Edward Aveling (1885)
Source: Commonweal, April 1885 - March 1886
Notes: Aveling first gave his lessons as a series of
four classes to the Westminster branch of the SDF in November-December 1884.
After leaving the SDF for the new Socialist League, he immediately proposed
re-running the lessons in an expanded form, as two series of eight lessons,
intended to summarize Volume 1 of Capital. Aveling was then working
with Moore and Engels to translate this to English (the translation would only be
published in 1887). The lessons were a major undertaking for the SL:
the hall was expensive, so non-party students were charged to attend; even so,
the party was £40 in debt by the end. The lessons brought some criticisms for
being too abstruse but were strongly supported by William Morris, and a Social
Entertainment involving the rest of the SL leadership was organised to celebrate
the first series. Publication of the lessons lagged behind; they had
not all been published when the Avelings left for the USA, and no further
lessons were published after their return. In 1891 Aveling rewrote and
published the full set as The Student’s Marx [PDF].
This version: There has been some light editing of the layout of formulæ and headings to make the text clearer to follow.
Transcription, editing and notes: by Graham Seaman for MIA, March 2021.
I. Scientific Socialism – Value: Commonweal, April 1885, pp. 21-22
II. Value form, or Exchange value: Commonweal, May 1885, p. 33
III. Money: Commonweal, June 1885, pp45-6
IV. Capital, Surplus-value, Labour-power: Commonweal, July 1885, pp. 57-8
V. Labour-power. means of subsistence. essentials for labour: Commonweal, September 1885, pp. 81-2
VI. How Capital is made: Commonweal, October 1885, pp. 89-90
VII. Constant and Variable Capital. Rate of Surplus-value: Commonweal, December 1885, pp. 104-5
VIII. The Product. The Working day: Commonweal, January 1886, p. 5
IX. The lust for surplus labour. The corvée system.: Commonweal, March 1886, p. 18
The object of this article, and of those that may follow it, is to give some evidence of the fact that Socialism is based on grounds as scientific and as irrefragable as the theory of Evolution. My purpose is not to deal in generalities. But, as one who is mainly known to the general public as a student and interpreter of Charles Darwin, I cannot refrain from saying that precisely the same methods of observation, recordal, reflection and generalisation that have made his ideas convincing to me have, as applied to history and economics, convinced me of the truth of Socialism. Again and again we hear sneers at scientific Socialism. These are, as a rule, forthcoming from those whose ignorance of Science and of Socialism are on a par. In some rare cases, however, the contempt is poured on us and on a greater than us, ours, by those who ought to know, and in a few cases do know, better.
The contemners of scientific Socialism are, in a word, of three classes: those that know nothing whatever of the question; those that know something of the orthodox political economy, but nothing of Socialism; those that know something of political economy and of Socialism, and are yet under orders to glorify the one and to misrepresent the other.
Some outlines of the basis of our economic faith, then, are to be given. It must be understood that they are only the outlines. Nor can I claim the slightest originality for my work. Here, as with Darwin in the past, I am only an interpreter, an intellectual middleman, not, I hope, exploiting either the solitary genius or the many minds that I am bringing together. As Darwin was and is my master in biological science, so is Marx my master in economics, and for exactly the same reasons. Nor does it need any prophetic insight to see that as surely as the teaching of Darwin won and revolutionised the world of thought in so-called natural science, so surely the teaching of Marx is winning and will revolutionise the world of thought in social science. My article begins, therefore, what is as far as I know the first attempt to put the ideas of Marx, on which, as a scientific foundation, Socialism rests, simply and clearly before the English people, in their own language, with an honest acknowledgment that they are his.
This article will deal especially with Value, and will in detail aim at making clear the meaning of the following terms: natural object, product, commodity, use-value, exchange-value, value.
To understand the essential terms in economics it is wisest to go back to the simplest condition of things, and to study man in his simplest state, divested of all the complexities of our civilisation. The simplest state of man is in one sense the solitary condition. Let us, then, picture our Robinson Crusoe on his desert island, before the advent of Friday or even the classical warning footprint on the sand. Robinson finds fruits, stones, shell-fish, poisonous berries — a thousand things. These are all natural things. They are ready to his hand. But they fall into the two familiar categories of the useless and the useful. To him at present the masses of heavy stone are negatively useless, and the poisonous berries are positively injurious.
A little later and he sets to work on a tree-trunk (a natural object), and by dint of labour fashions it into a canoe. We are not concerned with the beautifully natural touch that makes him fashion his canoe in such a place that it cannot be got down to the water. Now he has a product, a natural object on which human labour has been spent.
A little later still, to our Robinson, who has made two canoes, comes Robinson No. 2, who has made two knives. Robinson No. 1 will be happier with one canoe and one knife than with two canoes and no knife. Robinson No. 2 will be happier with one knife and one canoe than with two knives. Now the second canoe of the first, or the first knife of the second, is something more than a product. It is a commodity. And why? Robinson No. 2 recognises in the second canoe the human labour that Robinson No. 1 has put into it, whilst Robinson No. 1 recognises in the second knife the human labour that has been put into that.
Next let us get clearly the idea of the three values. The use-value of an object is its property of supplying a human want. This may or may not exist in a natural object. The fruit and the shell-fish have use-value. The stones and the poisonous berries to Robinson, and the parasitic insect to man to-day e.g., have no use-value. Use-value may or may not exist in a product, though the former case is far and away the most common. Very rarely indeed is a product — i.e., a natural object on which human labour has been expended — destitute of use-value. Intentionally this is almost never the case. A madman may waste energy on the production of an object, but even then it satisfies his immediate want, possibly. But we may get a case of a product that is not a use-value from certain of our industries. The mass of refuse that is seen outside certain factories or certain metalurgical works for which as yet science has found no use is a product, but without any use-value at present. A commodity must have use-value. For the commodity is the product in which the human labour that is embodied therein is recognised, and unless that human labour puts into the object on which it works some use-value {i.e., some property that satisfies a human want), it will not be recognised. From all this it will be seen that a use-value may be resident in a natural object, as in air: that it may be resident in a product as in a canoe, or, in a commodity, as in the second canoe. Further, it is to be noticed that in each of the two last cases the use-value is partly due to the properties of the body as a natural object, partly due to the human labour that has been put into it. Three things finally may be predicated of the use-value of a commodity. (1) It is intrinsic to the commodity; is, as I have said, resident in it. (2) It is realised in the consumption of the commodity, for consumption conversely is but the realisation of use-value. (3) It forms the basis of wealth, of commerce, and of exchange-value. Thus we are led to the consideration of exchange value.
The exchange-value of a commodity is the proportion in which its use-value exchanges with other use-values. A natural object as such has no exchange-value. The air, the water, the land ought to have no exchange value, great as their use-value may be. In the cases where they have such an exchange-value to-day it is due to the human labour that has been spent on the bringing of these natural objects into particular positions. The air in a diving-bell has an exchange-value. The water supplied to towns by companies has exchange-value, as Mr. Dobbs knows. A product as such has no exchange-value, for the human labour put into it is not recognised. But the moment that human labour thus embodied is recognised, the product is a commodity, and it has an exchange-value. The difference between use-value and exchange-value will be clearer if it is borne in mind that use-values differ in quality, and that exchange-values differ in quantity.
Now what is value? That is not to be confounded with either use-value or exchange-value, a confusion constantly made intentionally or unintentionally by the orthodox political economist. Value is the human labour materialised in the commodity. Think of any commodity, as, for example, a tool. Abstract from it mentally its use-value, that is, its power of supplying human wants, whether that use-value is due to its natural properties or to human labour. With the use-value, whatever its source, has gone its exchange-value, since that is the proportion in which use-value is exchanged. Yet in the tool divested of its use- value and of its exchange-value there is still left the property that it is the result of human labour. It has still value. This is a difficult and abstract conception, but it is of the utmost importance. The value of a commodity is the human labour crystalised in it. When mentally we take away the useful nature of the commodity (its use-value), the specially useful nature of the particular kind of labour spent on it, vanishes also, and only the fact that it is due to abstract human labour remains. The particular form of that human labour has gone. Whilst after this abstraction of the idea of use-value and of exchange-value only the property of the commodity as the result of abstract human labour remains, we must bear in mind that this value, nevertheless, enters into the use-value, and therefore into the exchange-value of commodities, inasmuch as human labour confers on the natural object on which it works the property of satisfying wants otherwise unsatisfiable by the commodity.
What is the measure of this value due to human labour? Time, i.e., the average time requisite under the average social conditions, and with average ability of labour to produce the particular commodity. The idleness of the one man, the energy of the other, are mere accidents, swallowed up, merged altogether in the enormous number of cases. Out of the thousands, the millions of instances of workers producing some commodity, an average time requisite for its production is deducible, and the eccentricities of individuals affect this no more than an eight-foot giant or a two-foot dwarf affects the average height of the nation.
This article and its successors will conclude with a concise definition of each of the terms mentioned:
We have seen what are the three kinds of value, and what is the nature of a commodity. In the study on which we now enter let us keep steadily in mind the fact that a commodity (such as we are about to consider under the processes of exchange) has use-value, and that it is also a value carrier. It possesses utility or satisfies a want. It has also embodied within it a certain amount of human labour.
Three equations will need investigation in this part of our work. Let us write them down at once, and then consider each of them carefully. (1) xA = yB ; (2) xA = yB = zC, etc. ; (3) xA or yB or zC, etc., = wD. The first of these is the expression for simple value-form, and represents that which takes place when exchange of commodities is rare — accidental. The second of these is the expression for the more developed value form and represents that which takes place when barter is general. The third of these is the expression for general value form, and represents that which takes place when commodities are exchanged through the medium of a general equivalent known as money.
(1) xA = yB. Formula for the simple form of value. The meaning of this expression is that a certain number x of a certain commodity A are exchanged with a certain number Y of another commodity B. Say one hundred matches are exchanged with two pipe-cleaners. In this particular case the x of the equation represents one hundred; the A represents matches; the Y represents 2 ; the B represents pipe-cleaners.
The two commodities A and B (matches and pipe-cleaners, e.g.) play two different parts here. A expresses its value in terms of B. B serves as material for the expression of that value. A is, as it were, active; B is passive. A is the relative form; B is the equivalent form. These two forms, relative and equivalent, are the two poles of this first simple expression. If we reverse the order of the equation, and write yB = xA, B is now the relative form, A is the equivalent. B is now, as it were, active; A is passive. B now expresses its value in terms of A. A serves as material for the expression of that value.
In the expression xA = yB we have a comparison of two quantities, x and y, of two different commodities, A and B. Such a quantitative comparison implies a qualitative unity between the commodities A and B. What is the one thing they have in common? Human labour is crystallised in them. It is this, and this alone, that makes quantitative comparison of them possible. It is not the fact that they both satisfy human wants that makes them quantitatively comparable. It is that they are both products of one and the same thing, abstract human labour.
Note one other thing before we leave this equation. The value of A is now expressed in terms of the use-value of B. The possessor of A wants to get rid of, to alienate, A. To him it has no use-value. But it has to him value. On the other hand, B, to the possessor of A, has a use-value. He wants B. To the possessor of B these values are of course reversed. His commodity B is to him value. The commodity A of the other is to him a use-value. This duality that comes out in the comparison of the two wares is in reality intrinsic to each of them. A has both value and use-value. B has both use-value and value.
To make quite clear this important relation of the equivalent form B to the relative form A, we may wisely take the illustration that Marx uses. So much sugar is balanced by a weight of iron. Now iron represents the weight only of the sugar. Nothing else. And B the equivalent form represents the value only of A, the relative form. Nothing else.
(2) xA = YB = zC, etc. Formula for the developed form of value. The meaning of this expression is that a certain number X of a certain commodity A are exchanged with a certain number Y of a second commodity B, or with a certain number z of a third commodity C, and so on through the whole list of possible commodities. Say 100 matches are exchanged with 2 pipe-cleaners, or with 1 Pickwick cigar, etc. In this particular case x of the equation represents 100, A, matches; Y represents 2, B, pipecleaners; Z represents 1, C, Pickwicks. This is the form that is met with in ordinary barter. Any commodity can as yet be the relative form or the equivalent form. The value of a commodity, A, e.g., is the same no matter with how many different equivalents as yB, zC, etc., it may be compared, and the exchange-value evidently does not regulate the value of the commodity, but on the other hand the value of the commodity regulates at present its exchange-value. The obvious difficulty with this form is that the series is never closed. The possible list of A, B, C, etc., of commodities is an endless one. Ere long, therefore, this second form glides into the third,
(3) xA or yB,or zC, etc. = wD. The formula for the general form of value. The meaning of this expression is that a certain number x of a certain commodity A, or a certain number y of a second commodity B, or a certain number z of a third commodity C, are each exchanged with the same number w of a general equivalent D. Following out our illustration, let us say that 100 matches, or 2 pipe-cleaners, or 1 Pickwick, are exchanged with one piece of the general equivalent, with 1/240 of the unit, for instance.
Here, then, we meet with a commodity D in terms of which the value of all other commodities is to be expressed. This commodity is the general equivalent, or money. Money, or the general equivalent, can never enter into the relative form unless we reverse equation 3 and express the relative value of D in the interminable equivalent values of an infinite series of commodities. In doing this, in fact, equation 3 becomes equation 2 again.
By excluding from the position of equivalent all commodities but one, and by excluding it from the position of relative form, the possibility of a general and uniform expression for the relative values of all other commodities is given. This general equivalent only is in the position of exchangeability with all others. As products become commodities, one commodity is set apart to denote the reciprocal value of all commodities. And this one is money.
At first the choice of the particular commodity seems to be a chance matter. But as a rule two things decide. Either an imported article (such as gold) is used that reveals the exchange-value of home commodities, or some useful article (such as cattle, pecus, pecunia) that forms the chief element of home wealth is employed. Never must we forget that money has the three values. It is not a mere sign, as we are often told. It has use-value, for it satisfies human wants. It has exchange-value, as its main use tells us; and it has value, for it is the product of human labour. It is like every commodity, an incarnation of human labour, and its value, as that of other commodities, is determined by the time necessary for its production. (This includes its distribution to any particular place.)
The functions of the general equivalent, or money, or gold let us say, are next to be considered. Thus far we have only recognised one of these functions. We have seen that as general equivalent the commodity D functions as measure of value. To the expression for the value of a commodity in terms of the general equivalent is given the name “price.” Price is the expression in terms of gold of the value of any commodity. But out of this first function springs another. The general equivalent becomes also a standard of price. Again, through the medium of gold, a metamorphosis of commodities takes place. The man that has commodity A, which is only value to him, acquires commodity B, which is a use-value to him. Thus the general equivalent functions as a means of circulation. Yet again the general equivalent may become a means of payment, as when, an interval of time elapsing between the alienation, or getting rid of a commodity, and the realisation of its price, the ideas of debtor and creditor come into play, and the general equivalent plays an ideal, abstract part, payments often balancing without so much as an ounce of gold changing hands. These four functions of the general equivalent as measure of value, as standard of price, as means of circulation, as means of payment will engage us next.
We have seen that the general equivalent, money, is that in which the values of all other commodities are expressed; that money is itself not merely a sign, but an actual commodity, having use-value, exchange-value, value, and that it has four functions. These four functions are now to be considered.
Measure of value. Money is the universal measure of value. It is not that money renders the various commodities commensurable. It is because they are already commensurable as materialised labour, that their values can be thus measured. In this first function money is the general equivalent; it expresses the exchange-values of different commodities in terms of itself. This expression is the “price” of the commodities. The values of the commodities are transformed into imaginary quantities of gold. The amounts of money representing the different commodities necessarily vary, inasmuch as different amounts of human labour are embodied in them.
Standard of price. In this, its second function, money is no longer the abstract general equivalent. It is an actual, concrete mass of metal. It no longer transforms the values of commodities into price, but it measures prices (i.e., imaginary quantities of gold) against a certain fixed quantity, say £1, its multiples, its aliquot parts. Finally, it has in this function nothing to do with value. Certain masses of metal are here measured against a certain mass of metal, not their values against its value.
Means of circulation. In the ordinary exchange of commodities — we are not yet concerned with capitalistic conditions at all — money plays the part of intermediary. The general formula for exchange of commodities will be C—M–C'. This means that a certain commodity, C, has been exchanged against a certain quantity of the general equivalent, M, and the latter again has been exchanged against another commodity, C'. Say that a hundred matches are exchanged against 1d., and this against one pipe-cleaner.
C—M—C' necessarily implies C'—M—C, its reverse. In the double process represented by these two formulas a metamorphosis of the two commodities concerned occurs. C in the first and C' in the second are commodities that to their possessor have not use-value. Exchanged against M, and that in its turn against C' and C respectively, each of them has reached the hands of one to whom it has a use. In the process of exchange, in fact, commodities are constantly passing from places where their use-value is not recognised to places where it is recognised; from the sphere of exchange to that of consumption. For consumption is the realisation of use-value. This change is what is meant by the metamorphosis of commodities. Bearing in mind that C—M—C' always involves C'—M—C, we see that the first stage in the metamorphosis of any commodity C, is always the final stage of the metamorphosis of another commodity, C'. Money is here only the transition form of either of the commodities — its equivalent — which is in turn to be transformed into a use-value. In C—M—C' we have also represented the two successive acts of selling C—M and buying M—C'. The former of these (selling) corresponds with the first stage of the metamorphosis just mentioned (for C) and the second (buying) corresponds with the final stage of the metamorphosis (for C).
C and C' may be multiplied indefinitely. Their number is only limited by that of the commodities existing. And the sum of all the many overlapping circles C—M—C', C'—M—C, C''—M—C''', C'''–M–C'', etc., etc., is the circulation of commodities. It is always understood here, and whenever this phrase “circulation of commodities” may be used that nothing of capital is as yet implied.
This circulation is a different thing from the simple immediate exchange of products. It does not end when the products change hands as a simple immediate exchange ends. It is very important to get these two forms, and especially the second, quite clear and to distinguish each of them, and especially the second, from the capitalistic circulation, yet to be considered. For the orthodox school of political economists represent simple immediate exchange and the circulation of commodities as one and the same thing and they try to get rid of the contradictions and difficulties of capitalistic production by referring the relations of the agents in capitalistic production to the relations of the circulation of commodities.
It is in this important third function where it plays the part of intermediary in the circulation of commodities, is, in fact, a means of circulation, that money takes on the objective form of coin. Here we have a sign of value truly, but money is not a sign simply. That coin is but a symbol is shown by the fact that a brand-new sovereign represents no more exchange-value than an old and battered one, and yet more clearly by paper money. The latter is purely symbolic, its actual value having no bearing at all on the value stamped upon it. Here we have not to do with cheques, of course, but only with notes and the like that are State paper money. Just as the latter grows out of the third function of money, still under our consideration, the former grows out of the fourth function, yet to be studied.
The same quantities of the general equivalent that are expressed ideally in the prices of commodities are expressed symbolically in coin or in paper money.
Means of payment. This fourth function of money, or the general equivalent appears when an interval of time elapses between the alienation of a commodity from its possessor and the realisation of its price by him. C—M, if I may use a rough way of representing what takes place becomes C––––––M. A house, e.g., is let, dwelt in for three months, and then only a fraction of its value is paid to the landlord. Or a quantity of wine is given over to one who does not pay for it until a year has passed. There is here a great change in the nature of the metamorphosis of the commodity and a corresponding change in the function of the general equivalent. The latter is no longer merely a means of circulation. It is a means of payment.
Money now, as its appearance face to face with the commodity is postponed (it may be postponed until long after the commodity has been consumed), has now these functions. It is a measure of value of the commodity as before. It fixes the price of the commodity. It measures also the indebtedness of him that receives the commodity (B) to him that parts with it (A) . Debtor and creditor, in fact, appear on the field.. Finally it is an ideal means of buying. For although only promised as yet by B the debtor to A the creditor, still the latter reckons upon it as actual, and the real movement of commodities is affected by the ideal money.
The nature of the work of the general equivalent as a means of payment, whenever any time elapses between the parting with a commodity and the realisation of its price, and the difference between this function and that of money as a means of circulation will be seen if we consider the balancing of accounts that takes place between large firms and in clearing-houses. Here transactions of vast magnitude may be dealt with, and yet the actual change of hands of money may be little or nothing.
Before continuing this series, a word or two of explanation, called forth by one or two viva voce criticisms that I have received. Some bewailing has reached my ears on the subject of the formulæ used. These formulæ are used for simplification’s sake. The employment of symbols serves two purposes, at least. It saves time and it puts a more or less complex set of truths into a condensed, rememberable, expansible form. If the formulæ only are learned, no good is effected. But if the facts are mastered and the formulæ merely taken as concise representations of the facts, all is well. I feel that some of my readers to whom signs and symbols are less familiar than they are to others, may have, had some little difficulty in using the formulæ at first. But with steady perseverance, as indeed many of them have already found, the difficulties are surmounted, and then the advantages come into play.
A warning also that certain friendly comments convince me is necessary. These definitions that we use for convenience’ sake in our study of Socialism and its economics are, like all definitions, only useful conventions. As I have pointed out again and again elsewhere, such a thing as a rigid, hard and fast, incontrovertible, wholly satisfactory definition is, with our knowledge of to-day, impossible. Those that will take the trouble to refer to my articles on Evolution and Definition in Progress for May, June, July, 1883, will see that I there insisted upon the fact that with the recognition of the truth that no such thing as special creation exists, and that all is of development, comes the impossibility of rigorously marking off by definition any particular order of phenomena from any other. Now, Socialism is the only logical, perhaps one may say the only, application of the principles of Evolution to economics and to history. By consequence the Socialist, when he defines a term, is fully conscious that the definition is but a convenience and a convention. Just as the vegetable kingdom glides into the animal, so the feudal system glides into the capitalistic; as species are practically indistinguishable in their extreme forms from allied species, so it is difficult to distinguish the product from the commodity. We take for the latter the definition already given — a product in which the embodied human labour is recognised. But we know that as the products of man's labour begin to be exchanged one with another, they are called commodities, even before their inherent and essential property of value-carriers is clearly recognised.
And having said this, let us at once return to our formulae and definitions. C—M—C'. Here is the symbolic representation of the exchange of a commodity against money, and of this money against another commodity or other commodities, C. Now we have to consider quite another change, quite another relation. This new object of study is the series that starts, not with an ordinary special commodity, but with the general equivalent, money. We have now to investigate the succession of events that follows upon the possession and investment of this mass of the general equivalent.
M—C—M'. Money (M) is exchanged against a commodity (C), and this latter against a second quantity of money (M'), as to whose relations of magnitude to M nothing need be said at present. All that is to be done just now is to compare the two sets of facts — an exchange starting with an ordinary commodity, and an exchange starting with the general equivalent. And this comparison will be rendered more easy and more clear if once again we use formulæ.
C—M—C'. [Circulation of commodities].
M—C—M'. [Capitalistic circulation].
Some five differences are to be noted.
Each process is the converse in its successive stages of the other. Notice how the formulae once more help in the comprehension of this. It is so easy by the first to understand that the former exchange here is of an ordinary commodity against the general equivalent and the latter exchange is of the general equivalent against an ordinary commodity or ordinary commodities; whilst by the second we see that the order of these two processes is reversed.
Again, the successive actions on the market are in the two cases converse. The first begins with an act of selling (C—M), and ends with one of buying (M—C'). The second begins with an act of buying (M—C), and ends with one of selling (C—M').
The middle terms in the two cases differ. In case 1, that of commodity-circulation, the intermediary is money, the general equivalent. In case 2, that of capitalistic circulation, the intermediary is some commodity not money.
The results in the two cases differ. That in the first is C', a use-value to him that acquires it. The result in the second case is M', an exchange-value.
Finally, as far as this comparison of the two formulæ and of the facts they represent is concerned, the initial and ultimate terms of the two circulations have their differences of comparison. Thus, in the formula of commodity-circulation, it is seen that C and C', the extreme terms, do not necessarily differ in quantity, though it is obvious that, if the transaction represented by C—M—C' is to mean anything, C, as the mark ' implies, must differ qualitatively from C. The bread (C') we obtain by exchange will differ qualitatively from the coats, or the chairs (C) e.g., that we alienate or get rid of. But in the formula of capitalistic circulation it is seen that M and M', the extreme terms, do necessarily differ in quantity, though they are alike qualitatively. He that puts out money M will not be content, and his putting-out would have no meaning, if the M' that comes back to him is only the equivalent of M.
To sum up. The five chief differences between the commodity-circulation and capital-circulation are: (1) Their converse order; (2) The one begins with selling and ends with buying, as the other begins with buying and ends with selling; (3) The. intermediary in one case is represented by M, in the other by C; (4) The results are respectively a use-value and an exchange-value; (5) The extremes of the transaction in the one case differ in quality, in the other, differ in quantity.
From this last we derive the expression M—C—M + ΔM. Here M' in the earlier form is replaced by M + ΔM. This means that the original money or capital invested comes back to the investor as something larger than it was at starting; that M is on its return larger by a quantity, ΔM. ΔM is to represent the gain, and Δ expresses the fraction of M that this gain is. An example. Suppose a capital of £100 (M) and the return = £105 (M'). Then M + ΔM = 100 + 1/20 of 100 and Δ = 1/20. Now this ΔM represents surplus-value.
Around these questions of surplus-value and of capital rages the fight between the orthodox political economists and the advocates of Socialism. The latter declare that the one source of all capital is, and always has been, surplus-value. They declare, further, that the one source of all surplus-value is, and always been, unpaid human labour. These are the central propositions of scientific Socialism, that have, as we believe, never been refuted, never even seriously touched, by any one of its opponents. With them it rests to show any other source of capital than the unpaid labour of wronged and robbed human beings.
Capital is, as will be seen from this, not made up of things, but of the values of things. As the values, i.e., the embodied human labours, become capital, much transformation and concealment of the identity of all values as crystallised human labour occurs. Hence the necessity of a form by which this identity may be recognised. That form is money.
The capitalist is the supporter of the circle M—C—M'. His single aim is ΔM, or surplus-value. He never seeks or even thinks of use-values or exchange-values as such. They are only to him the source or the embodiment of surplus-value, i.e., of a value coming back to him in excess of that which he advanced.
Let us address ourselves briefly to the question of the origin of this surplus-value. None of our earlier formulæ helps us. None of the transactions that they represent affords a loop-hole for ΔM. In all of them, from xA = yB to C—M—C', the exchange is in reality of precise equivalents. I wish I had the time and ability, and that my readers had the time and the patience to follow in detail Marx in his exhaustive analysis of these earlier phases of commodity-transactions, in the inexorable way in which he leads his reader, however unwilling, to the conclusion that no where among these is the origin of surplus-value to be found. Not even in the circulation of commodities, therefore not even in commerce. The section in which he does this is the second of the fourth chapter, pp. 131-143. I have no hesitation in calling these twelve pages the most condensed and most irrefragable piece of reasoning I ever read. Until I studied these, Darwin's chapter on “Instinct” in the “Origin of Species” ranked highest within my range of reading. Now it ranks only second, if indeed comparisons are to be made between masterpieces.
The orthodox political economists seek for the source of surplus-value in the ordinary circulation of commodities. They believe that they find it by reason of a confusion between use-value and exchange-value, and by reason of an ignoring of the fact that as commodities whose values are to be compared with that of a general equivalent, money, no one can take out of circulation more than he puts in. The sum of the values in circulation does not and cannot increase.
The capitalistic-circulation formula remains. In the transactions that it symbolises must be found the source of surplus-value. This cannot be in M, which only realises the price of the commodity C. Nor can the first part of the transaction, M—C, give us surplus-value, as this is an exchange of equivalents. Nor can the second part, C—M', as here the commodity only passes from its natural form, C, to its money-form, M.
One last possibility remains. Clearly, exchange-value is no source of surplus-value. Can a use-value be the source? Can the consumption of some commodity, i.e., the realisation of its use-value, give rise to ΔM ? Is there a commodity of such a nature that its very consumption begets value, and, therefore, exchange-value ? Is there a commodity whose consumption realises labour? The answer to all these questions is, Yes. And the commodity is labour-power.
In capitalistic circulation, the excess of the returns to the capitalist over his outlay is surplus-value. The source of surplus-value is some commodity of such a nature that its consumption (or the realisation of its use-value) creates value. This commodity is labour-power. The one source of all surplus-value, as, indeed, of all value, is human labour-power.
Labour-power is the sum-total of all the physical faculties of man that can be put into action to produce use-value. Of course, the word physical is here used in the wide sense that is, I think, its only sense. All bodily faculties are included, those of the brain as well as those of the muscles. The faculties of the brain are but functions of a particular part of the body. They are therefore physical, and enter into that totality of functions which is the labour-power of the individual.
Labour must not be confused with labour-power. In this confusion of the two, a very common event, is the fruitful source of much misunderstanding by the student and misrepresentation by the opponents of Socialism. Labour is the realisation of labour-power. Every ordinary person has labour-power. Not everyone realises it, i.e., performs labour. The labourer is the human being who does realise his faculties in the production of use-value.
That labour-power and labour are not one and the same thing is seen again when we consider the means of subsistence. Labour-power realised in the production of use-value, or not so realised, needs maintenance, restoration. Its possessor, whether he is a labourer or a University cricketer, requires means of subsistence. Whether labour is or is not put forth, means of subsistence are essential.
What are these means of subsistence? They are food, clothing, housing, warmth, rest, children, education. On the first five there is no need to dwell. The last two call for a word of comment. The commodity labour-power must be continuous on the market. There must be a constant supply. As one generation of labourers passes another must take its place. Children are an actual means of subsistence for the stock of labour-power as a whole in the community, not of course for the labour-power of the individual parents. For a like reason, education is necessary to prepare the children for the due use of their labour-power in the way that the capitalistic system commands.
These means of subsistence have to us a special interest, as it is their equivalent that the labourer produces during the earlier part of his working-day. Until he has produced their equivalent he can and does produce nothing whatever for his. lord. But the moment he has produced so much value, whether in yarn that he has made out of cotton, or bricks that he has made out of clay, in the soil that he has ploughed, or the cattle he has driven a-field — the moment, I say, that he has put into any commodity or commodities so much value (the result of his labour-power realised), as is the equivalent of the means of subsistence necessary to maintain that labour-power, from that moment all other value that he may produce is not his, but another's.
In this connexion the student is not concerned with how the relative positions of capitalist and labourer have come about. That will have to be considered later. The labourer and the holder of capital are face to face to-day. That this is the case not even the capitalist will deny. Explanations as to how this came to be, he and his can and do offer. On these explanations much will have to be said later. For the present, let us only note that it is by no means a question of natural history, or to be accounted for by immutable natural laws. Evolution has been at work — social evolution. That social evolution has gone sufficiently far to have produced at least four results ere the production of surplus-value, i.e., the capitalistic production, comes about. These are (1) that exchange-value and use-value are distinct; (2) that simple exchange has passed into circulation of commodities; (3) that money is playing its four parts, as measure of value, standard of price, means of circulation; meads of payment; (4) that labour-power has become a commodity having exchange-value, and is paid by wage. Once more let us understand that the method by which this fourth result has been brought about, is not dealt with here.
In which of its four functions does money play its part in the alienation of the commodity labour-power from its possessor to the capitalist? In the fourth of these functions, i.e., as a means of payment. Money is said to be a means of payment, when a certain interval of time elapses between the parting with the commodity (a house that is let, e.g.,) and the return to its primary owner of its exchange-value in money. This is precisely what occurs with the commodity labour-power. For the labourer gives this commodity to the capitalist, say for a week, and receives at the end of the time his wage, after the use-value of his labour-power has been realised. The utilisation and the payment of the labour-power are not simultaneous. From this it results that the ordinary talk of the capitalist as advancing anything to the labourer is inaccurate. The advance is made by the labourer.
Let us now see in detail how surplus-value is produced. Labour is the realisation of labour power. There are three main essentials to the production of a use-value. These are : (1) an object on which to work, cotton, e.g.; (2) means of labour, machinery, e.g. ; (3) human activity [true labour]. A use-value and therefore a product are formed when human activity works through means of labour on an object. Each of these three, especially the first and second, needs comment.
The object upon which human labor is to be expended may be natural or primitive, as a piece of wood or virgin soil. It may be raw material, such as cotton, a product upon which human labour has already been expended.
The means of labour must not be confused with the means of production. The latter is the larger term. The means of labour are everything that is interposed between the human being and the object on which his labour is exerted. Now this object itself is a means of production, but not a means of labour. These means of labour, intermediaries between man and the object (natural or raw material) may in their turn be natural or artificial. Examples of the former are the material conditions necessary for labour — ground to stand on and such agents as wind and water. Examples of the latter are machinery, buildings.
It will be noted that some of the objects of labour (raw materials) and some of the means of labour (the artificial ones) are themselves products. They have resulted from human labour that has previously worked upon some object.
We are now in a position to discuss two last points, for the present. (1) What are the fates of products? (2) What is productive consumption? A product may (a) be consumed at once, as a loaf of bread eaten new; (b) be consumed ultimately, as a wine that is laid down for many years; (c) serve as an object, primary or auxiliary raw material, of labour [cotton is a primary raw material, the dye that is united with it a secondary]; (d) serve as means of labour, e.g., a tool.
Productive consumption occurs when the products are consumed as a means to the functioning of labour-power. The using of a machine, the eating of food by a labourer, are instances of productive consumption. Individual consumption, a better name than unproductive, occurs when the products consumed are for the enjoyment of the individual, as in the eating and drinking of the idle classes. The result in the former case is that the consumer produces something other than himself — a new commodity of some sort. The result in the latter case is that only the man himself is produced or re-produced.
Let us now begin to inquire a little more closely as to the source of surplus-value. M' = M + ΔM, i.e., the capital advanced, (M) comes back to the capitalist as something (M') more than M. £100 e.g., have come back as £105, and the £5 are surplus-value.
We have seen that the only possible source of this is unpaid human labour. Now we want to see how unpaid human labour creates capital, not for the labourer but for his employer. We want to see how the trick is done, how the huge fortunes are made, how the favoured few can live without ever getting a living.
Think of a product of man's labour. Taking the classical example of Marx, think of some yarn. This product has a use-value. It can be made into this, that or the other. But its use-value is nothing of moment to the capitalist possessor of it. He does not want to make shirts out of it. What is of moment to every capitalist who has some product that he does not intend to use himself, but that he does intend to sell to another, is the fact that his product has embodied within it human labour, that it has value and that it has therefore an exchange-value quite other than its use-value.
There is something more of importance to the capitalist. Not only must his product have value (or human labour could not have been expended on it); not only must it have use-value (or he could not sell it); not only must it have exchange-value (or he would not sell it); it must have surplus-value, i.e., there must be embodied in it a value greater than that of the raw material used + that of the means of labour used. “Of course,” some one interrupts. “You mean the value of the labour that has worked through those means of labour on that raw material.” Not exactly. Part of this labour does not enter into the surplus value of the product. The part that is really paid for, that for which a true equivalent in wage is given, does not enter into surplus-value. But the part for which no equivalent is given, does.
And now in considering this, let us be very careful to think of the labour that is under discussion as abstract human labour. We must take a concrete example, but whether our illustrative man is a cotton operative, a labourer, or a stone-mason, matters not. It is not because the man is one or other of these that he adds value to the product. It is because he is a man and has put forth effort.
What we have to discuss is, in short, the quantity, not the quality of human labour. Upon the former depends the value (always using that word in the technical sense) of the product. Upon the latter depends the use-value of the product. The quantity of human labour determines the general value; the quality of it determines the particular use-value.
And here a word or two on “skilled labour.” Many seem to think that this, as distinct from an equally mysterious something called unskilled labour, is the source of surplus-value and therefore of capital. From all that has just been said, the fallacy of this should be evident. It is, as I am constantly repeating, the quantity, not the quality of the labour that adds value to the product. And further, note that the part of the skilled labour which produces surplus-value and the part of it that produces the equivalent of the wages, do not differ in quality at all. Let us assume that the skilled labourer works 8 hours a day; that in 6 of these he has put into the product value equivalent to the wage he receives for that day; that in the other 2 he is putting into the product value that is never to be his, but is to be his employer’s. The labour of those 2 hours differs in no wise in quality from the labour of the other 6. Clearly that the labour is “skilled” gives no explanation of the origin of surplus-value. That it is “labour” does give an explanation.
Now let us turn to the numerical, concrete example that will illustrate this social, abstract proposition. The numbers are of course, as arbitrary as the selection of the particular industry.
Let each hour of average social labour be represented as worth 6d. Let each lb. of cotton be worth 1s. Cotton is the raw material. In it is human labour embodied. But with this past human labour we are not at present concerned. For the 10 lbs. of cotton the capitalist gives say, 10s. The value of this will be transmitted by the labour of the labourer to the product, the yarn.
Let the value of the machinery actually worn out, not the total value of the machinery employed, be 2s. The value of this will be transmitted by the labour of the labourer to the product, i.e., to the yarn.
Let the turning of 10 lbs. of cotton into 10 lbs. of yarn take 6 hours.
Finally, let each lb. of yarn be worth 1s. 6d.
Expenses: 10s., raw material; 2s., means of labour; 3s., labour-power for 6 hours. Total, 15s.
Receipts : 10 lbs. of yarn at 1s. 6d. Total, 15s.
The capitalist is exactly where he was when he began. Now, mark what actually does occur. When the labourer comes into the factory he finds ready for him enough objects of labour for a day of 12 hours instead of one of 6; enough means of labour also to enable him to work for 12 hours, not 6.
Now let us make the calculation. Expenses: 20s., raw material; 4s., means of labour; 3s., labour-power for 12 hours. Total, 27s
Receipts: 20 lbs. of yarn at 1s. 6d. Total, 30s.
30s. - 27s. = 3s. (surplus-value or margin for profit).
This term “margin for profit” is of great moment. For out of all that this 3s in our particular example represents, everything in the whole of civilised society is paid except the wages of labour-power. All profit, all dividends, all taxes, all rent, all pensions, all stipends of officials, everything but just the equivalent of the means of subsistence of the labourers comes out of this margin for profit.
Two objections are of such frequent occurrence that I take them here, although the urging of them only serves to show that the urger has not followed the reasoning thus far.
The first usually takes this form : “Well, but is not the capitalist who provides all the raw material and the means of labour, such as machinery and the like, to be rewarded for this?” First, note that the raw material and the means of production are the result of labour in the past. “That labour has been paid for already,” says the defender of capitalism. Exactly; it has been paid for in part. The same surplus-labour, the same surplus-value, the same exploitation have played their ill part there as in the 30s. - 27s. = 3s. episode.
But even suppose it has been paid for in full; yet the product of that past labour, raw material or machinery, e.g., has not belonged to the labourer or his class. It has wholly passed into the hands of those that have not laboured at all towards its production.
And yet further. The whole of the value of raw material and means of labour passes on to the product — is by labour transferred to the product. All of the value of the raw material, cotton, e.g., reappears undiminished in the product, yarn e.g. All of the value of machinery and every other means of labour reappears ultimately undiminished in the product. The value of the former reappears at once in the 10 lbs. of yarn; that of the latter reappears gradually in successive quantities of yarn as the machinery and so forth that makes these, wears away.
The more therefore, of either raw material or labour-means the capitalist collects and works, the more ultimate value he has. There is. no virtue in the process — nothing for which he deserves any special reward.
The second difficulty that some minds have is generally put in this form : “If the labourer receives 3s. for 6 hours, he will receive 6s. for 12." To this the answer is that if he does this, the expenses and the receipts will be equal and all capital becomes impossible.
20s. + 4s. + 6s. = 30s. ; and 20 lbs. at 1s. 6d. = 30s.
In all this we see no sign of that “abstinence” of which there is so much talk. If the capitalist “abstains” from using his cotton himself he is at the finish without the yarn that he wants to sell. Now, at all events he has yarn instead of nothing. There is no abstinence here.
Let us look finally at the labour-power once more. This is a commodity. The use-value of this depends upon its expenditure. But its exchange-value depends upon its cost, i.e., upon the cost of the necessary means of subsistence of the man. The value that labour-power can create is therefore greater than its own exchange-value. Yet further, the labourer, like any other possessor of a commodity, realises the exchange-value of his labour-power (wage) and alienates, gives to another, its use-value (its power of creating value and surplus-value).
The production of surplus-value, therefore, occurs when production is prolonged beyond the time necessary for the production of the equivalent of the means of subsistence necessary for the restoration of that labour-power. This prolongation becomes possible when a class owning all the raw materials and the means of labour, in a word all the means of production, can bring into the factory every morning an excess of those means of production beyond that upon which labour-power working for that day would produce the equivalent of its own means of subsistence. And this prolongation is the source of all capital.
Thus far, in our analysis of Marx’ “Das Kapital,” we have tried to make clear the meaning of the following fundamental terms : commodity — a product of human labour not to be consumed by the actual producer; use-value — that property of a body that satisfies a human want; exchange-value — the proportion in which a use-value exchanges with other use-values; value — the human labour embodied in any commodity. We have further studied the various formula for exchange of equivalents, and the important formula M — C — M', for capitalistic circulation. We have seen that M' = M + ΔM, and that ΔM, or the excess of returning M' over advanced M, is surplus-value. Labour-power has been defined as the sum of human faculties that put into action can produce use-values; labour, as the realisation of labour-power. The equivalent of the means of subsistence of the labourer and of those absolutely dependent on him is produced by him before he begins to produce surplus-value. The essentials for production have been shown to be labour, means of labour (tools, machinery, etc.), and objects on which to work. Finally, a concrete example was taken by which the general method of surplus-value making was shown. The source of capital is unpaid labour.
Let us again concentrate attention on the process of production, and its three essentials. Labour working through certain means of labour on certain objects, a product results, and if this is not consumed by the labourer himself, this product is a commodity. Now, in this process, labour plays a double part, and from the confusion of its two functions many mistakes and much deception of oneself and of others arise. First, labour transmits value (we always use this word in its technical sense); second, it creates value. It transmits to the product the value of such means of labour as are actually consumed, and also the value of such raw material as may be used as object of labour.
But labour also adds a new value, not in existence before. This new value is general, not special. It is due to the labour having lasted a definite time — not to any specially useful character of the labour. The special character of the labour only determines the nature of the values that are transmitted of the means and of the objects. Or we may put the same very important fact in this way. Labour has a twofold nature. By one of its properties (quality) it transmits, by the other (quantity) it creates value. It is only by this latter, that any creation of surplus-value can be effected.
Surplus-value, which to the orthodox political economist is a reappearance of a value previously advanced, is to the Socialist school the excess of the value (not of use or exchange-value) of the product over the value of the three factors of that product — viz., labour, artificial means of production (machinery and the like), objects that are raw material. Or again, it is the excess of capital received over capital advanced.
We are now in a position to understand the two phrases, constant capital and variable capital. These must not, on any account, be confounded with the two phrases of the orthodox economists — fixed capital and circulating capital.
Constant capital is capital that is transformed into raw material (object) and artificial means of labour. Variable capital is capital that is transformed into labour. The former cannot vary. All the value, as we are ceaselessly repeating, of raw material and means, is passed on by labour, in its qualitative aspect, to the product. The latter can vary because the commodity in which it is invested, labour-power, can produce surplus-value.
Fixed capital and circulating capital are phrases of the orthodox. Fixed capital may continue to perform its functions for a long period and through a series of repeated actions. Machinery, buildings, railroads are the stock examples. Circulating capital is consumed by a single use. The food of the labourer and raw materials are examples. It will be noticed that these are not capital in our sense of the word. Machinery, buildings, railroads, are means of labour. Capital may be transformed into them. But they are not capital. Food for the labourer, again, is a means of subsistence. Capital may be transformed into this. But the food is not capital.
The capital employed in the making of what is called “fixed capital” is our constant capital. There is no source of surplus-value here. The capital employed in the purchase of the means of subsistence of the labourer, i.e., of certain “circulating capital,” is a case of variable capital. Here surplus-value becomes possible.
But the second example of “circulating capital” shows how the phrase is not even indirectly parallel to our variable capital. That example was raw material. This comes under the orthodox definition of circulating capital, for it is consumed as raw material by a single use. But it comes under our category of constant capital. For as all its value is transmitted to the product, from it no surplus-value can arise.
It must be clearly understood that variable capital is a definite quantity; it represents a definite amount of former pre-expended human labour. It is definite to begin with. But in the process of production, functioning labour-power takes its place and surplus-value may result.
Two new formulae may now be used to simplify and to make rememberable the points just reached. Let C stand for the capital used in a process of production. Let C' represent the value of the product. Let c.c. represent constant capital, and v.c. variable capital. Let s.v. finally stand for surplus value (ΔM). Then C = c.c. + v.c. ; i.e., the constant capital used in a process of production + a certain quantity of variable capital (in labour).
But C' = c.c. + v.c. + s.v. ; i.e., the value of the product = the constant and variable capital advanced + the surplus value produced by the labour into which the variable capital, v.c, has been turned. Of these, v.c. and s.v. only are created in this particular transaction. c.c. existed before, and its value is only transmitted to the product by labour.
The labourer, then, produces first his own means of subsistence or their equivalent. A certain part of the working day is necessary for this. That part is necessary working-time (n.w.t.). Necessary labour is the labour given out in that time, i.e., in the production of the means of subsistence for the labourer.
All the time in the working day beyond this necessary working-time is surplus working-time. All the labour given out in that time is surplus labour. This is the labour that creates surplus-value.
The rate of surplus value is found by dividing the surplus-value by the variable capital. Constant capital has nothing to do with surplus-value. Hence, the rate of surplus-value is represented thus: s.v / v.c. Or it may be represented thus: s.w.t / n.w.t ; i.e., surplus-working time divided by necessary working-time. Or again, thus: s.L / n.L; i.e., surplus labour divided by necessary labour. These fractions, all of which express the rate of surplus-value, give the key to the degree of exploitation of labour-power that is going on. Not to the amount of that exploitation; only to the degree.
For example. Suppose 5 hours are necessary to reproduce the value of the means of subsistence of the labourer, and that he works also 5 hours of surplus-working time. Then s.w.t / n.w.t or the rate of surplus-value or the degree of exploitation of labour-power = 5/5 = 1. Again, if n.w.t. and s.w.t. are each = 6 hours, the rate = 6/6 = 1. But in the second case the amount of exploitation is greater by 1/5 than in the former.
Now the ordinary calculation of rate of interest and profit generally is based, not on the variable capital (v.c.) but on the total capital advanced C. s.v. / C or s.v. / (c.c + v.c) is the expression for this, and this is clearly less than the true calculation s.v / v.c.
Every product consists of three parts. (1) One that represents the human labour embodied in the raw material and in the means of labour that have been consumed in making the product. (2) Another that represents the necessary labour, i.e., the labour that produces the equivalent of the labourer's means of subsistence. (3) Another that represents the surplus labour.
Let us take again the particular concrete example of the production of 20 lbs. of yarn worth 1s. 6d. a lb, out of 20 lbs. of cotton worth 1s. a lb. Of the 30s. realised by the sale of the yarn 20s. (for raw material) + 4s. (for the means of labour consumed) represent constant capital (c.c). Therefore 24/30 or 4/5 of the 20 lbs. of the product, yarn, i.e., 16 lbs., represent the constant capital.
Again, of the 30s. realised by the sale of the yarn, 3s. (for wages) represent the necessary labour of the labourer in producing the equivalent of his means of subsistence. Therefore, 3/30 or 1/10 of the 20 lbs. of the product, yarn, i.e., 2 lbs. represent the variable capital (v.c).
Finally of the 30s. that are realised by the sale of the yarn, 3s. (margin for profit) represent the surplus labour of the labourer after he has produced the equivalent of his means of subsistence. Therefore 3/30 or 1/10 of the 20 lbs. of the product, yarn, i.e., 2 lbs. represent the surplus value (s.v.)
In a similar way any commodity can be analysed into three parts, corresponding respectively to c.c, v.c, s.v. The part of the product corresponding with surplus-value is the surplus product.
The time taken in the day of 24 hours to produce the equivalent of the variable capital + the time taken to produce the surplus-value, or in other words the necessary labour time + the surplus labour time in the 24 hours is the working day. To the consideration of that working day we now pass.
Notice, first, that the working day is not, under the capitalistic system, equal to the necessary working time. If it were, no production of surplus-value could result, and there could be no such thing as capital, and therefore no capitalistic system. Again, the necessary working time does not determine the length of the working day. To know how long a man takes to produce the equivalent of his means of subsistence is to know nothing of the length of the working day beyond the fact that it will exceed this necessary working time. This will come out the more clearly if following Marx in this as in all else we make three diagrams to represent three cases of working days:
a––––b––c a––––b––––c a––––b––––––c
Here the line a–b represents the necessary working time, say 6 hours, and the line b–c, represents the surplus working time, say 3, 6, 9 hours. a–b in a given case of a particular industry and a particular labourer under constant conditions, is of the same length. But b–c may vary. Hence we see that the actual length of a–c, i.e., of the working day, depends not on a–b, i.e., not on the necessary working time, but on b–c, i.e., on the surplus working time.
We saw that the rate of surplus-value was determined by dividing the surplus working time by the necessary working time. This ratio s.w.t / n.w.t may now be written b–c / a–b. The minimum limit of the working day might be a–b. A man might only work so long as to produce the equivalent of his means of subsistence. But this cannot be under the capitalistic system. Nor would a–b be the limit necessarily under a socialistic regime. Capital in the sense of the results of human labour that are to be used for further production will exist then. But such capital will not become the property of any private individual, and will not be used to exploit the many for the benefit of the few.
The maximum limit of the working day — the length of a–c — depends upon two things. The working day is limited by certain physical things and by certain moral or social considerations. One of the physical limitations is imposed on it by the revolution of the earth on its own axis and is without doubt regarded by the capitalist as an imposition. a–c cannot represent more than 24 hours. Actually, of course, it represents considerably less than 24 hours, for the nature of labour-power itself again limits the time during which the labourer can work. Of the limitations to the length of the working day dependent on morality, i.e., on social conventions, the history of our factory legislation gives us some account as far as one particular time and one particular country are concerned. Upon certain phases of the contest in respect to these moral or conventional limitations to the working day the next article or two will touch. Let us end this one by reminding ourselves that a contest on this point has been and is.
The one end of the capitalist is surplus-value. For this, and for this alone he produces commodities. Hence his interest is to lengthen b–c. No matter what happens to a–b (necessary working time) — whether this be shorter or longer — the one thing needful is the lengthening of b–c (surplus working time). This must be effected at all costs, except the loss of the source of surplus-value. b–c must be stretched out, literally to the crack of doom.
This also the capitalist claims as a right. He has bought the labour-power for the 24 hours. May a man not do what he likes with his own? Is not this his moral, i.e., his conventional right?
On the other hand, the very nature of the commodity, labour-power, that he has bought, puts a limit to its consumption, and the labourer, in whom it is embodied, not whose it is, has a moral right to a limit to the working day. In this case the moral or conventional is of necessity. It must be.
Here, then, is right (of capitalist) versus right (of labourer). Hence a struggle — force on the one hand, force on the other. The issue force has decided hitherto and force (whether of muscle or brain or numbers or all of these) will decide the ultimate issue.
Let us hear, as a contribution to the struggle and to its end, the voice of the labourer crying in the wilderness of capitalism. I take from Marx a passage that has been translated into most European tongues and is here once again translated. Even this Englishing of it may give some idea of that dramatic intensity of Marx which these dry notes of mine cannot in any sense put before those that read them:
“The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the crowd of other commodities in that its use creates value, and a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it. That which on your side appears a spontaneous accretion to capital, is on mine extra expenditure of labour-power. You and I know on the market only one law; that of the exchange of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer who acquires it. To you therefore belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily and to sell it again. Apart from the natural exhaustion through age, etc., I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal amount of force, health and freshness as to day. You preach to me constantly the gospel of “saving” and “abstinence.” Good! I will, like a sensible, saving owner, husband my sole wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it. I will each day expend, set in motion, put into action only so much of it as is compatible with its normal duration and healthy development. By an unlimited extension of the working day, you may in one day use up a quantity of labour-power greater that I can restore in three. What you gain in labour I lose in substance. The use of my labour-power and the spoliation of it are quite different things. If the average time that an average labourer doing a reasonable amount of work can live is 30 years, the value of my labour-power which you pay me from day to day is 1/(305 x 30) or 1/10,950 of its total value. But if you consume it in 10 years you pay me daily 1/10950 instead of 1/3650 of its total value, i.e., only 1/3 of its daily value, and you therefore rob me every day of 2/3 of the value of my commodity. You pay me for one day's labour-power while you use that of three days. That is against the contract and the law of exchanges. I demand therefore a working day of normal length, and I demand it without any appeal to your heart, for in money matters sentiment is out of place. You may be a model citizen, perhaps a member of the Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and in the odour of sanctity to boot, but the thing that you represent face to face with me has no heart in its breast. That which seems to throb there is my own heart-beating. I demand the normal working day, because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity."
In our analysis of Marx’ “Das Kapital,” we now become students of history rather than of economics. Thus far in our study of commodities and their three values, of money and its four functions, of the transformation of money into capital, of surplus-value, its production and its rates, of constant and variable capital, and of the working day, we have dealt especially with the economical side of Socialism. From this difficult but very necessary study, we turn to another, not less necessary, and certainly less difficult. The study of the history of European countries, during the last 200 or 300 years will lead us to the same conclusion as the facts, arguments, and generalisations of economics; that the present capitalistic method of production is an iniquitous one, and that it must shortly give way to another more equitable, and less injurious to the community at large.
Some of the historical facts are now to be noted that bear upon the lust for surplus labour (that is, the labour expended by a human being after the equivalent of his means of subsistence has been produced by him). That which follows will be readily understood, even by those to whom the preceding notes have presented difficulties.
Surplus labour is no invention of the capitalist. Wherever in any time, or in any country, a man or a class of men has a monopoly of the means of production, there is exaction of surplus, unpaid labour from those having no share in the monopoly. In ancient Athens, Etruria, Rome the kalos kai agathos (the beautiful and the good man) the theocrat, ruler by the grace and with the power of God, the civus romanus, or Roman citizen, are examples. In the more modern England, America, Wallachia, the Norman baron, the slave-owner, the Boyard, keep up the same bad custom. It is as international as death. The most modern form and the one coming most home “to men's business and bosoms” in this country, is the landlord and capitalist of to-day.
Before passing to the particular phase of the general struggle between exploiters and exploited that has for its centre the length of the working day, let us look at the phenomena of the lust for surplus-labour, as shown in Eastern Europe under the corvée system. To do this will be of interest not only because we shall be again reminded of the cosmopolitan nature of the struggle between the possessing and the defrauded classes, but because of the likeness in difference that obtains between the corvée system and the capitalist system of the majority of civilised countries. In the corvée system surplus working time is clearly marked off from necessary working time (i.e., from the time in which a man produces the equivalent of his own means of subsistence). In the capitalistic system the two kinds of labour glide into each other, so that one may say that 20 or 30 seconds e.g., of a minute are necessary working time, 40 or 30 surplus working time, or even that a fraction of every second belongs to the former and the remaining fraction of the second to the latter. As a result of this difference it comes to pass that the capitalist aims at the lengthening of the working-day; the Boyard tries to get more days of corvée.
This, system of corvée had its home in the provinces of Turkey that border the Black Sea to the East. From north to south these provinces run as follows: Moldavia, Bulgaria, Roumelia. To the north-east of Bulgaria, to the south of Moldavia, between these and Hungary lies Wallachia. Wallachia and Moldavia make up Roumania. At first in Roumania there was, as generally, community of soil. Part of the land was cultivated by members of the community individually; part of it as public land. From the latter were derived a reserve fund and a common store for the people at large. Then the usual sad series of changes set in. By fraud and by force, the public land and the labour spent on it were seized by dignitaries of the military and clerical order. Then arose the system of corvée, by which the peasants gave without remuneration time and labour to their master the Boyard.
Something of the nature of these arrangements before they were legalised and systematised, one may gather from a glance at them when they were reduced to a code. Roumania came into the possession of Turkey in 1739, under the treaty of Belgrade. It was occupied a short time by Russia, when the war of Greek independence broke out, and was again ceded to Turkey in 1829 by the treaty of Adrianople, when Greek independence was established.
In 1831 the Russian general Kisseleff proclaimed his “Règlement organique.” Kisseleff was practically the Dictator over the Roumanian provinces from 1829 to 1835. The code in question was dictated by the Boyard, just as labour laws in England are drawn up solely by the employers of labour. The notables were assembled “to abolish the corvée,” and the pretence was made that serfdom was by the terms of the règlement organique, ended. This is an instance of that Slav humour as to which occidental Europe is dull of comprehension.
The four chief terms of the code were: that each Wallachian peasant iowes to his landlord first, certain payments in kind; second, twelve days of general labour; third, one day of field-labour; fourth, one day of wood-carrying; in all fourteen days in the year.
Future students of history will certainly ask: why 14 days? And they may, possibly, find out a connection between them and the 14 days penalty of the police-court. One may fairly ask why even one day? Waiving, however, that initial, rational, and I believe unanswerable question, let us see how the line of these 14 days is stretched out by one device or another.
First of all, the working-day even under this arrangement is virtually one of 24 hours at least. The idea of it is based on the idea of the production of that which would require all the hours of the day and night. Actually each of the 14 days is equivalent to 3 days, and thus the modest demand of the Boyard swells at once to 42 days out of the year that are to be given up to him for nothing. That we are not misled upon this point by the wicked Socialist we may see by reference to the Règlement organique, where it is said in so many words that the one written day is the equivalent of three days of life.
Further, in addition to the 14, alias 42, days of ordinary labour, jobagie was legalised. This is service due on extraordinary occasions, estimated at not less than 14 days for each peasant. 42 + 14 = 56. Out of 365 days in the year, therefore, 56 were sacred to the employer and non-payer of labour. But in reality the proportion is much greater than that represented by these numbers. For only 210 out of the 365 days, of the year are in the climate of Roumania available for out-of-door work. Of these 210 another 40 may be taken off for Sundays and fête-days, another 30 for foul weather. These estimates err in favour of the boyard, not of the peasant. 210 - 40 - 30 = 140 working-days, in the year. Of these 56 are surplus-labour days, wholly given up to the Boyard and to unpaid production for him.
The rate of surplus-value, we saw, was expressed by the fraction s.w.t/n.w.t. i.e., surplus working-time / necessary working-time. In the case of the Wallachian boyard and peasant, on which the above figures are based, this rate becomes 56/84. 84 = the 140 days of total working-time minus the 56 days of surplus working-time, 56/84 = 2/3. Of course the fraction of the whole time given away is 56/140 = 2/5. Nor should English people lift up too readily their hands and voices at the enormity of this exploitation. It is certainly less than the amount of exploitation, suffered by the English agricultural labourer or the English factory hand.
Nor are the devices of the Roumanian owner of all the means of production — even of the labourers' labour-power — at an end here. A very favourite plan is the giving to the peasant on one of his lord's, days such a piece of work as cannot possibly be finished in the day. Thus the man is compelled to turn up again on the following day to finish it and to be exploited even beyond the legal limits. By a stretching and a twisting of legal terms again, the agricultural day may actually begin in May and end in October. One of the Boyards. cries out in the jubilance of his soul, “the twelve days [of general labour] have become 365.”