>From zodiac@io.org Tue Sep 7 17:58:35 1993
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WAGE-LABOR AND CAPITAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Karl Marx
Chapter 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PRELIMINARY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From various quarters we have been reproached for neglecting to portray
the economic conditions which form the material basis of the present
struggles between classes and nations. With set purpose we have
hitherto touched upon these conditions only when they forced themselves
upon the surface of the political conflicts.
It was necessary, beyond everything else, to follow the development of
the class struggle in the history of our own day, and to prove
empirically, by the actual and daily newly created historical material,
that with the subjugation of the working class, accomplished in the days
of February and March, 1848, the opponents of that class -- the
bourgeois republicans in France, and the bourgeois and peasant classes
who were fighting feudal absolutism throughout the whole continent of
Europe -- were simultaneously conquered; that the victory of the
"moderate republic" in France sounded at the same time the fall of the
nations which had responded to the February revolution with heroic wars
of independence; and finally that, by the victory over the revolutionary
workingmen, Europe fell back into its old double slavery, into the
English-Russian slavery. The June conflict in Paris, the fall of
Vienna, the tragi-comedy in Berlin in November 1848, the desperate
efforts of Poland, Italy, and Hungary, the starvation of Ireland into
submission -- these were the chief events in which the European class
struggle between the bourgeoisie and the working class was summed up,
and from which we proved that every revolutionary uprising, however
remote from the class struggle its object might appear, must of
necessity fail until the revolutionary working class shall have
conquered; -- that every social reform must remain a Utopia until the
proletarian revolution and the feudalistic counter-revolution have been
pitted against each other in a world-wide war . In our presentation, as
in reality, Belgium and Switzerland were tragicomic caricaturish genre
pictures in the great historic tableau; the one the model State of the
bourgeois monarchy, the other the model State of the bourgeois republic;
both of them, States that flatter themselves to be just as free from the
class struggle as from the European revolution.[1]
But now, after our readers have seen the class struggle of the year 1848
develop into colossal political proportions, it is time to examine more
closely the economic conditions themselves upon which is founded the
existence of the capitalist class and its class rule, as well as the
slavery of the workers.
We shall present the subject in three great divisions:
1. The Relation of Wage-Labor to Capital, the Slavery of the
Worker, the Rule of the Capitalist.
2. The Inevitable Ruin of the Middle Classes and the so-called
Commons [2] under the present system.
3. The Commercial Subjugation and Exploitation of the Bourgeois
classes of the various European nations by the Despot of the
World Market -- England.[3]
We shall seek to portray this as simply and popularly as possible, and
shall not presuppose a knowledge of even the most elementary notions of
political economy. We wish to be understood by the workers. And,
moreover, there prevails in Germany the most remarkable ignorance and
confusion of ideas in regard to the simplest economic relations, from
the patented defenders of existing conditions, down to the socialist
wonder-workers and the unrecognized political geniuses, in which divided
Germany is even richer than in duodecimo princelings. We therefore
proceed to the consideration of the first problem.
Chapter 2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT ARE WAGES?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If several workmen were to be asked: "How much wages do you get?", one
would reply, "I get two shillings a day", and so on. According to the
different branches of industry in which they are employed, they would
mention different sums of money that they receive from their respective
employers for the completion of a certain task; for example, for weaving
a yard of linen, or for setting a page of type. Despite the variety of
their statements, they would all agree upon one point: that wages are
the amount of money which the capitalist pays for a certain period of
work or for a certain amount of work.
Consequently, it appears that the capitalist buys their labor with
money, and that for money they sell him their labor. But this is merely
an illusion. What they actually sell to the capitalist for money is
their labor-power. This labor-power the capitalist buys for a day, a
week, a month, etc. And after he has bought it, he uses it up by
letting the worker labor during the stipulated time. With the same
amount of money with which the capitalist has bought their labor-power
(for example, with two shillings) he could have bought a certain amount
of sugar or of any other commodity. The two shillings with which he
bought 20 pounds of sugar is the price of the 20 pounds of sugar. The
two shillings with which he bought 12 hours' use of labor-power, is the
price of 12 hours' labor. Labor-power, then, is a commodity, no more,
no less so than is the sugar. The first is measured by the clock, the
other by the scales.
Their commodity, labor-power, the workers exchange for the commodity of
the capitalist, for money, and, moreover, this exchange takes place at a
certain ratio. So much money for so long a use of labor-power. For 12
hours' weaving, two shillings. And these two shillings, do they not
represent all the other commodities which I can buy for two shillings?
Therefore, actually, the worker has exchanged his commodity,
labor-power, for commodities of all kinds, and, moreover, at a certain
ratio. By giving him two shillings, the capitalist has given him so
much meat, so much clothing, so much wood, light, etc., in exchange for
his day's work. The two shillings therefore express the relation in
which labor-power is exchanged for other commodities, the exchange-value
of labor-power.
The exchange value of a commodity estimated in money is called its
price. Wages therefore are only a special name for the price of
labor-power, and are usually called the price of labor; it is the
special name for the price of this peculiar commodity. which has no
other repository than human flesh and blood.
Let us take any worker; for example, a weaver. The capitalist supplies
him with the loom and yarn. The weaver applies himself to work, and the
yarn is turned into cloth. The capitalist takes possession of the cloth
and sells it for 20 shillings, for example. Now are the wages of the
weaver a share of the cloth, of the 20 shillings, of the product of the
work? By no means. Long before the cloth is sold, perhaps long before
it is fully woven, the weaver has received his wages. The capitalist,
then, does not pay his wages out of the money which he will obtain from
the cloth, but out of money already on hand. Just as little as loom and
yarn are the product of the weaver to whom they are supplied by the
employer, just so little are the commodities which he receives in
exchange for his commodity -- labor-power -- his product. It is
possible that the employer found no purchasers at all for the cloth. It
is possible that he did not get even the amount of the wages by its
sale. It is possible that he sells it very profitably in proportion to
the weaver's wages. But all that does not concern the weaver. With a
part of his existing wealth, of his capital, the capitalist buys the
labor-power of the weaver in exactly the same manner as, with another
part of his wealth, he has bought the raw material -- the yarn -- and
the instrument of labor -- the loom. After he has made these purchases,
and among them belongs the labor-power necessary to the production of
the cloth he produces only with raw materials and instruments of labor
belonging to him. For our good weaver, too, is one of the instruments
of labor, and being in this respect on a par with the loom, he has no
more share in the product (the cloth), or in the price of the product,
than the loom itself has.
Wages, therefore, are not a share of the worker in the commodities
produced by himself. Wages are that part of already existing
commodities with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of
productive labor-power.
Consequently, labor-power is a commodity which its possessor, the
wage-worker, sells to the capitalist. Why does he sell it? It is in
order to live.
But the putting of labor-power into action -- i.e., the work -- is the
active expression of the laborer's own life. And this life activity he
sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life.
His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own
existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the
labor itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his
life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another. The
product of his activity, therefore, is not the aim of his activity.
What he produces for himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the
gold that he draws up the mining shaft, not the palace that he builds.
What he produces for himself is wages ; and the silk, the gold, and the
palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of necessaries of
life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper coins, and into a
basement dwelling. And the laborer who for 12 hours long, weaves,
spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stone, carries hods, and so
on -- is this 12 hours' weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building,
shovelling, stone-breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life,
as life? Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity
ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours' work, on the
other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so
on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to
take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. If the
silk-worm's object in spinning were to prolong its existence as
caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker.
Labor-power was not always a commodity (merchandise). Labor was not
always wage-labor, i.e., free labor. The slave did not sell his
labor-power to the slave-owner, any more than the ox sells his labor to
the farmer. The slave, together with his labor-power, was sold to his
owner once for all. He is a commodity that can pass from the hand of
one owner to that of another. He himself is a commodity, but his
labor-power is not his commodity. The serf sells [4] only a portion of
his labor-power. It is not he who receives wages from the owner of the
land; it is rather the owner of the land who receives a tribute from
him. The serf belongs to the soil, and to the lord of the soil he
brings its fruit. The free laborer , on the other hand, sells his very
self, and that by fractions. He auctions off eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of
his life, one day like the next, to the highest bidder, to the owner of
raw materials, tools, and the means of life -- i.e., to the capitalist.
The laborer belongs neither to an owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10,
12, 15 hours of his daily life belong to whomsoever buys them. The
worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as
he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit,
as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of
him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his
labor-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the
capitalist class , unless he gives up his own existence. He does not
belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class ; and it
is for him to find his man -- i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist
class.
Before entering more closely upon the relation of capital to wage-labor,
we shall present briefly the most general conditions which come into
consideration in the determination of wages.
Wages, as we have seen, are the price of a certain commodity,
labor-power. Wages, therefore, are determined by the same laws that
determine the price of every other commodity. The question then is, How
is the price of a commodity determined?
Chapter 3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BY WHAT IS THE PRICE OF A COMMODITY DETERMINED?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By what is the price of a commodity determined?
By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relation of the
demand to the supply, of the call to the offer. The competition by
which the price of a commodity is determined is threefold.
The same commodity is offered for sale by various sellers. Whoever
sells commodities of the same quality most cheaply, is sure to drive the
other sellers from the field and to secure the greatest market for
himself. The sellers therefore fight among themselves for the sales,
for the market. Each one of them wishes to sell, and to sell as much as
possible, and if possible to sell alone, to the exclusion of all other
sellers. Each one sells cheaper than the other. Thus there takes place
a competition among the sellers which forces down the price of the
commodities offered by them.
But there is also a competition among the buyers; this upon its side
causes the price of the proffered commodities to rise.
Finally, there is competition between the buyers and the sellers: these
wish to purchase as cheaply as possible, those to sell as dearly as
possible. The result of this competition between buyers and sellers
will depend upon the relations between the two above-mentioned camps of
competitors -- i.e., upon whether the competition in the army of sellers
is stronger. Industry leads two great armies into the field against
each other, and each of these again is engaged in a a battle among its
own troops in its own ranks. The army among whose troops there is less
fighting carries of the victory over the opposing host.
Let us suppose that there are 100 bales of cotton in the market and at
the same time purchasers for 1,000 bales of cotton. In this case, the
demand is 10 times greater than the supply. Competition among the
buyers, then, will be very strong; each of them tries to get hold of one
bale, if possible, of the whole 100 bales. This example is no arbitrary
supposition. In the history of commerce we have experienced periods of
scarcity of cotton, when some capitalists united together and sought to
buy up not 100 bales, but the whole cotton supply of the world. In the
given case, then, one buyer seeks to drive the others from the field by
offering a relatively higher price for the bales of cotton. The cotton
sellers, who perceive the troops of the enemy in the most violent
contention among themselves, and who therefore are fully assured of the
sale of their whole 100 bales, will beware of pulling one another's hair
in order to force down the price of cotton at the very moment in which
their opponents race with one another to screw it up high. So, all of a
sudden, peace reigns in the army of sellers. They stand opposed to the
buyers like on e man, fold their arms in philosophic contentment and
their claims would find no limit did not the offers of even the most
importunate of buyers have a very definite limit.
If, then, the supply of a commodity is less than the demand for it,
competition among the sellers is very slight, or there may be none at
all among them. In the same proportion in which this competition
decreases, the competition among the buyers increases. Result: a more
or less considerable rise in the prices of commodities.
It is well known that the opposite case, with the opposite result,
happens more frequently. Great excess of supply over demand; desperate
competition among the sellers, and a lack of buyers; forced sales of
commodities at ridiculously low prices.
But what is a rise, and what a fall of prices? What is a high and what a
low price? A grain of sand is high when examined through a microscope,
and a tower is low when compared with a mountain. And if the price is
determined by the relation of supply and demand, by what is the relation
of supply and demand determined?
Let us turn to the first worthy citizen we meet. He will not hesitate
one moment, but, like Alexander the Great, will cut this metaphysical
know with his multiplication table. He will say to us: "If the
production of the commodities which I sell has cost me 100 pounds, and
out of the sale of these goods I make 110 pounds -- within the year, you
understand -- that's an honest, sound, reasonable profit. But if in the
exchange I receive 120 or 130 pounds, that's a higher profit; and if I
should get as much as 200 pounds, that would be an extraordinary, and
enormous profit." What is it, then, that serves this citizen as the
standard of his profit? The cost of the production of his commodities.
If in exchange for these goods he receives a quantity of other goods
whose production has cost less, he has lost. If he receives in exchange
for his goods a quantity of other goods whose production has cost more,
he has gained. And he reckons the falling or rising of the profit
according to the degree at which the exchange value of his goods stands,
whether above or below his zero -- the cost of production.
We have seen how the changing relation of supply and demand causes now a
rise, now a fall of prices; now high, now low prices. If the price of a
commodity rises considerably owing to a failing supply or a
disproportionately growing demand, then the price of some other
commodity must have fallen in proportion; for of course the price of a
commodity only expresses in money the proportion in which other
commodities will be given in exchange for it. If, for example, the
price of a yard of silk rises from two to three shillings, the price of
silver has fallen in relation to the silk, and in the same way the
prices of all other commodities whose prices have remained stationary
have fallen in relation to the price of silk. A large quantity of them
must be given in exchange in order to obtain the same amount of silk.
Now, what will be the consequence of a rise in the price of a particular
commodity? A mass of capital will be thrown into the prosperous branch
of industry, and this immigration of capital into the provinces of the
favored industry will continue until it yields no more than the
customary profits, or, rather until the price of its products, owning to
overproduction, sinks below the cost of production.
Conversely: if the price of a commodity falls below its cost of
production, then capital will be withdrawn from the production of this
commodity. Except in the case of a branch of industry which has become
obsolete and is therefore doomed to disappear, the production of such a
commodity (that is, its supply), will, owning to this flight of capital,
continue to decrease until it corresponds to the demand, and the price
of the commodity rises again to the level of its cost of production; or,
rather, until the supply has fallen below the demand and its price has
risen above its cost of production, for the current price of a commodity
is always either above or below its cost of production.
We see how capital continually emigrates out of the province of one
industry and immigrates into that of another. The high price produces
an excessive immigration, and the low price an excessive emigration.
We could show, from another point of view, how not only the supply, but
also the demand, is determined by the cost of production. But this
would lead us too far away from our subject.
We have just seen how the fluctuation of supply and demand always bring
the price of a commodity back to its cost of production. The actual
price of a commodity, indeed, stands always above or below the cost of
production; but the rise and fall reciprocally balance each other , so
that, within a certain period of time, if the ebbs and flows of the
industry are reckoned up together, the commodities will be exchanged for
one another in accordance with their cost of production. Their price is
thus determined by their cost of production.
The determination of price by the cost of production is not to be
understood in the sense of the bourgeois economists. The economists say
that the average price of commodities equals the cost of production:
that is the law . The anarchic movement, in which the rise is
compensated for by a fall and the fall by a rise, they regard as an
accident. We might just as well consider the fluctuations as the law,
and the determination of the price by cost of production as an accident
-- as is, in fact, done by certain other economists. But it is
precisely these fluctuations which, viewed more closely, carry the most
frightful devastation in their train, and, like an earthquake, cause
bourgeois society to shake to its very foundations -- it is precisely
these fluctuations that force the price to conform to the cost of
production. In the totality of this disorderly movement is to be found
its order. In the total course of this industrial anarchy, in this
circular movement, competition balances, as it were, the one
extravagance by the other.
We thus see that the price of a commodity is indeed determined by its
cost of production, but in such wise that the periods in which the price
of these commodities rises above the costs of production are balanced by
the periods in which it sinks below the cost of production, and vice
versa. Of course this does not hold good for a single given product of
an industry, but only for that branch of industry. So also it does not
hold good for an individual manufacturer, but only for the whole class
of manufacturers.
The determination of price by cost of production is tantamount to the
determination of price by the labor-time requisite to the production of
a commodity, for the cost of production consists, first of raw materials
and wear and tear of tools, etc., i.e., of industrial products whose
production has cost a certain number of work-days, which therefore
represent a certain amount of labor-time, and, secondly, of direct
labor, which is also measured by its duration.
Chapter 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BY WHAT ARE WAGES DETERMINED?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, the same general laws which regulate the price of commodities in
general, naturally regulate wages , or the price of labor-power. Wages
will now rise, now fall, according to the relation of supply and demand,
according as competition shapes itself between the buyers of
labor-power, the capitalists, and the sellers of labor-power, the
workers. The fluctuations of wages correspond to the fluctuation in the
price of commodities in general. But within the limits of these
fluctuations the price of labor-power will be determined by the cost of
production, by the labor-time necessary for production of this
commodity: labor-power.
What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power?
It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer,
and for his education and training as a laborer.
Therefore, the shorter the time required for training up to a particular
sort of work, the smaller is the cost of production of the worker, the
lower is the price of his labor-power, his wages. In those branches of
industry in which hardly any period of apprenticeship is necessary and
the mere bodily existence of the worker is sufficient, the cost of his
production is limited almost exclusively to the commodities necessary
for keeping him in working condition. The price of his work will
therefore be determined by the price of the necessary means of
subsistence.
Here, however, there enters another consideration. The manufacturer who
calculates his cost of production and, in accordance with it, the price
of the product, takes into account the wear and tear of the instruments
of labor. If a machine costs him, for example, 1,000 shillings, and
this machine is used up in 10 years, he adds 100 shillings annually to
the price of the commodities, in order to be able after 10 years to
replace the worn-out machine with a new one. In the same manner, the
cost of production of simple labor-power must include the cost of
propagation, by means of which the race of workers is enabled to
multiply itself, and to replace worn-out workers with new ones. The
wear and tear of the worker, therefore, is calculated in the same manner
as the wear and tear of the machine.
Thus, the cost of production of simple labor-power amounts to the cost
of the existence and propagation of the worker. The price of this cost
of existence and propagation constitutes wages. The wages thus
determined are called the minimum of wages. This minimum wage, like the
determination of the price of commodities in general by cost of
production, does not hold good for the single individual , but only for
the race. Individual workers, indeed, millions of workers, do not
receive enough to be able to exist and to propagate themselves; but the
wages of the whole working class adjust themselves, within the limits of
their fluctuations, to this minimum.
Now that we have come to an understanding in regard to the most general
laws which govern wages, as well as the price of every other commodity,
we can examine our subject more particularly.
Chapter 5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE NATURE AND GROWTH OF CAPITAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labor, and means of
subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw
materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence. All these
components of capital are created by labor, products of labor,
accumulated labor. Accumulated labor that serves as a means to new
production is capital. So says the economists. What is a Negro slave?
A man of the black race. The one explanation is worthy of the other.
A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a
slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton.
Only under certain conditions does it become capital . Torn away from
these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or
sugar is the price of sugar.
In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature,
but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a
specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order
to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one
another, and only within these social connections and relations does
their influence upon nature operate -- i.e., does production take place.
These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under
which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of
production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means
of production. With the discover of a new instrument of warfare, the
firearm,the whole internal organization of the army was necessarily
altered, the relations within which individuals compose an army and can
work as an army were transformed, and the relation of different armies
to another was likewise changed.
We thus see that the social relations within which individuals produce,
the social relations of production, are altered, transformed, with the
change and development of the material means of production, of the
forces of production. The relations of production in their totality
constitute what is called the social relations, society, and, moreover,
a society at a definite stage of historical development, a society with
peculiar, distinctive characteristics. Ancient society, feudal society,
bourgeois (or capitalist) society, are such totalities of relations of
production, each of which denotes a particular stage of development in
the history of mankind.
Capital also is a social relation of production. It is a bourgeois
relation of production , a relation of production of bourgeois society.
The means of subsistence, the instruments of labor, the raw materials,
of which capital consists -- have they not been produced and accumulated
under given social conditions, within definite special relations? Are
they not employed for new production, under given special conditions,
within definite social relations? And does not just the definite social
character stamp the products which serve for new production as capital?
Capital consists not only of means of subsistence, instruments of labor,
and raw materials, not only as material products; it consists just as
much of exchange values. All products of which it consists are
commodities. Capital, consequently, is not only a sum of material
products, it is a sum of commodities, of exchange values, of social
magnitudes. Capital remains the same whether we put cotton in the place
of wool, rice in the place of wheat, steamships in the place of
railroads, provided only that the cotton, the rice, the steamships --
the body of capital -- have the same exchange value, the same price, as
the wool, the wheat, the railroads, in which it was previously embodied.
The bodily form of capital may transform itself continually, while
capital does not suffer the least alteration.
But though every capital is a sum of commodities -- i.e., of exchange
values -- it does not follow that every sum of commodities, of exchange
values, is capital.
Every sum of exchange values is an exchange value. Each particular
exchange value is a sum of exchange values. For example: a house worth
1,000 pounds is an exchange value of 1,000 pounds: a piece of paper
worth one penny is a sum of exchange values of 100 1/100ths of a penny.
Products which are exchangeable for others are commodities. The
definite proportion in which they are exchangeable forms their exchange
value, or, expressed in money, their price. The quantity of these
products can have no effect on their character as commodities , as
representing an exchange value , as having a certain price. Whether a
tree be large or small, it remains a tree. Whether we exchange iron in
pennyweights or in hundredweights, for other products, does this alter
its character: its being a commodity, or exchange value? According to
the quantity, it is a commodity of greater or of lesser value, of higher
or of lower price.
How then does a sum of commodities, of exchange values, become capital?
Thereby, that as an independent social power -- i.e., as the power of a
part of society -- it preserves itself and multiplies by exchange with
direct, living labor-power.
The existence of a class which possess nothing but the ability to work
is a necessary presupposition of capital.
It is only the dominion of past, accumulated, materialized labor over
immediate living labor that stamps the accumulated labor with the
character of capital.
Capital does not consist in the fact that accumulated labor serves
living labor as a means for new production. It consists in the fact
that living labor serves accumulated labor as the means of preserving
and multiplying its exchange value.
Chapter 6
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RELATION OF WAGE-LABOR TO CAPITAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is it that takes place in the exchange between the capitalist and
the wage-labor?
The laborer receives means of subsistence in exchange for his
labor-power; the capitalist receives, in exchange for his means of
subsistence, labor, the productive activity of the laborer, the creative
force by which the worker not only replaces what he consumes, but also
gives to the accumulated labor a greater value than it previously
possessed. The laborer gets from the capitalist a portion of the
existing means of subsistence. For what purpose do these means of
subsistence serve him? For immediate consumption. But as soon as I
consume means of subsistence, they are irrevocably lost to me, unless I
employ the time during which these means sustain my life in producing
new means of subsistence, in creating by my labor new values in place of
the values lost in consumption. But it is just this noble reproductive
power that the laborer surrenders to the capitalist in exchange for
means of subsistence received. Consequently, he has lost it for
himself.
Let us take an example. For one shilling a laborer works all day long
in the fields of a farmer, to whom he thus secures a return of two
shillings. The farmer not only receives the replaced value which he has
given to the day laborer, he has doubled it. Therefore, he has consumed
the one shilling that he gave to the day laborer in a fruitful,
productive manner. For the one shilling he has bought the labor-power
of the day-laborer, which creates products of the soil of twice the
value, and out of one shilling makes two. The day-laborer, on the
contrary, receives in the place of his productive force, whose results
he has just surrendered to the farmer, one shilling, which he exchanges
for means of subsistence, which he consumes more or less quickly. The
one shilling has therefore been consumed in a double manner --
reproductively for the capitalist, for it has been exchanged for
labor-power, which brought forth two shillings; unproductively for the
worker, for it has been exchanged for means of subsistence which are
lost for ever, and whose value he can obtain again only by repeating the
same exchange with the farmer. Capital therefore presupposes
wage-labor; wage-labor presupposes capital. They condition each other;
each brings the other into existence.
Does a worker in a cotton factory produce only cotton? No. He produces
capital. He produces values which serve anew to command his work and to
create by means of it new values.
Capital can multiply itself only by exchanging itself for labor-power,
by calling wage-labor into life. The labor-power of the wage-laborer
can exchange itself for capital only by increasing capital, by
strengthening that very power whose slave it is. Increase of capital,
therefore, is increase of the proletariat, i.e., of the working class.
And so, the bourgeoisie and its economists maintain that the interest of
the capitalist and of the laborer is the same. And in fact, so they
are! The worker perishes if capital does not keep him busy. Capital
perishes if it does not exploit labor-power, which, in order to exploit,
it must buy. The more quickly the capital destined for production --
the productive capital -- increases, the more prosperous industry is,
the more the bourgeoisie enriches itself, the better business gets, so
many more workers does the capitalist need, so much the dearer does the
worker sell himself. The fastest possible growth of productive capital
is, therefore, the indispensable condition for a tolerable life to the
laborer.
But what is growth of productive capital? Growth of the power of
accumulated labor over living labor; growth of the rule of the
bourgeoisie over the working class. When wage-labor produces the alien
wealth dominating it, the power hostile to it, capital, there flow back
to it its means of employment -- i.e., its means of subsistence, under
the condition that it again become a part of capital, that is become
again the lever whereby capital is to be forced into an accelerated
expansive movement.
To say that the interests of capital and the interests of the workers
are identical, signifies only this: that capital and wage-labor are two
sides of one and the same relation. The one conditions the other in the
same way that the usurer and the borrower condition each other.
As long as the wage-laborer remains a wage-laborer, his lost is
dependent upon capital. That is what the boasted community of interests
between worker and capitalists amounts to.
If capital grows, the mass of wage-labor grows, the number of
wage-workers increases; in a word, the sway of capital extends over a
greater mass of individuals.
Let us suppose the most favorable case: if productive capital grows, the
demand for labor grows. It therefore increases the price of
labor-power, wages.
A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are
likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence.
But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little
house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its
inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very
insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of
civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal of even in
greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always
find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within
his four walls.
An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive
capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a
growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures.
Therefore, although the pleasures of the laborer have increased, the
social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the
increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the
worker, in comparison with the stage of development of society in
general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we
therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in
relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they
are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.
But wages are not at all determined merely by the sum of commodities for
which they may be exchanged. Other factors enter into the problem.
What the workers directly receive for their labor-power is a certain sum
of money. Are wages determined merely by this money price?
In the 16th century, the gold and silver circulation in Europe increased
in consequence of the discovery of richer and more easily worked mines
in America. The value of gold and silver, therefore, fell in relation
to other commodities. The workers received the same amount of coined
silver for their labor-power as before. The money price of their work
remained the same, and yet their wages had fallen, for in exchange for
the same amount of silver they obtained a smaller amount of other
commodities. This was one of the circumstances which furthered the
growth of capital, the rise of the bourgeoisie, in the 18th century.
Let us take another case. In the winter of 1847, in consequence of bad
harvest, the most indispensable means of subsistence -- grains, meat,
butter, cheese, etc. -- rose greatly in price. Let us suppose that the
workers still received the same sum of money for their labor-power as
before. Did not their wages fall? To be sure. For the same money they
received in exchange less bread, meat, etc. Their wages fell, not
because the value of silver was less, but because the value of the means
of subsistence had increased.
Finally, let us suppose that the money price of labor-power remained the
same, while all agricultural and manufactured commodities had fallen in
price because of the employment of new machines, of favorable seasons,
etc. For the same money the workers could now buy more commodities of
all kinds. Their wages have therefore risen, just because their money
value has not changed.
The money price of labor-power, the nominal wages, do not therefore
coincide with the actual or real wages -- i.e., with the amount of
commodities which are actually given in exchange for the wages. If then
we speak of a rise or fall of wages, we have to keep in mind not only
the money price of labor-power, the nominal wages, but also the real
wages.
But neither the nominal wages -- i.e., the amount of money for which the
laborer sells himself to the capitalist -- nor the real wages -- i.e.,
the amount of commodities which he can buy for this money -- exhausts
the relations which are comprehended in the term wages.
Wages are determined above all by their relations to the gain, the
profit, of the capitalist. In other words, wages are a proportionate,
relative quantity.
Real wages express the price of labor-power in relation to the price of
commodities; relative wages, on the other hand, express the share of
immediate labor in the value newly created by it, in relation to the
share of it which falls to accumulated labor, to capital.
Chapter 7
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE GENERAL LAW THAT DETERMINES THE RISE AND FALL
OF WAGES AND PROFITS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have said: "Wages are not a share of the worker in the commodities
produced by him. Wages are that part of already existing commodities
with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of productive
labor-power." But the capitalist must replace these wages out of the
price for which he sells the product made by the worker; he must so
replace it that, as a rule, there remains to him a surplus above the
cost of production expended by him, that is, he must get a profit.
The selling price of the commodities produced by the worker is divided,
from the point of view of the capitalist, into three parts:
First, the replacement of the price of the raw materials advanced
by him, in addition to the replacement of the wear and tear of the
tools, machines, and other instruments of labor likewise advanced
by him;
second, the replacement of the wages advanced; and
third, the surplus leftover -- i.e., the profit of the
capitalist.
While the first part merely replaces previously existing values, it is
evident that the replacement of the wages and the surplus (the profit of
capital) are as a whole taken out of the new value,which is produced by
the labor of the worker and added to the raw materials. And in this
sense we can view wages as well as profit, for the purpose of comparing
them with each other, as shares in the product of the worker.
Real wages may remain the same, they may even rise, nevertheless the
relative wages may fall. Let us suppose, for instance, that all means
of subsistence have fallen 2/3rds in price, while the day's wages have
fallen but 1/3rd -- for example, from three to two shillings. Although
the worker can now get a greater amount of commodities with these two
shillings than he formerly did with three shillings, yet his wages have
decreased in proportion to the gain of the capitalist. The profit of
the capitalist -- the manufacturer's for instance -- has increased one
shilling, which means that for a smaller amount of exchange values,
which he pays to the worker, the latter must produce a greater amount of
exchange values than before. The share of capitals in proportion to the
share of labor has risen. The distribution of social wealth between
capital and labor has become still more unequal. The capitalist
commands a greater amount of labor with the same capital. The power of
the capitalist class over the working class has grown, the social
position of the worker has become worse, has been forced down still
another degree below that of the capitalist.
What, then is the general law that determines the rise and fall of wages
and profit in their reciprocal relation?
They stand in inverse proportion to each other. The share of (profit)
increases in the same proportion in which the share of labor (wages)
falls, and vice versa. Profit rises in the same degree in which wages
fall; it falls in the same degree in which wages rise.
It might perhaps be argued that the capitalist class can gain by an
advantageous exchange of his products with other capitalists, by a rise
in the demand for his commodities, whether in consequence of the opening
up of new markets, or in consequence of temporarily increased demands in
the old market, and so on; that the profit of the capitalist, therefore,
may be multiplied by taking advantage of other capitalists,
independently of the rise and fall of wages, of the exchange value of
labor-power; or that the profit of the capitalist may also rise through
improvements in the instruments of labor, new applications of the forces
of nature, and so on.
But in the first place it must be admitted that the result remains the
same, although brought about in an opposite manner. Profit, indeed, has
not risen because wages have fallen, but wages have fallen because
profit has risen. With the same amount of another man's labor the
capitalist has bought a larger amount of exchange values without having
p[aid more for the labor on that account -- i.e., the work is paid for
less in proportion to the net gain which it yields to the capitalist.
In the second place, it must be borne in mind that, despite the
fluctuations in the prices of commodities, the average price of every
commodity, the proportion in which it exchanges for other commodities,
is determined by its cost of production. The acts of overreaching and
taking advantage of one another within the capitalist ranks necessarily
equalize themselves. The improvements of machinery, the new
applications of the forces of nature in the service of production, make
it possible to produce in a given period of time, with the same amount
of labor and capital, a larger amount of products, but in no wise a
larger amount of exchange values. If by the use of the spinning-machine
I can furnish twice as much yarn in an hour as before its invention --
for instance, 100 pounds instead of 50 pounds -- in the long run I
receive back, in exchange for this 100 pounds no more commodities than I
did before for 50; because the cost of production has fallen by 1/2, or
because I can furnish double the product at the same cost.
Finally, in whatsoever proportion the capitalist Class, whether of one
country or of the entire world-market, distribute the net revenue of
production among themselves, the total amount o this net revenue always
consists exclusively of the amount by which accumulated labor has been
increased from the proceeds of direct labor. This whole amount,
therefore, grows in the same proportion in which labor augments capital
-- i.e., in the same proportion in which profit rises as compared with
wages.
Chapter 8
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE INTERESTS OF CAPITAL AND WAGE-LABOR ARE DIAMETRICALLY
OPPOSED -- EFFECT OF GROWTH OF PRODUCTIVE CAPITAL ON WAGES
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We thus see that, even if we keep ourselves within the relation of
capital and wage-labor, the interests of capitals and the interests of
wage-labor are diameterically opposed to each other.
A rapid growth of capital is synonymous with a rapid growth of profits.
Profits can grow rapidly only when the price of labor -- the relative
wages -- decrease just as rapidly. Relative wages may fall, although
real wages rise simultaneously with nominal wages, with the money value
of labor, p[ provided only that the real wage does not rise in the same
proportion as the profit. If, for instance, in good business years
wages rise 5 per cent, while profits rise 30 per cent, the proportional,
the relative wage has not increased, but decreased.
If, therefore, the income of the worker increased with the rapid growth
of capital, there is at the same time a widening of the social chasm
that divides the worker from the capitalist, and increase in the power
of capital over labor, a greater dependence of labor upon capital.
To say that "the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of capital",
means only this: that the more speedily the worker augments the wealth
of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall to him, the
greater will be the number of workers than can be called into existence,
the more can the mass of slaves dependent upon capital be increased.
We have thus seen that even the most favorable situation for the working
class, namely, the most rapid growth of capital, however much it may
improve the material life of the worker, does not abolish the antagonism
between his interests and the interests of the capitalist. Profit and
wages remain as before, in inverse proportion.
If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of capital
rises disproportionately faster. The material position of the worker
has improved, but at the cost of his social position. The social chasm
that separates him from the capitalist has widened.
Finally, to say that "the most favorable condition for wage-labor is the
fastest possible growth of productive capital", is the same as to say:
the quicker the working class multiplies and augments the power inimical
to it -- the wealth of another which lords over that class -- the more
favorable will be the conditions under which it will be permitted to
toil anew at the multiplication of bourgeois wealth, at the enlargement
of the power of capital, content thus to forge for itself the golden
chains by which the bourgeoisie drags it in its train.
Growth of productive capital and rise of wages, are they really so
indissolubly united as the bourgeois economists maintain? We must not
believe their mere words. We dare not believe them even when they claim
that the fatter capital is the more will its slave be pampered. The
bourgeoisie is too much enlightened, it keeps its accounts much too
carefully, to share the prejudices of the feudal lord, who makes an
ostentatious display of the magnificence of his retinue.. The
conditions of existence of the bourgeoisie compel it to attend carefully
to its bookkeeping. We must therefore examine more closely into the
following question:
In what manner does the growth of productive capital affect wages?
If as a whole, the productive capital of bourgeois society grows, there
takes place a more many-sided accumulation of labor. The individual
capitals increase in number and in magnitude. The multiplications of
individual capitals increases the competition among capitalists. The
increasing magnitude of increasing capitals provides the means of
leading more powerful armies of workers with more gigantic instruments
of war upon the industrial battlefield.
The one capitalist can drive the other from the field and carry off his
capital only by selling more cheaply. In order to sell more cheaply
without ruining himself, he must produce more cheaply -- i.e., increase
the productive forces of labor as much as possible.
But the productive forces of labor is increased above all by a greater
division of labor and by a more general introduction and constant
improvement of machinery. The larger the army of workers among whom the
labor is subdivided, the more gigantic the scale upon which machinery is
introduced, the more in proportion does the cost of production decrease,
the more fruitful is the labor. And so there arises among the
capitalists a universal rivalry for the increase of the division of
labor and of machinery and for their exploitation upon the greatest
possible scale.
If, now, by a greater division of labor, by the application and
improvement of new machines, by a more advantageous exploitation of the
forces of nature on a larger scale, a capitalist has found the means of
producing with the same amount of labor (whether it be direct or
accumulated labor) a larger amount of products of commodities than his
competitors -- if, for instance, he can produce a whole yard of linen in
the same labor-time in which his competitors weave half-a-yard -- how
will this capitalist act?
He could keep on selling half-a-yard of linen at old market price; but
this would not have the effect of driving his opponents from the field
and enlarging how own market. But his need of a market has increased in
the same measure in which his productive power has extended. The more
powerful and costly means of production that he has called into
existence enable him, it is true, to sell his wares more cheaply, but
they compel him at the same time to sell more wares, to get control of a
very much greater market for his commodities; consequently, this
capitalist will sell his half-yard of linen more cheaply than his
competitors.
But the capitalist will not sell the whole yard so cheaply as his
competitors sell the half-yard, although the production of the whole
yard costs him no more than does that of the half-yard to the others.
Otherwise, he would make no extra profit, and would get back in exchange
only the cost of production. He might obtain a greater income from
having set in motion a larger capital, but not from having made a
greater profit on his capital than the others. Moreover, he attains the
object he is aiming at if he prices his goods only a small percentage
lower than his competitors. He drives them off the field, he wrests
from them at least part of their market, by underselling them.
And finally, let us remember that the current price always stands either
above or below the cost of production, according as the sale of a
commodity takes place in the favorable or unfavorable period of the
industry. According as the market price of the yard of linen stands
above or below its former cost of production, will the percentage vary
at which the capitalist who has made use of the new and more faithful
means of production sell above his real cost of production.
But the privilege of our capitalist is not of long duration. Other
competing capitalists introduce the same machines, the same division of
labor, and introduce them upon the same or even upon a greater scale.
And finally this introduction becomes so universal that the price of the
linen is lowered not only below its old, but even below its new cost of
production.
The capitalists therefore find themselves, in their mutual relations, in
the same situation in which they were before the introduction of the new
means of production; and if they are by these means enabled to offer
double the product at the old price, they are now forced to furnish
double the product for less than the old price. Having arrived at the
new point, the new cost of production, the battle for supremacy in the
market has to be fought out anew. Given more division of labor and more
machinery, and there results a greater scale upon which division of
labor and machinery are exploited. And competition again brings the
same reaction against this result.
Chapter 9
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EFFECT OF CAPITALIST COMPETITION ON THE CAPITALIST CLASS,
THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND THE WORKING CLASS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We thus see how the method of production and the means of production are
constantly enlarged, revolutionized, how division of labor necessarily
draws after it greater division of labor, the employment of machinery
greater employment of machinery, work upon a large scale work upon a
still greater scale. This is the law that continually throws capitalist
production out of its old ruts and compels capital to strain ever more
the productive forces of labor for the very reason that it has already
strained them -- the law that grants it no respite, and constantly
shouts in its ear: March! march! This is no other law than that which,
within the periodical fluctuations of commerce, necessarily adjusts the
price of a commodity to its cost of production.
No matter how powerful the means of production which a capitalist may
bring into the field, competition will make their adoption general; and
from the moment that they have been generally adopted, the sole result
of the greater productiveness of his capital will be that he must
furnish at the same price, 10, 20, 100 times as much as before. But
since he must find a market for, perhaps, 1,000 times as much, in order
to outweigh the lower selling price by the greater quantity of the
sale;since now a more extensive sale is necessary not only to gain a
greater profit, but also in order to replace the cost of production (the
instrument of production itself grows always more costly, as we have
seen), and since this more extensive sale has become a question of life
and death not only for him, but also for his rivals, the old struggle
must begin again, and it is all the more violent the more powerful the
means of production already invented are. The division of labor and the
application of machinery will therefore take a fresh start, and upon an
even greater scale.
Whatever be the power of the means of production which are employed,
competition seeks to rob capital of the golden fruits of this power by
reducing the price of commodities to the cost of production; in the same
measure in which production is cheapened - i.e., in the same measure in
which more can be produced with the same amount of labor -- it compels
by a law which is irresistible a still greater cheapening of production,
the sale of ever greater masses of product for smaller prices. Thus the
capitalist will have gained nothing more by his efforts than the
obligation to furnish a greater product in the same labor-time; in a
word, more difficult conditions for the profitable employment of his
capital. While competition, therefore, constantly pursues him with its
law of the cost of production and turns against himself every weapon
that he forges against his rivals, the capitalist continually seeks to
get the best of competition by restlessly introducing further
subdivision of labor and new machines, which, though more expensive,
enable him to produce more cheaply, instead of waiting until the new
machines shall have been rendered obsolete by competition.
If we now conceive this feverish agitation as it operates in the market
of the whole world, we shall be in a position to comprehend how the
growth, accumulation, and concentration of capital bring in their train
an ever more detailed subdivision of labor, an ever greater improvement
of old machines, and a constant application of new machine -- a process
which goes on uninterruptedly, with feverish haste, and upon an ever
more gigantic scale.
But what effect do these conditions, which are inseparable from the
growth of productive capital, have upon the determination of wages?
The greater division of labor enables one laborer to accomplish the work
of five, 10, or 20 laborers; it therefore increases competition among
the laborers fivefold, tenfold, or twentyfold. The laborers compete not
only by selling themselves one cheaper than the other, but also by one
doing the work of five, 10, or 20; and they are forced to compete in
this manner by the division of labor, which is introduced and steadily
improved by capital.
Furthermore, to the same degree in which the division of labor
increases, is the labor simplified. The special skill of the laborer
becomes worthless. He becomes transformed into a simple monotonous
force of production, with neither physical nor mental elasticity. His
work becomes accessible to all; therefore competitors press upon him
from all sides. Moreover, it must be remembered that the more simple,
the more easily learned the work is, so much the less is its cost to
production, the expense of its acquisition, nd so much the lower must
the wages sink -- for, like the price of any other commodity, they are
determined by the cost of production. Therefore, in the same manner in
which labor becomes more unsatisfactory, more repulsive, do competition
increase and wages decrease.
The laborer seeks to maintain the total of his wages for a given time by
performing more labor, either by working a great number of hours, or by
accomplishing more in the same number of hours. Thus, urged on by want,
he himself multiplies the disastrous effects of division of labor. The
result is: the more he works, the less wages he receives. And for this
simple reason: the more he works, the more he competes against his
fellow workmen, the more he compels them to compete against him, and to
offer themselves on the same wretched conditions as he does; so that, in
the last analysis, he competes against himself as a member of the
working class.
Machinery produces the same effects, but upon a much larger scale. It
supplants skilled laborers by unskilled, men by women, adults by
children; where newly introduced, it throws workers upon the streets in
great masses; and as it becomes more highly developed and more
productive it discards them in additional though smaller numbers.
We have hastily sketched in broad outlines the industrial was of
capitalists among themselves. This war has the peculiarity that the
battles in it are won less by recruiting than by discharging the army of
workers. The generals (the capitalists) vie with one another as to who
an discharge the greatest number of industrial soldiers.
The economists tell us, to be sure, that those laborers who have been
rendered superfluous by machinery find new venues of employment. They
dare not assert directly that the same laborers that have been
discharged find situations in new branches of labor. Facts cry out too
loudly against this lie. Strictly speaking, they only maintain that new
means of employment will be found for other sections of the working
class; for example, for that portion of the young generation of laborers
who were about to enter upon that branch of industry which had just been
abolished. Of course, this is a great satisfaction to the disabled
laborers. There will be no lack of fresh exploitable blood and muscle
for the Messrs. Capitalists -- the dead may bury their dead. This
consolation seems to be intended more for the comfort of the capitalists
themselves than their laborers. If the whole class of the wage-laborer
were to be annihilated by machinery, how terrible that would be for
capital, which, without wage-labor, ceases to be capital!
But even if we assume that all who are directly forced out of employment
by machinery, as well as all of the rising generation who were waiting
for a chance of employment in the same branch of industry, do actually
find some new employment -- are we to believe that this new employment
will pay as high wages as did the one they have lost? If it did, it
would be in contradiction to the laws of political economy. We have
seen how modern industry always tends to the substitution of the simpler
and more subordinate employments for the higher and more complex ones.
How, then, could a mass of workers thrown out of one branch of industry
by machinery find refuge in another branch, unless they were to be paid
more poorly?
An exception to the law has been adduced, namely, the workers who are
employed in the manufacture of machinery itself. As soon as there is in
industry a greater demand for and a greater consumption of machinery, it
is said that the number of machines must necessarily increase;
consequently, also, the manufacture of machines; consequently, also, the
employment of workers in machine manufacture; -- and the workers
employed in this branch of industry are skilled, even educated, workers.
Since the year 1840 this assertion, which even before that date was only
half-true, has lost all semblance of truth; for the most diverse
machines are now applied to the manufacture of the machines themselves
on quite as extensive a scale as in the manufacture of cotton yarn, and
the laborers employed in machine factories can but play the role of very
stupid machines alongside of the highly ingenious machines.
But in place of the man who has been dismissed by the machine, the
factory may employ, perhaps, three children and one woman! And must not
the wages of the man have previously sufficed for the three children and
one woman? Must not the minimum wages have sufficed for the preservation
and propagation of the race? What, then, do these beloved bourgeois
phrases prove? Nothing more than that now four times as many workers'
lives are used up as there were previously, in order to obtain the
livelihood of one working family.
To sum up: the more productive capital grows, the more it extends the
division of labor and the application of machinery; the more the
division of labor and the application of machinery extend, the more does
competition extend among the workers, the more do their wages shrink
together.
In addition, the working class is also recruited from the higher strata
of society; a mass of small business men and of people living upon the
interest of their capitals is precipitated into he ranks of the working
class, and they will have nothing else to do than to stretch out their
arms alongside of the arms of the workers. Thus the forest of
outstretched arms, begging for work, grows ever thicker, while the arms
themselves grow every leaner.
It is evident that the small manufacturer cannot survive in a struggle
in which the first condition of success is production upon an ever
greater scale. It is evident that the small manufacturers and thereby
increasing the number of candidates for the proletariat -- all this
requires no further elucidation.
Finally, in the same measure in which the capitalists are compelled, by
the movement described above, to exploit the already existing gigantic
means of production on an ever-increasing scale, and for this purpose to
set in motion all the mainsprings of credit, in the same measure do they
increase the industrial earthquakes, in the midst of which the
commercial world can preserve itself only by sacrificing a portion of
its wealth, its products, and even its forces of production, to the gods
of the lower world -- in short, the crises increase. They become more
frequent and more violent, if for no other reason, than for this alone,
that in the same measure in which the mass of products grows, and there
the needs for extensive markets, in the same measure does the world
market shrink ever more, and ever fewer markets remain to be exploited,
since every previous crisis has subjected to the commerce of the world a
hitherto unconquered or but superficially exploited market.
But capital not only lives upon labor. Like a master, at once
distinguished and barbarous, it drags with it into its grave the corpses
of its slaves, whole hecatombs of workers, who perish in the crises.
We thus see that if capital grows rapidly, competition among the workers
grows with even greater rapidity -- i.e., the means of employment and
subsistence for the working class decrease in proportion even more
rapidly; but, this notwithstanding, the rapid growth of capital is the
most favorable condition for wage-labor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTES
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Translator's Note to 1891 edition: It must be remembered that this
was written over 40 years ago. Today the class struggle in
Switzerland, and especially Belgium, has reached that degree of
development where it compels recognition from even the most
superficial observers of political industrial life.
2. That is the "common" people as distinct from the "noble" and
"clerical" (or "religious") people. Originating in feudal times in
the rank of freeman and town-burgher the "commons" or "citizens"
(burgher, burghers, citizen, citizens, or bourgeois) formed the
starting-point of the bourgeoisie". - Ed.
3. As stated by Engels in the Introduction, the series of articles on
"Wage-Labor and Capital" remained incomplete; the pamphlet is
confined almost exclusively to a consideration of the first "great
division": the relation of wage-labor to capital. - Ed.
4. "Sell" is not a very exact expression, for serfdom in its purity did
not involve any relations of buying and selling between serf and the
lord of the manor, the tributes of the former to the latter
consisting in labor and in kind. It is evident that Marx here
uses the word 'sells" in the general sense of alienation . --
Translator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
transcribed by zodiac@io.org
report errors to that address