Karl Marx

Plagiarism

[“Die Zukunft” No. 291, 12 December 1867]

“Social-Demokrat” of 29 November.

General Assembly of the General German Workers’ Association

Debate on the Working Day

v. Hofstetten
(proprietor of the
“Social-Demokrat”)
speaks:

Karl Marx: “Capital.
A Critique of Political Economy”, 1867. Section:
“The Working Day”

1. “_Labour-power_ is today a commodity. The purchase price” (should be: value) “of a thing” (should be: commodity) “is determined by the labour-time necessary for its production. The worker must now work a certain number of hours in order to reproduce the value he has received for his labour-power: that is the _necessary part of the working day_, but by no means the _working day itself_. In order to produce the latter,” (why?) “an indeterminate part must be added; although it is _indeterminate_, it nonetheless has its _necessary limits_.”

1. “We set out from the assumption that _labour-power_ is bought and sold at its _value_. Its value, like that of every other commodity, is determined by the labour-time necessary for its production. If, therefore, the average sum of the worker’s daily means of subsistence requires 6 hours daily for its production, he must work on average 6 hours per day in order daily to produce his labour-power or to reproduce the _value_ received upon its sale. The _necessary part of his working day_ then amounts to 6 hours and is therefore, other things being equal, a _given magnitude_. But with this the _magnitude of the working day_ itself is still not given … One of its parts is indeed determined by the labour-time required for the continuous reproduction of the worker himself, but its total magnitude varies with the length or duration of the _surplus labour_ … Although, then, the working day is not a fixed but a fluid magnitude, it can, on the other hand, vary only _within certain limits_.” (p. 198, 199.)

2. “The one” (limit), “the _maximum limit_, rests _in_ the physical possibility” (how can a limit rest _in_ a possibility!) “how long a person is at all able to work, since to sustain his existence he must also sleep, rest, clothe and wash himself. The _minimum limit_ is given by the demands which the temporary _state of civilisation_ of an epoch offers. According to this state and the existing legislation, the duration of the working day and of surplus labour also differs. Accordingly, we have an 8, 12, 16, even an 18-hour working day.”

2. “Its” (the working day’s) “_minimum limit_ is, however, indeterminable. True, if we set surplus labour = 0, we obtain a minimum limit, namely the part of the day which the worker must necessarily work for his own maintenance. On the basis of the capitalist mode of production, however, necessary labour can always form only a _part_ of his working day, and the working day can therefore never be shortened to this minimum. On the other hand, the working day has a _maximum limit_. It cannot be prolonged beyond a certain limit. This maximum limit is determined in two ways. First, by the _physical limit of labour-power_. Within the natural day of 24 hours, a person can only expend a certain quantity of his vital force, and the measure of this expenditure of force forms the measure of his physically possible working time. Thus a horse can work day in, day out only 8 hours. During one part of the day the force must rest, sleep; during another part the person must satisfy other physical needs, nourish, wash, clothe himself, etc. Besides this _purely physical limit_, the extension of the working day encounters _moral limits_. The worker needs time to satisfy intellectual and social needs, the extent and number of which are determined by the general _state of civilisation_ … Both limits” (the physical and moral maximum limits) “are, however, of a very elastic nature and allow the greatest latitude. Thus we find working days of 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, etc. hours.” (p. 199.)

Herr v. Hofstetten turns the passage he has plagiarised into nonsense. For example, he has the _maximum limit_ of the working day determined by _purely physical_ and its _minimum limit_ by _moral_ limits, after he himself has just parroted that the _necessary part of the working day_, hence its absolute minimum limit, is determined by the _labour-time necessary_ for the maintenance of labour-power!

3. “Experience in England has shown that with a shorter working day the same surplus labour is achieved, because labour is then carried on much more intensively.”

3. On the intensification of labour and the attainment of equal or greater “surplus labour” with the compulsory legal shortening of the working day in England, cf. pp. 401 to 409.

4. “The _endeavour_ of the capitalists is therefore to _aim at_ a working day as long as possible.” (What nonsense! To aim at an endeavour!) “But the worker possesses as his sole commodity only his labour-power, and if a certain point in it is exceeded” (what does that mean: a point is exceeded _in_ labour-power?), “then he must say, _I_ am used up (!), I am murdered.” (Bravo!) (After he has already been murdered, he is supposed to say it afterwards!) “Therefore” (because he must say it!) “the measure of labour must be fixed in the interest of the worker, so that this commodity, labour-power, may be preserved as long as possible and can be _utilised_. In this he demands only his good right.” (He was just complaining that he was _used up_, and now he demands it as his good right to be utilised!)

4. “The capitalist therefore maintains only his right as a buyer when he seeks to make the working day as long as possible and, if possible, to make two working days out of one. On the other hand, the specific nature of the commodity sold carries with it a limit to its consumption by the buyer, and the worker therefore maintains only his right as a seller when he wishes to limit the working day to a definite normal magnitude … I will” (he says) “husband my sole patrimony, labour-power … The _use_ of my labour-power and the _spoliation_ of it are quite different things … You pay me for one day’s labour-power, where you consume three days’ worth. That is contrary to our contract and the law of commodity exchange. I therefore demand a working day of _normal_ length, etc.” (p. 202, 201.)

5. “In England this measure” (of the working day) “is legally fixed at 10 hours (!), and there exist factory inspectors there who report to the ministry on the observance of this law. In many countries, laws for the restriction of child labour also exist: in Austria, in Switzerland, in America, and in _Belgium_ (!) similar laws are being _prepared_ (!). In _Prussia_ they also have the same laws, but there they are merely on paper and have never been enforced. In America, after the end of the war which resulted in the emancipation of the slaves, the eight-hour working day has even been demanded. The ‘International Workers’ Congress’ also proposed an 8-hour day in 1866.”

5. “The presently regulating Factory Act of 1850” (not _in England_, but in _particular_ branches of industry of the United Kingdom specified by Marx) “allows 10 hours for the average week-day … Special guardians of the law have been appointed, the _factory inspectors_, directly subordinate to the Home Office, whose reports are published half-yearly by order of Parliament.” (p. 207.)

… Actual, not prepared restrictions of the working day for minors in some states of North America (p. 244), restriction of the working day in general in France (p. 251), for children in some cantons of Switzerland (p. 251), in Austria (p. 252), in Belgium _nothing_ of the kind, (p. loc. cit.) The decrees of Messrs. von der Heydt and Manteuffel etc. would be praiseworthy if they were enforced. (loc. cit.) “In the United States, every independent workers’ movement remained paralysed as long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic … But from the death of slavery there at once sprang a new and rejuvenated life. The first fruit of the Civil War was the _eight-hour agitation_. At the same time, the ‘International Workers’ Congress’ resolved: … ‘We propose 8 working hours as the legal limit of the working day.’” (pp. 279, 280.)

In the same way as Herr v. Hofstetten, the next speaker, Herr Geib from Hamburg, garbles the history of English factory legislation given by Marx. Both gentlemen are equally careful to conceal the source of their wisdom.