the material of the means of production do. But if the means of subsistence which the laborer buys with his wage? are directly classed in the same category with raw materials, as the material form of circulating capital distinguished from instruments of labor, then the matter assumes a differ- ent aspect. While the value of these things, the instruments of labor, is transferred to the product in the process of pro- duction, the value of those things, the means of subsistence, reappears in the labor-power that consumes them and is likewise transferred to the product by the exertion of this power. In every one of these cases it is a question of the mere reappearance of the values invested in production by means of transfer to the product. The physiocrats for this reason took this aspect of the matter seriously and de- nied that industrial labor could create any values. This is shown by a previously quoted passage of Wayland, in which he says that it is immaterial in which form the capital reappears, and that the different kinds of food, cloth- ing, and shelter which are required for the existence and well-being of man are likewise changed, being consumed in the course of time while their value reappears. (Elements of Political Economy, pages 31 and 32.) The capital-val- ues invested in production in the form of means of produc- tion and means of subsistence both reappear in the value of the product. By this means the transformation of the Theories of Fixed and Circulating Capital. 257 ipitalist process of production into a complete mystery is • happily accomplished and the origin of the surplus-value incorporated in the product is entirely concealed.
At the same time, this perfects the fetishism typical of bourgeois political economy, which pretends that the social and economic character of things, arising from the proc- ess of social production, is a natural character due to the material substance of those things. For instance, instru- ments of labor are designated as fixed capital, a scholastic mode of definition which leads to contradictions and confu- sion. Just as we demonstrated in the case of the process of production (Vol. I, chapter VII), that it depends on the role, the function, performed by the various material sub- stances in a certain process of production, whether they served as instruments of labor, raw materials, or products, just so we now claim that instruments of labor are fixed capital only in cases where the process of production is a capitalist process of production and the means of produc- tion are, therefore, capital and possess the economic form and social character of capital. And in the second place, they are fixed-capital only when they transfer their value to the product in a certain peculiar way. Unless they do so, they remain instruments of labor without being fixed-capi- tal. In the same way, auxiliary materials, such as manure, if they transfer their value in the same peculiar manner as the greater part of the instruments of labor, become fixed capital, although they are not instruments of labor. It is not the definitions, which are essential in determining the character of these things. It is their definite functions which express themselves in definite categories.
If it is considered as one of the qualities exhibited by means of subsistence under all circumstances to be capital invested in wages, then it will also be a quality of this "cir- culating" capital "to support labor." (Ricardo, page 25.) If the means of subsistence were not "capital," then they would not support labor, according to this; while it is pre- cisely their character of capital which endows them with the faculty of supporting capital by means of the labor of others.
If means of subsistence are of themselves capital circulat- 258 Capital.
ing after being converted into wages, it follows furthermore that the magnitude of wages depends on the proportion of the number of laborers to the existing quantity of circulat- ing capital — a favorite economic law — while as a matter of fact the quantity of means of subsistence withdrawn from the market by the laborer, and the quantity of means of subsistence available for the consumption of the capitalist, depend on the proportion of the surplus-value to the price of labor.
Ricardo as well as Bartonss everywhere confound the re- lation between variable and constant capital with that be- tween circulating and fixed capital. We shall see later, to what extent this vitiates Ricardo's analyses concerning the rate of profit.
Rioardo futhermore identifies the distinctions which arise in the turn-over from other causes than the difference be- tween fixed and circulating capital, with these same differ- ences: "It is also to be observed that the circulating capi- tal may circulate, or be returned to its employer, in very unequal times. The wheat bought by a farmer to sow is comparatively a fixed capital to the wheat purchased by a baker to make into loaves. The one leaves it in the ground, and can obtain no return for a year: the other can get it ground into flour, sell it as bread to his customers, and have his capital free, to renew the same, or commence any other employment in a week." (Pages 26 and 27.)
In this passage, it is characteristic that wheat, although not serving as a means of subsistence, but as raw material when used for sowing, is supposed in the first place to be circulating capital, because it is in itself a food, and in the second place a circulating capital, because its reproduc- tion extends over one year. However, it is not so much the slow or rapid reproduction which makes a fixed capital of a means of production, but rather the manner in which it transfers its value to the product.
The confusion caused by Adam Smith has brought about the following results: 1. The distinction between fixed and circulating capital 25 Observations on the Circumstances Which Influence the Condi tion of the Labouring Classes of Society, London, 1817.
Theories of Fixed and Circulating Capital. 259 is confounded with that between productive capital and commodity-capital. For instance, a machine is said to be circulating capital when on the market as a commodity, and fixed capital when incorporated in the process of produc- tion. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to ascer- tain why one kind of capital should be more fixed or circu- lating than another.
2. All circulating capital is identified with capital in- vested, or about to be invested, in wages. This is the case with John Stewart Mill, and others.
3. The difference between variable and constant capi- tal, which had been previously mistaken by Barton, Ri- cardo, and others, for that between circulating and fixed capital, is finally identified with this last-named difference, for instance by Ramsay, who calls all means of production, raw materials, etc., including instruments of labor, fixed capital, and only that which is invested in wages circulat- ing capital. But on account of the reduction of the problem to this form, the real difference between variable and con- stant capital is not understood.
4. The latest English, and especially Scotch, economists, who look upon all things from the inexpressibly petty point of view of a bank clerk, such as MacLeod, Patterson, and others, transform the difference between fixed and circulat- ing capital into one of money at call and money not at call.
260 Capital.
CHAPTER XII.
THE WORKING PERIOD.
Take two branches of production, with equal working days, for instance of ten hours each, one of them a cotton spinnery, the other a locomotive factory. In one of these branches, a definite quantity of finished product, cotton yarn, is completed daily, or weekly; in the other, the pro- ductive process may have to be repeated for three months in order that the finished product, a locomotive, may be ready. In one case, the product is made up of separate lots, and the same labor is repeated daily or weekly. In the other case, the labor process is continuous and extends over a prolonged number of daily labor-processes which, in their continuity, result in the finished product. Although the duration of the working day is the same in both cases, there is a marked difference in the duration of the productive act, that is to say, in the duration of the repeated labor-processes, which are required in order to complete the finished prod- uct, to get it ready for its role as a commodity on the mar- ket, in other words, to convert it from a productive into a commodity-capital. The difference between fixed and cir- culating capital has notning to do with this. The differ- ence just indicated would exist, even if the very same pro- portions of fixed and circulating capital were employed in both branches of production.
These differences in the duration of the productive acts are found not alone in two different spheres of production, but also within one and the same sphere of production, ac- cording to the volume of the intended product. An ordi- nary residence house is built in less time than a large factory and therefore requires a smaller number of consecutive labor-processes. While the building of a locomotive re- quires three months, that of an ironclad requires one year or more. The production of grain extends over nearly a year, that of horned cattle over several years, and the pro- duction of timber may require from twelve to one hundred The Working Period. 261 years. A country road may be completed in a few months, while a railroad requires years. An ordinary carpet is made in about a week, while Gobelins requires years, etc. The differences in the duration of the productive act are, therefore, infinitely manifold.
It is evident that a difference in the duration of the pro- ductive act must beget a difference in the velocity of the turn-over, even if the invested capitals are equal, in other words, must make a difference in the time for which a cer- tain capital is advanced. Take it that a cotton spinnery and a locomotive factory employ the same amount of capital, that the proportion between their constant and variable capital is the same, likewise that between fixed and circulating capital, and that finally their working day is of equal length and its division between necessary and sur- plus-labor the same. In order to eliminate, furthermore, all the external circumstances arising out of the process of circulation, we shall assume that both the yarn and the locomotive are made to order and will be paid on delivery of the finished product. At the end of the week, the cotton spinner recovers his outlay for circulating capital (making exception of surplus-value), likewise the wear and tear of fixed capital incorporated in the value of the yarn. He can, therefore, repeat the same cycle with the same capital. It has completed its turn-over. The locomotive manufacturer, on the other hand, must advance ever new capital for wages and raw material every week for three months in succession, and it is only after three months, after the delivery of the locomotive, that the circulating capital gradually invested in one and the same productive act for the manufacture of one and the same commodity once more returns to a form in which it can renew its cycle. The wear and tear of his machinery is likewise covered only at the end of three months. The investment of the one is made for one week, that of the other is the investment of one week multiplied by twelve. All other circumstances being assumed as equal, the one must have twelve times more circulating capital at his disposal than the other.
It is, however, an immaterial condition that the capitals advanced weekly should be equal. Whatever may be the 262 Capital quantity of the invested capital, it is advanced for one week in one case, and for twelve weeks in the other, before the same operation can be repeated with it, or another inau- gurated.
The difference in the velocity of the turn-over, or in the length of time for which the capital is advanced before the same capital-value can be employed in a new process of pro- duction or self-expansion, arises here from the following circumstances: Take it that the manufacture of a locomotive, or of any other machine, requires 100 working days. So far as the laborers employed in the manufacture of yarn or of the locomotive are concerned, 100 working days constitute in either case a discontinuous magnitude, representing, ac- cording to our assumption, 100 consecutive, but separate labor-processes of ten hours each. But with reference to the product — the machine — these 100 working days are a continuous magnitude, a working day of 1,000 working hours, one single connected act of production. I call such a working day, which is formed by the succession of more or less numerous connected working days, a. working period. If we speak of a working day, we mean the length of work- ing time during which the laborer must daily spend his labor-power, must work day by day. But if we speak of a working period, then we mean a number of consecutive working days required in a certain branch of production for the completion of the finished product. In this case, the product of every working day is but a partial one, being elaborated from day to day and receiving its complete form only at the end of a longer or shorter period of labor, when it is at last a finished use-value.
Interruptions, disturbances of the process of social pro- duction, for instance, by crises, therefore have very different effects on labor products of a discontinuous nature and those that require for their completion a prolonged and connected working period. In one case, today's production of a cer- tain mass of yarn, coal, etc., is not followed by tomorrow's production of yarn, coal, etc. Not so in the case of ships, buildings, railroads, etc. It is not only the work which is interrupted, but also a connected working period. If the The Working Period- 263 work is not continued, the means of production and labor so far expended in its manufacture are wasted. Even if work is resumed, a deterioration has taken place in the meantime.
For the entire duration of the working period, the value daily transferred to the product by the fixed capital accu- mulates successively until the product is finished. In this way, the difference between the fixed and circulating capital is revealed in its practical significance. The fixed capital is invested in the process of production for a long period, it need not be reproduced until after the expiration of, per- haps, a period of several years. Whether a steam-engine transfers its value daily to some yarn, which is the product of a discontinuous labor-process, or for three months to a locomotive, which is the product of a continuous process, is immaterial for the investment of the capital required for the purchase of the steam-engine. In the one case, its value is recovered in small doses, for instance, weekly, in the other case in larger quantities, for instance, quarterly. But in either case, the reproduction of the steam-engine may not take place until after twenty years. So long as every indi- vidual period which returns a part of the value of the steam- engine by the sale of the product, is shorter than the life- time of this engine, the same engine continues its service in successive working periods of the process of production.
It is different with the circulating portions of the invest- ed capital. The labor-power bought for this week is con- sumed in the course of the same week and transferred to the product. It must be paid for at the end of this week. And this investment of capital in labor-power is repeated every week for three months without enabling the capitalist to use the investment of this part of capital in this week's labor- power for the purchase of next week's. Every week, addi- tional capital must be invested for the payment of labor- power, and, leaving aside the question of credit, the capital- ist must be able to advance wages for three months, even if he pays them only in weekly instalments. It is the same with the other portion of circulating capital, the raw and auxiliary materials. One shift of labor after another is transferred to the product. It is not alone the value of the 264 Capital.
expended labor-power which is continually transferred to the product during the labor-process, but also surplus-value. This product, however, is unfinished, it has not yet the form of a finished commodity, it cannot yet circulate. This ap- plies likewise to the capital-value transferred to the product by the raw and auxiliary materials.
According as the working period required by the specific nature of the product, or by the useful effect aimed at, is short or long, a continuous investment of additional cir- culating capital (wages, raw, and auxiliary materials) is re- quired, none of its parts being in a form adapted for cir- culation and for the promotion of the repetition of the same operation. Every one of these parts is on the contrary held by the growing product as one of its parts in the sphere of production, in the form of productive capital. Now, the time of turn-over is equal to the sum of the time of produc- tion and the time of circulation. Hence a prolongation of the time of production reduces the velocity of the turn-over quite as much as the prolongation of the time of circulation. In the present case, the following must be furthermore noted: 1. The prolonged stay in the sphere of production. The capital invested, for instance, in the labor-power, raw, and auxiliary materials of the first week, the same as the por- tions of value transferred to the product by the fixed capital, are held in the sphere of production for the entire term of three months, and, being incorporated in a growing and as yet unfinished product, cannot pass into the circulation of commodities.
2. Since the working period required for the comple- tion of the productive act lasts three months, and forms one connected labor-process, a new quantity of circulating capi- tal must be continually added week after week to the pre- ceding quantity. The amount of the successively invested additional capital grows, therefore, with the length of the working period.
We have assumed that equal capitals are invested in the spinnery and the machine factory, that these capitals con- tain equal proportions of constant and variable, fixed and circulating capital, that the working days are equal, in The Working Period. 265 short, that all circumstances are equal with the exception of the duration of the working period. In the first week, the outlay for both is the same, but the product of the spin- ner can be sold and the returns from the sale employed in the purchase of new labor-power and raw materials, in short, production can be resumed on the same scale. The machine manufacturer, on the other hand, cannot reconvert the cir- culating capital expended in the first week into money until at the end of three months, when his product is finished and he can begin operations afresh. There is, in other words, first a difference in the return of the same quantity of capital invested. But, in the second place, the same amount of productive capital is employed during the three months in the spinnery and in the machine factory, but the magnitude of the outlay of capital in the case of the yarn manu- facturer is different from that of the machine manufacturer. For in the one case, the same capital is rapidly renewed and the same operation can be repeated, while in the other case, the capital is renewed by relatively slow degrees, so that ever new quantities of capital must be added to the old up to the time of the completion of the term of its reproduction. It is, therefore, not only the time of reproduction of definite portions of capital, or the time of investment, which is different, but also the quantity of the capital to be ad- vanced according to the duration of the productive process, although the capital employed daily or weekly is the same.. This circumstance is worthy of note for the reason that the time of investment may be prolonged, as we shall see in the cases treated in the next chapter, without thereby in- creasing the amount of the capital to be invested in propor- tion to this increase in time. The capital must be advanced for a longer time, and a larger amount of capital is held in the form of productive capital.