Frederick Engels: Synopsis of Capital

Frederick Engels

Synopsis of Capital

Book 1: The Process of Capitalist Production

1. Commodities as such

2. The process of commodity exchange

3. Money, or the circulation of commodities

A. The Measure of Values

B. The Medium of Circulation

a. The Metamorphosis of Commodities

b. The Currency of Money

c. Coins. Symbols of Value

C. Money

a. Hoarding

b. Means of Payment

c. Universal Money

1. COMMODITIES AS SUCH

The wealth of societies in which capitalist production prevails consists
of commodities. A commodity is a thing that has use-value; the latter
exists in all forms of society, but in capitalist society, use-value is,
in addition, the material depository of exchange-value.

Exchange-value presupposes a tertium comparationis by which it is measured; labor,
the common social substance of exchange-values, to be precise, the
socially necessary labor-time embodied in them.

Just as a commodity is something twofold: use-value and exchange-value, so the labour contained in it is two-fold determined:

on the one hand, as definite productive activity, weaving
labour, tailoring labour, etc. — "useful labour";

on the other, as the simple expenditure of human labour-power,
precipitated abstract (general) labour.

The former produces use-value, the latter exchange-value; only the
latter is quantitatively comparable (the differences between skilled and
unskilled, composite and simple labour confirm this).

Hence, the substance of exchange-value is abstract labour and its
magnitude is the measure of time of abstract labour. Now, to consider
the form of exchange-value.

(1) x commodity a = y commodity b;

The value of a commodity in the use-value of another is its relative
value. The expression of the equivalence of two commodities is the
simple form of relative value. In the above equation, y commodity b is
the equivalent. In it, x commodity a acquires it value-form in
contrast to its (the commodity's) natural form, while y commodity b
acquires, at the same time, the property of direct exchangeability, even
in its natural form. Exchange-value is impressed upon the use-value of
a commodity by definite historical relations. Hence, the commodity
cannot express its exchange-value in its own use-value, but only in the
use-value of another commodity. Only in the equation of two concrete
products of labour does the property of the concrete labour contained in
both come to light as abstract human labour i.e., a commodity cannot
be related to the concrete labour contained in itself, as the mere form
of realization of abstract labour, but it can be so related to the
concrete labour contained in other kinds of commodities.

The equation x commodity a = y commodity b necessarily implies that x
commodity a can also be expressed in other commodities, thus:

(2) x commodity a = y commodity b = x commodity c = u commodity d =
u commodity e = etc., etc.

This is the expanded relative form of value. Here, x commodity a no
longer refers to one, but to all commodities as the mere phenomenal
forms of the labour represented in it. But, through simple reversal, it
leads to

(3) the converse second form of relative value:

y commodity b = x commodity a

v commodity c = x commodity a

u commodity d = x commodity a

t commodity e = x commodity a

etc., etc.

Here, the commodities are given the general relative form of value, in
which all of them are abstracted from their use-values and equated to x
commodity a as the materialization of abstract labour; x commodity a is
the generic form of the equivalent for all other commodities; it is
their universal equivalent; the labour materialized in it represents in
itself the realization of abstract labour, labour in general. Now,
however,

(4) every commodity of the series can take over the role of
universal equivalent, but only one of them can do so at a time,
since if all commodities were universal equivalents, each of
them would in turn exclude the others from that role.

Form 3 is not obtained by x commodity a, but by the other commodities,
objectively. Hence, a definite commodity must take over for the role —
for a time, it can change — and only in this way does a commodity
become a commodity completely. This special commodity, with whose
natural form the general equivalent form becomes identified, is money.

The difficulty with a commodity is that, like all categories of the
capitalist mode of production, it represents a personal relationship
under a material wrapping. The producers relate their different kinds
of labour to one another as general human labour by relating their
products to one another as commodities — they cannot accomplish it
without this mediation of things. The relation of persons thus appears
as the relation of things.

For a society in which commodity production prevails, Christianity,
particularly Protestantism, is the fitting religion.

2. THE PROCESS OF COMMODITY EXCHANGE

A commodity proves that it is a commodity in exchange. The owners of
two commodities must be willing to exchange their respective commodities
and, therefore, to recognise each other as private owners. This legal
relation, the form of which is the contract, is only a relation of
wills, reflecting the economic relation. Its content is given by the
economic relation itself. (P.45 [84])

A commodity is a use-value for its non-owner, a non-use-value for its
owner. Hence, the need for exchange. But, every commodity owner wants
to get in exchange specific use-values that he needs, to that extent,
the exchange is an individual process. On the other hand, he wants to
realise his commodity as value, that is, in any commodity, whether or
not his commodity is use-value to the owner of the other commodity.
To that extent, the exchange is for him a generally social process.
But, one and the same process cannot be simultaneously both individual
and generally social for all commodity owners. Every commodity owner
considers his own commodity as the universal equivalent, while all other
commodities are so many particular equivalents of his own. Since all
commodity owners do the same, no commodity is the universal equivalent,
and, hence, no commodities posses a general relative form of value, in
which they are equated as values and compared as magnitudes of value.
Therefore, they do not confront each other at all as commodities, but
only as products. (P.47 [86])

Commodities can be related as values and, hence, as commodities only by
comparison with some other commodity as the universal equivalent. But
only the social act can make a particular commodity the universal
equivalent — money.

The immanent contradiction in a commodity as the direct unity of
use-value and exchange-value, as the product of useful private labour...
and as the direct social materialization of abstract human labour — this
contradiction finds no rest until it results in duplicating the
commodity into commodity and money. (P.48 [87])

Since all other commodities are merely particular equivalents of money,
and money is their universal equivalent, they are related to money as
particular commodities to the universal commodity. (P.51 [89]) The
process of exchange gives the commodity which it converts into money,
not its value, but its value-form. (P.51 [89]) Fetishism (belief in a
supernatural power of objects): a commodity does not seem to become
money only because the other commodities all express their values in it,
but, conversely, they seem to express their values in it because it is
money.

3. MONEY, OR THE CIRCULATION OF COMMODITIES

A. The Measure of Values

(Assuming Gold = Money)

Money, as the measure of value, is the necessary phenomenal form of the
measure of value immanent in commodities — i.e., labour-time. The
simple, relative expression of the value of commodities in money, x
commodity a = y money, is their price. (P.55 [95])

The price of a commodity, its money-form, is expressed in imaginary
money; hence, money is the measure of values only ideally. (P.57 [95])

Once the change from value to price is effected, it becomes technically
necessary to develop the measure of values further, into the standard of
price — i.e., a quantity of gold is fixed, by which different
quantities of gold are measured. This is quite different from the
measure of values, which itself depends upon the value of gold, while
the latter is immaterial for the standard of prices. (P.59 [97-98])

Once prices are expressed in accounting names of gold, money serves as
money of account.

If price, as the exponent of the magnitude of a commodity's value, is
the exponent of its exchange ratio with money, it does not follow
conversely that the exponent of its exchange ratio with money is
necessarily the exponent of the magnitude of its value. Assuming that
circumstances permit or compel the sale of a commodity above or below
its value, these selling prices do not correspond to its value, but they
are none the less prices of the commodity, for they are

(1) its value-form money, and

(2) exponents of its exchange ratio with money.

The possibility, therefore, of quantities incongruity between price and
magnitude of value is given in the price-form itself. That is no defect
of this form, but on the contrary makes it the adequate form of a mode
of production in which the rule can impose itself only as a
blindly-acting law of averages of irregularity. The price-form,
however, can also harbour a qualitative contradiction, so that price
ceases altogether to be an expression of value.... Conscience, honour,
etc., can... acquire the form of commodities through their price.
(P.61 [102])

Measurement of values in money, the price-form, implies the necessity of
alienation, the ideal pricing implies the actual. Hence, circulation.

B. The Medium of Circulation

a. The Metamorphosis of Commodities

Simple form: C - M - C.

Its material content C = C. Exchange-value is alienated and use-value
appropriated.

A. First phase: C - M = sale, for which two persons are required, hence
the possibility of failure — i.e., of sale below value, or even below
the cost of production, if the social value of the commodity changes.

"The division of labour converts the product of labour into a
commodity, and thereby makes necessary its further conversion
into money."

At the same time, it also make the accomplishment of this
transubstantiation quite accidental. (P.67 [108]) But, considering the
phenomenon in its pure form, C - M presupposes that the possessor of the
money (unless he is a producer of gold) previously got his money through
exchange for other commodities; hence, it is not only conversely M - C
for the buyer, but it presupposes that he made a previous sale, etc., so
that we have an endless series of purchases and sales.

B. The same takes place i the second phase, M - C — i.e., purchase,
which is, at the same time, a sale for the other party.

C. The total process, hence, is a circuit of purchases and sales. The
circulation of commodities. This is quite different from the direct
exchange of products; first, the individual and local bounds of the
direct exchange of products are broken through, and the metabolism of
human labour is made possible; on the other hand, here it already appears
that the whole process depends upon social relations spontaneous in
their growth and independent of the actors. (P.72 [112]) Simple
exchange was extinguished in the one act of exchange, where each
exchanges non-use-value for use-value; circulation proceeds
indefinitely. (P.73 [112])

Here the false economic dogma: the circulation of commodities involves a
necessary equilibrium of purchases and sales, because every purchase is
also a sale, and vice versa — which is to say, that every seller also
brings his buyer to market with him.

(1) Purchase and sale are, on the one hand, an identical act of
two polarly opposite persons (poles are the two ends of the
axis of a sphere); on the other hand, they are two polarly
opposite acts of one and the same person. Hence, the identity
of purchases and sale implies that the commodity is useless
unless it is sold, and likewise that this case can occur.

(2) C - M, as a partial process, is similarly an independent
process and implies that the acquirer of money can choose the
time when he again converts this money into a commodity. He
can wait.

The inner unity of the independent processes C - M and M - C moves in
external antitheses precisely because of the independence of these
processes; and when these dependent processes reach a certain limit of
independence, their unity asserts itself in a crisis. Hence, the
possibility of the latter is already given here.

Being the intermediary in commodity circulation, money is the medium of
circulation.

b. The Currency of Money

Money is the medium by which each individual commodity goes into, and
out of, circulation; it always remains therein itself. Hence, although
the circulation of money is merely the expression of commodity
circulation, the circulation of commodities appears to be the result of
money circulation. Since money always remains within the sphere of
circulation, the question is: how much money is present in it?

The quantity of money in circulation is determined by the sum prices of
commodities (money-value remaining the same), and the latter by the
quantity of commodities in circulation. Assuming that this quantity of
commodities is given, the circulating quantity of money fluctuates with
the fluctuations in the price of commodities. Now, since one and the
same coin always mediates a number of transactions in succession in a
given time, for a given interval of time, we have:

Sum of the prices of commodities

Quantity of money functioning

—————————————————————

=
as the circulated medium

Number of moves made by a piece of money

(P. 80 [120])

Hence, paper money can displace gold money if it is thrown into a
saturated circulation.

Since the currency of money only reflects the process of commodity
circulation, its rapidity reflects that of the change in the form of the
commodities, its stagnation, the separation of purchase from sale, the
stagnation of social metabolism. The origin of this stagnation cannot,
of course, be seen from circulation itself, which puts in evidence only
the phenomenon. The philistines attribute it to a deficient quantity of
circulating medium. (P.81 [121])

Ergo:

(1) If the prices of commodities remains constant, the quantity of
money circulating rises when the quantity of circulating
commodities increased or the circulation of money is retarded;
and drops vice versa.

(2) With a general rise in the prices of commodities, the quantity
of money circulating remains constant if the quantity of
commodities decreased or the velocity of circulation increases
in the same proportion.

(3) With a general drop in the prices of commodities, the converse
of (2).

In general, there is a fairly constant average from which appreciable
deviations occur almost exclusively as a result of crises.

c. Coin. Symbols of Value

The standard of prices is fixed by the state, as are also the
denomination of the particular piece of gold — the coin, and its
coining. In the world market, the respective national uniforms are
doffed again (Seigniorage is disregarded here), so that coin and bullion
differ only in form. But a coin wears away during circulation; gold, as
a circulating medium, differs from gold as a standard of prices. The
coin becomes more and more a symbol of its official content.

Herewith, the latent possibility is given of replacing metallic money by
tokens or symbols. Hence:

(1) small coinage of copper and silver tokens, the permanent
establishment of which in place of real gold money is prevented
by limiting the quantity in which they are legal tender.

Their metallic content is determined purely arbitrarily by law,
and thus their function as coinage becomes independent of their
value. Hence, the further step to quite worthless symbols is
possible:

(2) paper money — i.e., paper money issued by the state, having
compulsory circulation. (Credit money not to be discussed here
as yet.)

So far as this paper money actually circulates in place of gold money,
it is subject to the laws of money circulation. Only the proportion in
which paper replaces gold can be the object of a special law, which is:
that the issue of paper money is to be limited to the quantity in which
the gold represented by it would actually have to circulate. The degree
of saturation of circulation fluctuates, but everywhere experience
determines a minimum below which it never falls. This minimum can be
issued. If more than the minimum is issued, a portion becomes
superfluous as soon as the degree of saturation drops to the minimum.
In that case, the total amount of paper money within the commodity world
still represents only the quantity of gold fixed by that world's
immanent laws, and hence alone representable. Thus, if the amount of
paper money represents twice the absorbable amount of gold, each piece
of paper money is depreciated to half its nominal value. Just as if
gold were changed in its function as the measure of prices, in its
value. (P.89 [128])

C. Money

a. Hoarding

With the earliest development of commodity circulation, there develops
the need, and the passionate desire, to hold fast the product of C - M,
money. From a mere agency of change of matter, this change of form
becomes an end in itself. Money petrifies into a hoard; the commodity
seller becomes a money hoarder. (P.91 [130])

This form was dominant precisely in the beginnings of commodity
circulation. Asia. With further development of commodity circulation,
every producer of commodities must secure for himself the nexus rerum,
the social pledge-money. Thus, hoards accumulate everywhere. The
development of commodity circulation increases the power of money, the
absolutely social form of wealth, always ready for use. (P.92 [131])
The urge for hoarding is, by nature, boundless. Qualitatively, or with
respect to its form, money is unrestricted — i.e., the universal
representative of material wealth — because it is directly convertible
into any commodity. But, quantitatively, every actual sum of money is
limited — and, therefore, of only limited efficacy as a means of
purchasing. This contradiction always drives the hoarder back, again
and again, to the Sisyphus-like (vain) labour of accumulation.

Besides, the accumulation of gold and silver in plate creates both a new
market for these metals and a latent source of money.

Hoarding serves as a conduit for supplying or withdrawing circulating
money with the continuous fluctuations in the degree of saturation of
the circulation. (P.95 [134])

b. Means of Payment

With the development of commodity circulation, new conditions appear:
the alienation of a commodity can be separated in time from the
realization of its price. Commodities require different periods of time
for their production; they are produced in different seasons; some must
be sent to distant markets, etc. Hence, A can be a seller before B, the
buyer, is able to pay. Practice regulates the conditions of payment in
this way: A becomes a creditor, B a debtor: money becomes a means of
payment. Thus, the relation of creditor and debtor already becomes more
antagonistic. (This can also occur independently of commodity
circulation — e.g., in antiquity and the Middle Ages.) (P.97 [135])

In this relation, money functions:

(1) as the measure of value in the determination of the price of
the commodity sold;

(2) as an ideal means of purchase.

In the hoard, money was withdrawn from circulation; here, being a means
of payment, money enters circulation, but only after the commodity has
left it. The indebted buyer sells in order to be able to pay, or he
will be put up for auction. Therefore, money now becomes the sale's end
in itself through a social necessity arising out of the relations of the
very circulation process. (Pp.97-98 [136])

The lack of simultaneity of purchases and sales, which gives rise to the
function of money as a means of payment, at the same time effects an
economy of the circulation media, payments being concentrated at a
definite place. The virements (remittance by draft from own account to
another) in Lyons in the Middle Ages — a sort of clearing-house, where
only the net balance of the mutual claims is paid. (P.98 [137])

Insofar as the payments balance one another, money functions only
ideally, as money of account or measure of values. Insofar as actual
payment has to be made, it does not appear as a circulating medium, as
only the vanishing and mediating form of metabolism, but as the
individual embodiment of social labour, as the independent existence of
exchange-value, as the absolute commodity. This direct contradiction
breaks out in that phase of production and commercial crises that is
called a monetary crisis. It occurs only where the progressing chain of
payments, and an artificial system of settling them, are fully
developed. With more general disturbances of this mechanism, no matter
what their origin, money changes suddenly and immediately from its
merely ideal shape of money of account into hard cash; profane
commodities can no longer replace it. (P.99 [138])

Credit money originates in the function of money as a means of payment;
certificates of debt themselves circulate, in turn, to transfer these
debts to others. With the system of credit, the function of money as a
means of payment again expands; in that capacity, money acquires its own
forms of existence, in which it occupies the sphere of large-scale
commercial transactions, while coin is largely relegated to the sphere
of retail trade. (P.101 [139-40])

At a certain stage and volume of commodity production, the function of
money-as-a-means-of-payment spreads beyond the sphere of the circulation
of commodities; it becomes the universal commodity of contracts. Rents,
taxes, and the like, are transformed from payments in kind into money
payments. Cf. France under Louis XIV. (Boisguillebert and Vauban); on
the other hand, Asia, Turkey, Japan, etc. (P.102 [140-41])

The development of money into a means of payment necessitates the
accumulation of money against the date when payment is due. Hoarding,
which, as a distinct form of acquiring riches, vanished as society
further developed, again appears as a reserve fund of the means of
payment. (P.103 [142])

c. Universal Money

In world trade, the local forms of coin — small coinage, and paper
money — are discarded and only the bullion form of money is valid as
universal money. Only in the world market does money function to the
full extent as the commodity whose bodily form is at the same time the
immediate social incarnation of human labour in the abstract. Its mode
of existence becomes adequate to its concept. (Pp.103-04 [142]; details
p.105 [145])

The Transformation of Money into Capital

Synopsis to Capital Index

Frederick Engels: Synopsis of Capital

Frederick Engels

Synopsis of Capital

The Transformation of Money into Capital

1. The general formula for Capital

2. Contradictions in the general formula

3. The buying and selling of labour-power

1. THE GENERAL FORMULA FOR CAPITAL

The circulation of commodities is the starting point of capital. Hence,
commodity production, commodity circulation, and the latter's developed
form, commerce, are always the historical groundwork from which capital
arises. The modern history of capital dates from the creation of modern
world trade and the world market in the 16th century. (P.106 [146])

If we consider only the economic forms produced by commodity
circulation, we find that its final product is money, and the latter is
the first form in which capital appears. Historically, capital
invariably confront landed property at first as moneyed wealth, the
capital of the merchant and the usurer, and even today all new capital
first comes on the stage in the shape of money that by definite
processes has to be transformed into capital.

Money-as-money and money-as-capital differ, to being with, only in their
form of circulation. Alongside C - M - C, the form M - C - M, buying in
order to sell, also occurs. Money that describes this form of
circulation in its movement becomes capital, is already capital in
itself — i.e., by its destination.

The result of M - C - M is M - M — the indirect exchange of money for
money. I buy cotton for 100 pounds sterling and sell it for 110;
ultimately, I have exchanged 100 for 110, money for money.

If this process yielded at its outcome the same money-value that was
originally put into it — 100 pounds sterling out of 100 — it would be
absurd. Yet, whether the merchant realizes 100, 110, or merely 50 for
his 100 pounds sterling, his money has described a specific movement
quite different from that of commodity circulation, C - M - C. From the
examination of the differences in form between this movement and C - M -
C, the difference in content will also be found.

The two phases of the process, taken separately, are the same as in C -
M - C. But, there is a great difference in the process as a whole. In
C - M - C, money constitutes the intermediary, the commodity the
starting point and the finish; in this case, the commodity is the
intermediary, with money the starting point and the finish. In C - M -
C, the money is spent once and for all; in M - C - M, it is merely
advanced, it is to be got back again. It flows back to its starting
point. Here, therefore, is already a palpable difference between the
circulation of money-as-money and money-as-capital.

In C - M - C, money can return to its starting point only through the
repetition of the whole process, through the sale of fresh commodities.
Hence, the reflux is independent of the process itself. In M - C - M,
on the other hand, it is conditioned from the outset by the structure of
the process itself, which is incomplete if the return flow fails.
(P.110 [149])

The ultimate object of C - M - C is use-value, that of M - C - M
exchange-value itself.

In C - M - C, both extremes possess the same definiteness of economic
form. Both are commodities, and of equal value. But, at the same time,
they are qualitatively different use-values, and the process has social
metabolism as its content. In M - C - M, the operation, at first
glance, seems tautological, purposeless. To exchange 100 pounds for 100
pounds, and in a roundabout way to boot, seems absurd. One sum of money
is distinguishable from another only by its size; M - C - M acquires its
meaning, therefore, only through the quantitative difference in the
extremes. More money is withdrawn from circulation than has been thrown
into it. The cotton bought for 100 is sold, say, for 100 + 10; the
process, thus, follows the formula M - C - M', where M' = M + delta-M.
[The delta-symbol, actually being a triangle, representing the
difference, the change in amount.] This delta-M, this increment, is
surplus-value. The value originally advanced not only remains intact in
circulation, but adds to itself a surplus-value, expands itself — and
this movement converts money into capital.

In C - M - C, they may also be a difference in the value of the
extremes, but it is purely accidental in this form of circulation, and
C - M - C does not become absurd when the extremes are equivalent — on
the contrary, this is rather the necessary conditions for the normal
process.

The repetition of C - M - C is regulated by an ultimate object outside
itself; consumption, the satisfaction of definite needs. In M - C - M,
on the other hand, the beginning and the end are the same — money —
and that already makes the movement endless. Granted, M + delta-M
differs quantitatively from M, but it, too, is merely a limited sum of
money; if it were spent, it would no longer be capital; if it were
withdrawn from circulation, it would remain stationary as a hoard. Once
the need for expansion of value is given, it sexists for M' as well as
for M, and the movement of capital is boundless, because its goal is as
much unattained at the end of the process as at the beginning.
(Pp.111,112 [149-51]) As the representative of this process, the owner
of money becomes a capitalist.

If, in commodity circulation, the exchange-value attains at most a form
independent of the use-value of commodities, it suddenly manifests
itself here as a substance in process, endowed with motion of its own,
for which commodity and money are mere forms. More than that, as
original value, it is differentiated from itself as surplus-value. It
becomes money in process, and as such, capital. (P.116 [154])

M - C - M' appears, indeed, to be a form peculiar to merchant's capital
alone. BUt, industrial capital, too, is money which is converted into
commodities, and by the latter's sale reconverted into more money. Acts
that take place between purchase and sale, outside the sphere of
circulation, effect no change in this. Lastly, in interest-bearing
capital, the process appears as M - M' without any intermediary, value
that is, as it were, greater than itself. (P.117 [155])

2. CONTRADICTIONS IN THE GENERAL FORMULA

The form of circulation by which money becomes capital contradicts all
previous laws bearing on the nature of commodities, of value, of money
and of circulation itself. Can the purely formal differences of
inverted order of succession cause this?

What is more, this inversion exists only for one of the three
transacting persons. As a capitalist, I buy commodities from A and sell
them to B. A and B appear merely as simple buyers and sellers of
commodities. In both cases, I confront them merely as a simple owner of
money or owner of commodities, confronting one as buyer or money, the
other as seller or commodity, but neither of them as a capitalist or a
representative of something that is more than money or commodity. For
A, the transaction began with a sale; for B, it ended with a purchase,
hence, just as in commodity circulation. Moreover, if I base the right
to surplus-value upon the simple sequence, A could sell to B directly
and the chance of surplus-value would be eliminated.

Assume that A and B buy commodities from each other directly. As far as
use-value is concerned, both may profit; A may even produce more of his
commodity than B could produce in the same time, and vice versa, whereby
both would profit again. But otherwise with exchange-value. Here,
equal values are exchanged for each other, even if money, as the medium
of circulation, intervenes. (P.119 [156-58])

Abstractly considered, only a change in form of the commodity takes
places in simple commodity circulation, if we except the substitution of
one use-value for another. So far, as it involves only a change in form
of its exchange-value, it involves the exchange of equivalents, if the
phenomenon proceeds in a pure form. Commodities can, indeed, be sold at
prices differing from their values, but this would mean a violation of
the law of commodity exchange. In its pure form, it is an exchange of
equivalents, hence no medium for enriching oneself. (P.120 [158-59])

Hence, the error of all endeavors to derive surplus-value from commodity
circulation. Condillac (P.121 [159]), Newman (P.122 [160]).

But let us assume that the exchange does not take place in a pure form,
that non-equivalents are exchanged. Let us assume that each seller
sells his commodity at 10 per cent above its value. everything remains
the same; what each one gains as a seller, he loses in turn as a buyer.
Just as if the value of money had changed by 10 per cent. Likewise, if
the buyers bought everything at 10 per cent below value. (P.123
[160-61], Torrens.)

The assumption that surplus-value arises from a rise in prices
presupposes that a class exists which buys and does not sell — i.e.,
consumers and does not produce, which constantly receives money gratis.
To sell commodities above their value to this class means merely to get
back, by cheating, part of the money given away gratis. (Asia Minor and
Rome.) Yet, the seller always remains the cheated one and cannot grow
richer, cannot form surplus-value thereby.

Let us take the case of cheating. A sells to B wine worth 40 pounds
sterling in exchange for grain worth 50. A has gained 10. But A and B
together have only 90. A has 50 and B only 40; value has been
transferred but not created. The capitalist class, as a whole, in any
country, cannot cheat itself. (P.126 [162-63])

Hence: if equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results; and if
non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value results.
Commodity circulation creates no new value.

That is why the oldest and most popular forms of capital — merchant
capital and usurers' capital — are not considered here. If the
expansion of merchant capital is not to be explained by mere cheating,
many intermediate factors, lacking here as yet, are required. Even more
so for usurers', and interest-bearing, capital. It will later be seen
that both are derived forms, and why they occur historically before
modern capital.

Hence, surplus-value cannot originate in circulation. But outside it?
Outside it, the commodity owner is the simple producer of his commodity,
the value of which depends upon the quantity of his own labour, contained
in it, measured according to a definite social law; this value is
expressed in money of account — e.g., in a price of 10 pounds. BUt
this value is not at the same time a value of 11 pounds; his labour
creates values, but not self-expanding values. It can add more value to
existing value, but this occurs only through the addition of more labour.
Thus, the commodity producer cannot produce surplus-value outside the
sphere of circulation, without coming in contact with other commodity
owners.

Hence, capital must originate in commodity, yet not in it. (P.128
[165-66])

Thus:

the transformation of money into capital has to be explained on the
basis of the laws inherent to the exchange of commodities, the
exchange of equivalents forming the starting point. Our owners of
money, as yet the mere chrysalis of a capitalist, has to buy his
commodities at their value, to sell them at their value, and yet at
the end of this process, to extract more value than he put into it.
His development into a butterfly must take in the sphere of
circulation and yet not in it. These are the conditions of the
problem. Hic Rhodus, hic salta! (P.129 [166])

3. THE BUYING AND SELLING OF LABOUR-POWER

The change in value of money that is to be converted into capital cannot
take place in that money itself, for in buying, it merely realizes the
price of the commodity; and on the other hand, as long as it remains
money, it does not change the magnitude of its value; and in selling,
too, it merely converts the commodity from its bodily form into its
money-form. The change must, therefore, take place in the commodity of
M - C - M; but not in its exchange-value, since equivalents are
exchanged; it can only arise from its use-value as such — that is, from
its consumption. For that purpose, a commodity is required whose
use-value possess the property of being the source of exchange-value —
and this does exist — labour-power. (P.130 [167])

But, for the owner of money to find labour-power in the market as a
commodity, it must be sold by its own possessor — that is, it must be
free labour-power. Since buyer and seller as contracting parties are
both juridically equal persons, labour-power must be sold only
temporarily — since in a sale, en bloc, the seller no longer remains
the seller, but becomes a commodity himself. But then the owner,
instead of being able to sell commodities in which his labour is
embodied, must rather be in a position where he has to sell his
labour-power itself as a commodity. (P.131 [168-69])

For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of
money must find in the commodity market the free labourer, free in the
double sense that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as
his commodity, and that, on the other hand, he has no other
commodities to sell, has no ties, is free of all things necessary for
the realization of his labour-power. (P.132 [168-69])

Parenthetically, the relation between money owner and labour-power owner
is not a natural one, or a social one common to all ages, but a
historical one, the product of many economic revolutions. So, too, do
the economic categories considered up to now bear their historical
stamp. To become a commodity, a product must no longer be produced as
the immediate means of subsistence. The mass of products can assume
commodity-form only within a specific mode of production, the capitalist
mode, although commodity production and circulation can take place even
where the mass of products never become commodities. Likewise, money
can exist in all periods that have attained a certain level of commodity
circulation; the specific money-forms, from mere equivalent to world
money, presuppose various stages of development; nevertheless, a very
slightly developed circulation of commodities can give rise to all of
them. Capital, on the other hand, arises only under the above
condition, and this one condition comprises a world's history. (P.133
[169-70])

Labour-power has an exchange-value which is determined, like that of all
other commodities, by the labour-time required for its production, and
hence for its reproduction aa well. The value of labour-power is the
value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of its
owner — that is, his maintenance in a state of normal capacity for
work. This depends upon climate, natural conditions, etc., and also on
the given historical standard of life in each country and for each
particular epoch. Moreover, his maintenance includes the means of
subsistence for his substitutes — i.e., his children — in order that
the race of these peculiar commodity owners may perpetuate itself.
Furthermore, for skilled labour, the cost of education. (P.135 [170-72])

The minimum limit of the value of labour-power is the value of the
physically indispensable means of subsistence. If the price of
labour-power falls to this minimum, it falls below its value, since the
latter presupposes normal, not stunted, quality of labour-power. (P.135
[173])

The nature of labour implies that labour-power is consumed only after
conclusion of the contract, and, as money is usually the means of
payment for such commodities in all countries with the capitalist mode
of production, the labour-power is paid for only after it is consumed.
everywhere, therefore, the labourer gives credit to the capitalist.
(P.137,138 [174])

The process of consuming labour-power is at the same time the process of
producing commodities and surplus-value and this consumption takes place
outside the sphere of circulation. (P.140 [175-76])

The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value

Synopsis to Capital Index

Frederick Engels: Synopsis of Capital

Frederick Engels

Synopsis of Capital

The Production of Absolute Surplus Value

1. The labour process and the process of producting surplus-value

2. Constant and variable capital

3. The Rate of Surplus Value

4. The working day

5. Rate and mass of surplus-value

1. THE LABOR PROCESS AND THE PROCESS

OF PRODUCING SURPLUS-VALUE

The purchaser of labor-power consumes it by setting its seller to work.
This labor-to-produce-commodities at first turns out use-values, and in
this property it is independent of the specific relation between
capitalist and labourer.... Description of the labor process as such.
(Pp.141-49 [177-85])

The labor process, on a capitalist basis, has two peculiarities:

(1) The labourer works under the capitalist's control.

(2) The product is the capitalist's property, since the labor
process is now only a process between two things purchased by
the capitalist: labor-power and means of production.
(P.150 [184-85])

But the capitalist does not want the use-value produced for its own
sake, but only as the depository of exchange-value, and especially of
surplus-value. Labor, under this condition — where the commodity was a
unity of use-value and exchange-value — becomes the unity of the
production process and of the process creating value. (P.151 [186])

Thus, the quantity of labor embodied in the product is to be
investigated.

Yarn, for example. Let 10 lbs. of cotton be necessary for making it,
say, 10 shillings, and instruments of labor — whose wear and tear are
inevitable in the spinning, here denoted in brief as spindle share —
say, 2 shilling. Thus, there are 12 shillings' worth of means of
production in the product — i.e., inasmuch as

(1) the product has become an actual use-value, in this case yarn;
and

(2) only the socially necessary labor-time was represented in these
instruments of labor.

How much is added to it by the labor of spinning?

The labor process is here viewed from an altogether different angle. In
the value of the product, the labors of the cotton-planter, of the
spindle-maker, etc., and of the spinner, are commensurable,
qualitatively equal parts of general, human, necessary value-creating
labor, and therefore distinguishable only qualitatively, and for that
very reason quantitatively comparable by the length of time,
presupposing that it is socially necessary labor-time, for only the
latter is value-creating.

Assumed the value of a day's labor-power is 3 shillings, and that it
represents 6 hours of labor, that 1 2/3 lbs. of yarn are made per hour,
hence in 6 hours: 10 lbs. of yarn from 10 lbs. of cotton (as above);
then 3 shillings of value have been added in 6 hours, and the value of
the product is 15 shillings (10 + 2 + 3 shillings), or a shilling and a
half per pound of yarn.

But in this case there is no surplus-value. That is of no use to the
capitalist. (Vulgar-economic humbug, p.157 [190])

We assumed that the value of a day's labor-power was 3 shillings,
because 1/2 working-day, or 6 hours, is incorporated in it. But the
fact that only 1/2 working-day is required to maintain the worker for 24
hours does not in any way prevent him from working a whole day. The
value of labor-power, and the value it creates, are two different
quantities. Its useful property was only a conditio sine qua non; but
what was decisive was the specific use-value of labor-power in being the
source of more exchange-value than it has itself. (P.159 [193])

Hence, the labourer works 12 hours, spins 20 lbs. of cotton worth 20
shillings and 4 shillings' worth of spindles, and his labor costs 3
shillings: total — 27 shillings. But, in the product there are
embodied: four days' labor in the shape of spindles and cotton, and one
day's labor of the spinner, in all five days at 6 shillings totalling 30
shillings' value of product. We have a surplus-value of 3 shillings:
money has been converted into capital. (P.160 [194]) All the conditions
of the problem are fulfilled. (Detail p.160 [194])

As a value-creating process, the labor process becomes a process of
producing surplus-value the moment it is prolonged beyond the point
where it delivers a simple equivalent for the paid-for value of
labor-power.

The value-creating process differs from the simple labor process in that
the latter is considered qualitatively, and only to the extent that it
comprises socially necessary labor-time. (P.161 [195], details p.162
[196])

As the unity of labor process and value-creating process, the production
process is the production of commodities; as the unity of labor process
and the process of producing surplus-value, it is the process of
capitalist production of commodities. (P.163 [197])

Reduction of compound labor to simple labor. (Pp.163-65 [197-98])

2. CONSTANT AND VARIABLE CAPITAL

The labor process adds new value to the object of labor — but, at the
same time, it transfers the value of the object of labor to the
product, thus preserving it by merely adding new value. This double
result is attained in this manner: the specifically useful qualitative
character of labor converts one use-value into another use-value and
thus preserves value; the value-creating, abstractly general,
quantitative character of labor, however, adds value. (P.166 [199])

E.g. — let the productivity of spinning labor multiply sixfold. As
useful (qualitative) labor, it preserves in the same time six-times as
many instruments of labor. But it adds only the same new value as
before — i.e., in each pound of yarn, there is only 1/6 of the new
value previously added. As value-creating labor, it accomplishes no
more than before. (P.167 [201]) The contrary is true, if the
productivity of spinning labor remains the same, but the value of the
instruments of labor rises. (P.168 [201])

The instruments of labor transfer to the product only that value which
they lose themselves. (P.169 [203]) This is the case in differing
degree. Coal, lubricants, etc., are consumed completely — raw
materials take on a new form. Instruments, machinery, etc., transmit
value only slowly and by parts — and the wear and tear are calculated
by experience. (Pp.169-70 [203]) But the instrument remains continually
as a whole in the labor process. Therefore, the same instrument counts
as a whole in the labor process, but only partly in the process of
producing surplus-value, so that the difference between the two
processes is reflected here in material factors. (P.171 [204])
Conversely, the raw material, which forms waste, enters wholly into the
process of producing surplus-value, and only partly into the labor
process, since it appears in the product minus the waste. (P.171 [205])

But, in no case can an instrument of labor transfer more
exchange-value than it possessed itself — in the labor process it acts
only as a use-value and, hence, can give only the exchange-value that it
possessed previously. (P.172 [205-06])

This preserving of value is very advantageous to the capitalist, but
costs him nothing. (P.173,174 [205,207])

Yet, the preserved value only re-appears, it was already present, and
only the labor process adds new value. That is, in capitalist
production, surplus-value, the excess of the product's value over the
value of the consumed elements of the product (means of production and
labor-power). (Pp.175,176 [208])

Herewith have been described the forms of existence which the original
capital value takes on in dropping its money-form, in being converted
into factors of the labor process:

(1) in the purchase of instruments of labor;

(2) in the purchase of labor-power.

The capital invested in instruments of labor does not, therefore,
alter the magnitude of its value in the production process. We call it
CONSTANT capital.

The portion invested in labor-power does change its value; it
produces:

(1) its own value, and

(2) surplus-value — it is called VARIABLE capital.
(P.176 [209])

Capital is constant only in relation to the production process
specifically given, in which it does not change; it can consist
sometimes of more, sometimes of fewer instruments of labor, and the
purchased instruments of labor may rise or fall in value, but that does
not affect their relationship to the production process. (P.177
[210-11]) Likewise, the percentage in which a given capital is
subdivided into constant and variable capital may change, but in any
given case, the c remains constant and the v variable. (P.178 [211])

3. THE RATE OF SURPLUS-VALUE

c

v

C
=
£ 500
=
410
+
90

At the end of the labor process in which v is turned into labor-power,
we get 410c + 90v + 90s = 590.

Let us assume c consists of 312 raw material, 44 auxiliary material, and
54 wear and tear of machinery — in all 410.

Let the value of all the machinery be 1,054.

If this were entered as a whole, we would get 1,410 for c on both
sides of our calculation; the surplus-value would remain 90 as before.
(P.179 [212])

Since the value of c merely re-appears in the product, the value of the
product we get differs from the value created in the process; the
latter, therefore, equals not c + v + s, but v + s. Hence, the
magnitude of c is immaterial to the process of creating surplus-value —
i.e., c = 0. (P.180 [213]) This also takes place in practice in
commercial accounting — e.g., in calculating a country's profit from
its industry, imported raw material is deducted. (P.181 [215]) Cf.
Vol.III for the ratio of surplus-value to total capital.

Hence: the rate of surplus-value is s:v, in the above case 90:90 = 100%.

The labor-time during which the labourer reproduces the value of his
labor-power — in capitalist or other circumstances — is the NECESSARY
LABOR; what goes beyond that, producing surplus-value for the
capitalist, SURPLUS-LABOR. (Pp.183,184 [215,217]) Surplus-value is
congealed surplus-labor, and only the form of extorting the same
differentiates the various social formations.

Example of the incorrectness of including c — pp.185-96 [217-29]
(Senior)

The sum of the necessary labor and the surplus-labor equals the
working-day.

4. THE WORKING-DAY

The necessary labor-time is given. The surplus-labor is variable — but
within certain limits. It can never be reduced to nil, since then
capitalist production ceases. It can never go as high as 24 hours for
physical reasons, and, moreover, the maximum limit is always affected by
moral grounds as well. But, these limits are very elastic. The
economic demand is that the working-day should be no longer than for
normal wear-and-tear of the worker. But what is normal? An antinomy
results and only force can decide. Hence, the struggle between the
working class and the capitalist class for the normal working-day.
(Pp.198-202 [231-35])

Surplus-labor in previous social epochs. As long as the exchange-value
is not more important than the use-value, surplus-labor is milder —
e.g., among the ancients; only where direct exchange-value — gold and
silver — was produced, surplus-labor was terrible. (P.203 [235])
Likewise, in the slave states of America until the mass production of
cotton for export. Likewise, corvee labor — e.g., in Rumania.

Corvee labor is the best means of comparison with capitalist
exploitation, because the former fixes and shows the surplus-labor as a
specific labor-time to be performed — Reglement organique of Wallachia.
(Pp.204-06 [235-36])

The English Factory Acts are negative expression of the greed for
surplus-labor, just as the foregoing was its positive expression.

THE FACTORY ACTS. That of 1850 — (p.207 [239]). 10.5 hours and 7.5 on
Saturdays = 60 hours per week. Mill-owners' profit through evasion.
(Pp.208-11 [240-43])

Exploitation in unrestricted, or only later-restricted, branches:

— lace industry (p.212 [243])

— potteries (p.213 [244])

— lucifer matches (p.214 [246])

— wall-paper (pp.214-17 [246-48])

— baking (pp.217-22 [248-51])

— railway employees (p.223 [253])

— seamstresses (pp.223-25 [254-56])

— blacksmiths (p.226 [256])

— day and night workers in shifts:

(a) metallurgy and the metal industry

(pp.227-35 [256-63])

These facts prove that capital regards the labourer as nothing else than
labor-power, all of whose time is labor-time as far as this is at all
possible at a given moment, and that the length of life of labor-power
is immaterial to the capitalists. (Pp.236-38 [264-65]) But is this not
against the interests of the capitalist? What about the replacement of
what is rapidly worn out? The organized slave trade in the interior of
the United States has raised the rapid wearing out of slaves to an
economic principle, exactly like the supply of labourers from the rural
districts in Europe, etc. (P.239 [267]) Poorhouse supply (labor-power
provided by poorhouses). (P.240 [267]) The capitalist sees only the
continuously available surplus-population and wears it out. Whether the
race perishes — apres moi le deluge. Capital is reckless of the health
or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from
society... and free competition brings out the inherent laws of
capitalist production in the shape of external coercive laws having
power over every individual capitalist. (P.243 [270])

Establishment of a normal working-day — the result of centuries of
struggle between capitalist and labourer.

At the beginning, laws were made to raise working-time; now to lower
it. (P.244 [271])

The first Statute of labourers, 23rd Edward III, 1349, was passed
under the pretext that the plague had so decimated the
population that everyone had to do more work. Hence, maximum
wages and limit of the working-day were fixed by law.

In 1496, under Henry VII, the working day of field labourers and
all artificers continued from 5 a.m. to between 7 and 8 p.m.
in summer — March to September — with 1 hour, 1.5 hours and
.5 hour, in all 3 hours' break. In winter, it was from 5 a.m.
to dark. This statute was never strictly enforced.

In the 18th century, the whole week's labor was not yet
available to capital (with the exception of agricultural labor).
Cf. controversies of that time. (Pp.248-51 [274-77])

Only with modern large-scale industry was this, and more, achieved; it
broke down all bounds and exploited the workers most shamelessly. The
proletariat resisted as soon as it recollected itself.

The five acts of 1802-33 were only nominal, since there were no
inspectors. Only the Act of 18833 created a normal working-day
in the four textile industries: from 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.,
during which time young persons from 13 to 18 years of age could
be employed only 12 hours with 1.5 hours' pauses, children
from 9 to 13 years of age only 8 hours, while night work of
children and juveniles was prohibited. (Pp.253-55 [278-80])

The relay system and its abuse for purposes of evasion. (P.256 [281])

Finally, the Act of 1844 — which put women of all ages on the
same basis as juveniles. Children limited to 6.5 hours; the
relay system curbed. On the other hand, children permitted from
8 years on.

At last, in 1847, the tens-hours bill forced through for women
and juveniles. (P.259 [283]) The capitalists' efforts against
it. (Pp.260-68 [283-92]) A flaw in the Act of 1847 led to

the compromise Act of 1850 (p.269 [292]), which fixes the
working day for juveniles and women — 5 days of 10.5 hours,
1 day of 7.5 = 60 hours per week, and that between 6 a.m. and
6 p.m. Otherwise, Act of 1847 in force for children. The
exception for the silk industry. (Cf. p.270 [293])

In 1853, the working-time for children also limited to between
6 a.m. and 6 p.m. (P.272 [294])

Printworks Act, in 1845, limits almost nothing — children and
women can work 16 hours!

Bleaching and dyeing works, 1860.

Lace factories, 1861.

potteries and many other branches, 1863 (under the Factory Act,
special acts passed the same year for bleaching in the open air
and baking). (P.274 [296-97])

Large-scale industry, thus, at first creates the need for limiting
working-time, but it later found that the same overwork has gradually
taken possession of all other branches as well. (P.277 [298]

History further shows that the isolated "free" labourer is defenceless
against the capitalist and succumbs, especially with the introduction of
women's and children's labor, so that it is here that the class struggle
develops between the workers and the capitalists. (P.278 [299])

In France, the 12-hour day law for all ages and branches of work was
passed only in 1846, (Cf., however, p.253 [278], footernote on the French
child labor law of 1841, which was really enforced only in 1853, and
only in the Department du Nord.) Complete "freedom of labour" in Belgium.
The 8-hour movement in America. (P.279 [301])

Thus, the labourer comes out of the production process quite different
than he entered. The labour contract was not the act of a free agent;
the time for which he is free to sell his labour-power is the time for
which he is forced to sell it, and only the mass opposition of the
workers wins for them the passing of a law that shall prevent the
workers from selling, by voluntary contract with capital, themselves and
their generation into slavery and death. In place of the pompous
catalogue of the inalienable rights of man, comes the modest Magna
Charta of the Factory Act. (Pp.280,281 [302])

5. RATE AND MASS OF SURPLUS-VALUE

With the rate, the mass is also given. If the daily value of one
labour-power is 3 shillings, and the rate of surplus-value is 100 per
cent, its daily mass = 3 shillings, for one labourer.

I. Since the variable capital is the money expression of the value
of all the labour-powers simultaneously employed by one
capitalist, the mass of the surplus-value produced by them is
equal to the variable capital multiplied by the rate of
surplus-value. Both factors can vary, different combinations thus
arising. The mass of surplus-value can grow, even with
decreasing variable capital, if the rate rises — that is, if the
working-day is lengthened. (P.282 [303-05])

II. This increase in the rate of surplus-value has its absolute limit
in that the working-day can never be prolonged to the full
24 hours; hence, the total value of one worker's daily production
can never equal the value of 24 working-hours. Thus, in order to
obtain the same mass of surplus-value, variable capital can be
replaced by increased exploitation of labour only within these
limits. This is important for the explanation of various
phenomena arising from the contradictory tendency of capital:

(1) to reduce the variable capital and the number of workers
employed; and

(2) to produce the greatest possible mass of surplus-value
nonetheless. (Pp.283,284 [305-06])

III. The masses of value and surplus-value produced by different
capitals, for given value and equally high degree of exploitation
of labour-power, are related directly as the magnitudes of the
variable components of these capitals. (P.285 [306-07])

This seems to contradict all facts.

For a given society, and a given working-day, surplus-value can be
increased only by increasing the number of workers — i.e., the
population; with a given number of workers, only by lengthening the
working-day. This is important, however, only for absolute
surplus-value.

It now turns out that not every sum of money can be transformed into
capital — that a minimum exists: the cost price of a single labour-power
and of the necessary instruments of labour. In order to be able to live
like a worker, the capitalist would have to have two workers, with a
rate of surplus-value of 50 per cent, and yet save nothing. Even with
eight, he is still a small master. Hence, in the Middle Ages people
were forcibly hampered in transformation from craftsmen into capitalists
by limitation of the number of journeymen to be employed by one master.
The minimum of wealth required to form a real capitalist varies in
different periods and branches of business. (P.288 [309])

Capital has evolved into command over labour, and sees to it that work is
done regularly and intensively. Moreover, it compels the workers to do
more work than is necessary for their sustenance; and, in pumping out
surplus-labour, it surpasses all earlier production systems based upon
direct compulsory labour.

Capital takes over labour with the given technical conditions, and at
first does not change them. Hence, with the production process
considered as a labour process, the worker stands in relation to the
means of production not as to capital, but as to the means of his own
intelligent activity. But, considered as a process of creating
surplus-value, otherwise. The means of production become means of
absorbing the labour of others. It is no longer the labourer who employs
the means of production, but the means of production that employ the
labourer. (P.289 [310]) Instead of being consumed by him... they
consume him, as the ferment necessary to their own life-process, and the
life-process of capital consists only in its movement as value
constantly multiplying itself.... The simple transformation of money
into means of production transforms the latter into a title and a right
to the labour and surplus-labour of others.

The Production of Relative Surplus-Value

Synopsis to Capital Index

Frederick Engels: Synopsis of Capital

Frederick Engels

Synopsis of Capital

The Production of Relative Surplus Value

1. The concept of relative surplus-value

2. Co-operation

3. Division of labour and manufacture

4. Machinery and modern Industry

A. Machinery as Such

B. Appropriation of labour-Power Through Machinery

C. The Whole Factory in Its Classical Form

D. The Workers' Struggle Against the Factory System and Machinery

E. Machinery and Surplus-Value

1. THE CONCEPT OF RELATIVE SURPLUS-VALUE

For a given working-day, surplus-labour can be increased only by reducing
the necessary labour; this can, in turn, be obtained — apart from
lowering wages below value — only by reducing the value of labour, that
is, by reducing the price of the necessary means of subsistence.
(Pp.291-93 [312-15]) This, in turn, is to be attained only by increasing
the productive power of labour, by revolutionizing the mode of production
itself.

The surplus-value produced by lenthening the working-day is absolute;
that produced by shortening the necessary labour-time, is relative
surplus-value. (P.295 [315])

In order to lower the value of labour, the increase in productive power
must seize upon those branches of industry whose products determine the
value of labour-power — ordinary means of subsistence, substitutes for
the same, and their raw materials, etc. Proof of how competition makes
the increased productive power manifest in a lower commodity price.
(Pp.296-99 [316-19])

The value of commodities is in inverse ratio to the productivity of
labour — as is also the value of labour-power — because it depends on
the price of commodities. Relative surplus-value, on the contrary, is
directly proportional to the productivity of labour. (P.299 [319])

The capitalists is not interested in the absolute value of commodities,
but only in the surplus-value incorporated in them. Realization of
surplus-value implies refunding of the value advanced. Since, according
to p.299 [320], the same process of increasing productive power lowers
the value of commodities and increases the surplus-value contained in
them, it is clear why the capitalist, whose sole concern is the
production of exchange-value, continually strives to depress the
exchange-value of commodities. (Cf. Quesnay, p.300 [320])

Hence, in capitalist production, economizing labour through developing
productive power by no means aims at shortening the working-day — the
latter may even be lengthened. We may read, therefore, in economists of
the stamp of McCulloch, Ure, Senior, and tutti quanti, on one page that
the labourer owes a debt of gratitude to capital for developing the
productive forces, and on the next page that he must prove his gratitude
by working in future for 15 hours instead of 10. The object of this
development of productive forces is only to shorten the necessary labour
and to lengthen the labour for the capitalist.

2. CO-OPERATION

According to p.288 [309], capitalist production requires an individual
capital big enough to employ a fairly large number of workers at a time;
only when he himself is wholly released from labour does the employer of
labour become a full-grown capitalist. The activity of a large number of
workers, at the same time, in the same field of work, for the production
of the same kind of commodity, under the command of the same capitalist,
constitutes, historically and logically, the starting point of
capitalist production. (P.302 [322])

At first, therefore, there is only a quantitative difference compared to
the past, when fewer labourers were employed by one employer. But a
modification takes place at once. The large number of labourers already
guarantees that the employer gets real average labour, which is not the
case with the small master, who must pay the average value of labour
nonetheless; in the case of small production, the inequalities are
compensated for society at large, but not for the individual master.
Thus, the law of the production of surplus-value is fully realized for
the individual producer only when he produces as a capitalist, and sets
many labourers to work at the same time — hence, from the outset,
average social labour. (Pp.303-04 [322-24])

Moreover: economy in means of production is achieved through large-scale
operation alone; less transfer of value to the product by constant
capital components arises solely from their joint consumption in the
labour process of many workmen. That is how the instruments of labour
acquire a social character before the labour process itself does so — up
to this time, merely similar processes side-by-side. (P.305 [325])

The economy in the means of production is to be considered here only
insofar as it cheapens commodities and, thus, lowers the value of labour.
The extent to which it alters the ratio of surplus-value to the total
capital advanced (c + v) will not be considered until Book III. This
splitting up is quite in keeping with the spirit of capitalist
production; since it makes the working conditions confront the worker
independently, economy in the means of production appears to be a
distinct operation, which does not concern him and has, therefore, no
connection with the methods by which the productivity of the labour-power
consumed by the capitalist is increased.

The form of labour of many persons, methodically working together and
alongside one another in the same production process, or in related
processes, is called co-operation. (P.306 [325]) (Concours des forces.
Destutt de Tracy.)

The sum-total of the mechanical forces of individual workers differs
substantially from the potential mechanical force developed when many
hands act together at one time in the same undivided operation (lifting
weights, etc.). Co-operation, from the very start, creates a productive
power that is, in itself, a mass power.

Furthermore, in most productive work, mere social contact creates a
spirit of emulation which raises the individual efficiency of each, so
that 12 workers turn out more work in a joint working-day of 144 hours
than 12 workers in 12 distinct working-days, or one worker in 12
successive days. (P.307 [326])

Although many may be doing the same or similar things, the individual
labour of each may still represent a different phase of the labour process
(chains of persons passing something along), whereby co-operation again
saves labour. Likewise, when a building is started from several sides at
once. The combined worker, or collective worker, has hands and eyes
before and behind and is, to a certain degree, omnipresent. (P.308
[327])

In complicated labour processes, co-operation permits the special
processes to be distributed and to be done simultaneously, thus
shortening the labour-time for manufacturing the whole product. (P.308
[327])

In many spheres of production, there are critical periods when many
workers are needed (harvesting, herring catches, etc.). Here, only
co-operation can be of aid. (P.309 [328])

On the one hand, co-operation extends the field of production and, thus,
becomes a necessity for work requiring great spatial continuity of the
working arena (drainage, road-building, dam construction, etc.); on the
other hand, it contracts the arena by concentrating the workers in one
work-place, thus cutting down costs. (P.310 [328-29])

In all these forms, co-operation is the specific productive power of the
combined working-day, social productive power of labour. The latter
arises from co-operation itself. In systematic joint work with others,
the worker sheds his individual limitations and develops the
capabilities of his species.

Now, wage-labourers cannot co-operate unless the same capitalist
employs them simultaneously, pays them and provides them with
instruments of labour. Hence, the scale of co-operation depends upon how
much capital a capitalist has. The requirement that a certain amount of
capital be present to make its owner a capitalist now becomes the
material condition for the conversion of the numerous dispersed and
independent labour processes into one combined social labour process.

In a like manner, capital's command over labour was, up to now, only the
formal result of the relation between capitalist and labourer; now it is
the necessary prerequisite for the labour process itself; the capitalist
represents combination in the labour process. In co-operation, control
of the labour process becomes the function of capital, and, as such, it
acquires specific characteristics. (P.312 [330])

In accordance with the aim of capitalist production — the greatest
possible self-expansion of capital — this control is at the same time
the function of the greatest possible exploitation of a social labour
process, and, hence, involves the inevitable antagonism between
exploiter and exploited. Moreover, control of proper utilization of the
instruments of labour. Finally, the connection between the various
workers' functions lies outside them, in capital, so that their own
unity confronts them as the capitalist's authority, as an outside will.
Capitalist control is, thus, twofold —

1. a social labour process for producing a product;

2. a process of self-expansion of capital —

and in its form despotic. This despotism now evolves its own peculiar
forms: the capitalist, just relieved from actual labour himself, now
hands over immediate supervision to an organized band of officers and
non-coms, who themselves are wage-labourers of capital. In slavery, the
economists count these supervision expenses as faux frais; but in
capitalist production, they bluntly identify control, so far as it
arises from the nature of the social labour process. (Pp.313,314
[332,332])

The leadership of industry becomes the attribute of capital, just as in
feudal times the functions of general and judge were attributes of
landed property. (P.314 [332])

The capitalist buys 100 individual labour-powers, and gets, in return, a
combined labour-power of 100. He does not pay for the combined
labour-power of 100. When the labourers enter the combined labour process,
they already cease to belong to themselves; they are incorporated in
capital. Thus, the social productive power of labour appears as the
productive power immanent in capital. (P.315 [333])

Examples of co-operation among the ancient Egyptians. (P.316 [333-34])

Primitive co-operation at the beginnings of civilization, among hunting
peoples, nomads, or in Indian communities, is based:

(1) on common ownership of the means of production;

(2) on the natural attachment of the individual to the tribe and
the primeval community.

The sporadic co-operation in antiquity, the Middle Ages, and in modern
colonies is based upon direct rule and violence, mostly slavery.
Capitalist co-operation, on the contrary, presupposes the free
wage-labourer. Historically, it appears in direct opposition to peasant
economy and the independent handicrafts (whether in guilds or not), and
in this connection, as a historical form peculiar to, and
distinguishing, the capitalist production process. It is the first
change experienced by the labour process when subjected to capital.
Thus, here at once:

(1) the capitalist mode of production presents itself as a
historical condition for the transformation of the labour
process into a social process;

(2) this social form of the labour process presents itself as a
method of capital labour more profitable by increasing its
productivity. (P.317 [335])

Co-operation, as considered so far, in its elementary form, coincides
with production on a larger scale, but it does not constitute a fixed
form characteristic of a particular epoch, of capitalist production, and
it still exists today, when capital operates on a large scale without
division of labour, or machinery playing an important part. Thus,
although co-operation is the basic form of the whole capitalist
production, its elementary form appears as a particular form alongside
its more developed forms. (P.318 [335])

3. DIVISION OF LABOUR AND MANUFACTURE

Manufacture, the classic form of co-operation based upon division of
labour, prevails from about 1550 to 1770. It arises:

(1) Either through the assemblage of different crafts, each of
which performs a detail operation — e.g., vehicle building —
whereby the individual craftsman very soon loses his ability to
pursue his whole handicraft, on the other hand doing his
detail work so much better; and thus the process is converted
into a division of the whole operation into its component
parts. (Pp.318, 319 [336, 337])

(2) Or many craftsmen doing the same or similar work are united in
the same factory, and the individual processes, instead of
being performed successively by one worker, are gradually
separated and done simultaneously by several workers.
(Needles, etc.) Instead of being the work of one artificer, the
product is now the work of a union of artificers, each of whom
performs only a detail operation. (P.319,320 [337,338])

In both cases, their result is a productive mechanism whose organs are
human beings. The work retains a handicraft nature; each detail process
through which the product goes must be performable by hand; hence, any
really scientific analysis of the production process is excluded. Each
individual worker is completely chained to a detail function because
of its handicraft nature. (P.321 [338-39])

In this way, labour is saved — as compared to the craftsman — and this
is increased still more by transmission to succeeding generations.
Thus, the division of labour in manufacture corresponds to the tendency
of former societies to make a trade hereditary. Castes, guilds. (P.322
[339-40])

Subdivision of tools through adaptation to the various partial
operations — 500 kinds of hammers in Birmingham. (Pp.323-24 [341])

Manufacture, considered from the standpoint of its total mechanism, has
two aspects: either merely mechanical assembly of independent detail
products (watch), or a series of related processes in one workshop
(needle).

In manufacture, each group of workers supplies another with its raw
material. Hence, the basic condition is that each group produces a
given quantum in a given time; thus, a continuity, regularity,
uniformity, and intensity of labour, of quite a different kind are
created than in co-operation proper. Thus, here we have the technical
law of the production process: that labour be socially necessary labour.
(P.329 [345])

The inequality of the time required for the individual operations makes
it necessary that the different groups of workers be of different size
and number (in type founding: four founders and two breakers to one
rubber). Thus, manufacture sets up a mathematically fixed ratio for the
quantitative extent of the several organs of the collective worker, and
production can be expanded only by employing an additional multiple of
the whole group. Moreover, only after a definite level of production
has been reached does it pay to make certain functions independent:
supervision, transporting the products from place to place, etc.
(Pp.329,330 [346])

Combination of various manufactures into a united manufacture also
occurs — but, as yet, it always lacks real technical unity, which
arises only with machinery. (P.331 [347-48])

Machines appeared in manufacture at an early date — sporadically —
grain and stamping mills, etc., but only as something subordinate. The
chief machinery of manufacture is the combined collective worker, who
possesses a much higher degree of perfection than the old individual
craft worker, and in whom all the imperfections, such as are often
necessarily developed in the detail worker, such as perfection. (P.333
[348-49]) Manufacture evolves differences among these detail workers,
skilled and unskilled, and even a complete hierarchy of workers. (P.334
[349])

Division of labour:

(1) general — into agriculture, industry, shipping, etc.;

(2) particular — into species and subspecies;

(3) in detail — in the workshop.

The social division of labour also develops from different starting
points.

(1) Within the family and the tribe the natural division of labour
according to sex and age, plus slavery through violence against
neighbors, which extends it. (P.335 [351-52])

(2) Different communities according to location, climate, level of
culture, turn out different products which are exchanged where
these communities come in contact. (P.49 [87])

Exchange with these foreign communities is, then, one of the chief mens
of breaking off the natural association of the community itself through
further development of the natural division of labour. (P.336 [352])

Division of labour in manufacture, thus, presupposes certain degree of
development of the social division of labour; on the other hand, it
develops the latter further — as in the territorial division of labour.
(Pp.337,338 [352,353])

For all that, there is always this difference between social division of
labour and division of labour in manufacture — that the former produces
commodities, whereas in the latter the detail worker does not produce
commodities. Hence, concentration and organization in the latter,
scattering and disorder of competition in the former. (Pp.339,341
[354,356])

Earlier organization of the Indian communities. (Pp.341,342 [357]) The
guild. (Pp.343-44 [358-59]) Whereas in all these there exists division
of labour in society, the division of labour in manufacture is a specific
creation of the capitalist mode of production.

As in co-operation, the functioning working organism is a form of
existence of capital in manufacture as well. Hence, the productive
power arising from the combination of labours appears to be the
productive power of capital. But, whereas co-operation leaves the
individual's mode of working on the whole unchanged, manufacture
revolutionizes it, cripples the worker; unable to make a product
independently, he is now a mere appendage of the capitalist's workshop.
The intellectual faculties of labour disappear as far as the many are
concerned, to expand in scope for the one. It is a result of the
division of labour in manufacture that the labourers are brought
face-to-face with the intellectual potencies of the labour process as the
property of another and as a ruling power. This process of separation
— which begins as early as co-operation, and develops in manufacture —
is completed in modern industry, which separates science as an
independent productive force from labour and presses it into the service
of capital. (P.346 [361])

Illustrative quotations. (P.347 [362-63])

Manufacture, in one aspect a definite organization of social labour, is,
in another, only a particular method of begetting relative
surplus-value. (P.350 [364]) Historical significance ibidem.

Obstacles to the development of manufacture, even during its classical
period, are limitations of the number of unskilled workers owning to the
predominance of the skilled; limitation of the work of women and
children owing to the men's resistance; the insistence on the laws of
apprenticeship up to recent times, even where superfluous; continual
insubordination of the workers, since the collective worker as yet
possesses no framework independent of the workers; emigration of the
workers. (Pp.353,354 [367,368])

Besides, manufacture itself was unable to revolutionize the whole of
social production, or even merely to dominate it. Its narrow technical
basis came into conflict with the production requirement that it had
created. The machine became necessary, and manufacture had already
learned how to make it. (P.355 [368])

4. MACHINERY AND MODERN INDUSTRY

A. Machinery as Such

The revolution in the mode of production, starting in manufacture with
labour-power, here starts with the instruments of labour.

All fully-developed machinery consists of

(1) the motor mechanism;

(2) the transmitting mechanism;

(3) the tool or working machine. (P.357 [373])

The industrial revolution of the 18th century started with the working
machine. What characterizes it is that the tool — in a more or less
modified form — is transferred from man to the machine, and is worked
by the machine under the operation of man. At the outset, it is
immaterial whether the motive power is human or a natural one. The
specific difference is that man uses only his own organs while the
machine can, within certain limits, employ as many tools as demanded.
(Spinning-wheel, 1 spindle; jenny, 12 to 18 spindles.)

So far, in the spinning-wheel, it is not the treadle, the power, but the
spindle that is affected by the industrial revolution — at the
beginning, man is still motive power and tender at the same time
everywhere. The revolution of the working machine, on the contrary,
first made the perfecting of the steam-engine a necessity, and then also
carried it out. (Pp.359-60 [374-75]; also, pp.361-62 [376-77])

Two kinds of machinery in modern industry: either

(1) co-operation of similar machines (power-loom, envelope-machine,
which combines the work of a number of detail workers through
the combination of various tools), in this case technical
oneness already, through the transmission and the motive power;
or

(2) machine system, combination of different detail machines
(spinning-mill).

The natural basis for this is the division of labour in manufacture.
But, at once, an essential difference. In manufacture, every detail
process had to be adapted to the labourer; this is no longer necessary
here — the labour process can be objectively dissected into its
component parts, which is then left to science, or to experience based
upon it, to be mastered by machines. Here, the quantitative ratio of
the several groups of workers is repeated as the ratio of the several
groups of machines. (Pp.363-66 [378-79])

In both cases, the factory constitutes a big automaton (moreover,
perfected to that shape only recently) and this is its adequate form.
(P.367 [379]) And its most perfect form is the machine-building
automaton, which abolished the handicraft and manufacture foundation of
large-scale industry, and thus first provided the consummate form of
machinery. (P.369-72 [384-86])

Connection between the revolutionizing of the various branches, up to
the means of communication. (P.371 [383])

In manufacture, the combination of workers is subjective. Here, there
is an objective mechanical production organism, which the worker finds
ready at hand, and which can function only through collective labour: the
co-operative character of the labour process is now a technical
necessity. (P.372 [386])

The productive forces arising from co-operation and the division of
labour cost capital nothing; the natural forces: steam, water, also cost
nothing. Neither do the forces discovered by science. But, the latter
can be realized only with suitable apparatus, which can be constructed
only at great expense; likewise, the working machines cost much more
than the old tools. But, these machines have a much longer life and a
much greater field of production than the tool; they, therefore,
transfer a much smaller portion of value, comparatively, to the product
than a tool — and, hence, the gratuitous service performed by the
machine (which does not reappear in the value of the product) is much
greater than in the case of the tool. (Pp.374,375,376 [387,388,390])

Reduction in cost through concentration of production is much greater in
modern industry than in manufacture. (P.375 [388])

The prices of finished goods prove how much the machine has cheapened
production, and that the portion of value due to the instruments of
labour grows relatively, but declines absolutely. The productivity of
the machine is measured by the extent to which it replaces human
labour-power. Examples (pp.377-79 [390-92])

Assumed a steam plough takes the place of 150 workers getting and annual
wage of 3,000 pounds, this annual wage does not represent all the
labour performed by them, but only the necessary labour-power, they also
perform surplus-labour, in addition. If the steam plough costs 3,000
pounds, however, that is the expression in money of all the labour
embodied in it. Thus, if the machine costs as much as the labour-power
it replaces, the human labour embodied in it is always much less than
that which it replaces. (P.380 [392])

As a means of cheapening production, the machine must cost less labour
than it replaces. But, for capital, its value must be less than that of
the labour-power supplanted by it. Therefore, machines that do not pay
in England may pay in America — e.g., for stonebreaking. Hence, as a
result of certain legal restrictions, machines that formerly did not pay
for capital may suddenly make their appearance. (Pp.380-81 [393-94])

B. Appropriation of labour-Power Through Machinery

Since machinery itself contains the power-driving it, muscular power
drops in value. labour of women and children; immediate increase in the
number of wage-labourers through the enrolling of members of the family
who had not previously worked for wages. Thus, the value of the man's
labour-power is spread over the labour-power of the whole family — i.e.,
depreciated. Now, four persons instead of one must perform not only
labour, but also surplus-labour for capital that one family may live.
Thus, the degree of exploitation is increased together with the material
exploitation. (P.383 [395])

Formerly, the sale and purchase of labour-power was a relation between
free persons; now, minors or children are bought; the workers now sells
wife and child — he becomes a slave-dealer. Examples (pp.384-85
[396-97])

Moral degradation. (P.389 [399]) Educational clauses and manufacturers'
resistance to them. (P.390 [399-400])

The entrance of women and children into the factory finally breaks down
the male worker's resistance to the despotism of capital.

If machinery shortens the labour-time necessary to produce an object, in
the hands of capital it becomes the most powerful weapon for lengthening
the working-day far beyond its normal bounds. It creates, on the one
hand, new conditions that enable capital to do so, and, on the other,
new motives for so doing.

Machinery is capable of perpetual motion, and limited only by the
weakness and limitation of the assisting human labour-power. The machine
that is worn out in 7.5 years, working 20 hours daily, absorbs just as
much surplus-labour for the capitalist, but in half the time, as another
that is worn out in 15 years working 10 hours daily. (P.393 [404])

The moral depreciation of the machine — by superseding — is in this
way risked still less. (P.394 [404-05])

Moreover, a large quantity of labour is absorbed without increasing the
investments in buildings and machines; thus, not only does surplus-value
grow with a lengthened working-day, but the outlay required to obtain it
diminishes relatively. This is more important insofar as the proportion
of fixed capital greatly predominated — as is the case in large-scale
industry. (P.395 [405])

During the first period of machinery, when it possesses a monopoly
character, profits are enormous — and, hence, the thirst for more, for
boundless lengthening of the working-day. With the general introduction
of machinery, this monopoly profit vanishes, and the law asserts itself
that surplus-value arises, not from the labour supplanted by the machine,
but from the labour employed by it — that is, from the variable capital.
But, under machine production, the latter is necessarily reduced by the
large outlays. Thus, there is an inherent contradiction in the
capitalist employment of machinery: for a given mass of capital, it
increases one factor of surplus-value, its rate, by reducing the other,
the number of workers. As soon as the value of a machine-made commodity
becomes the regulating social value of that commodity, this
contradiction comes to light, and again drives towards lengthening the
working-day. (P.397 [407])

But, at the same time, machinery — by setting free supplanted workers,
as well as by enrolling women and children — produces a surplus working
population, which must let capital dictate the law to it. Hence,
machinery overthrows all the moral and natural bounds of the
working-day. Hence, the paradox that the most powerful means of
shortening labour-time is the most infallible means of converting the
whole lifetime of the worker and his family into available labour-time
for expanding the value of capital. (P.398 [408])

We have already seen how the social reaction occurs here through the
fixing of the normal working-day; on this basis, there now develops the
intensification of labour. (P.399 [409])

At the beginning, with the speeding-up of the machine, the intensity of
labour increases simultaneously with the lengthening of labour-time. But,
soon the point is reached where the two exclude each other. It is
different, however, when labour-time is restricted. Intensity can only
grow; in 10 hours, as much work can be done as ordinarily in 12 or more,
and now the more intensive working-day counts as raised to a higher
power, and labour is measured not merely by its time, but by its
intensity. (P.400 [409]) Thus, in 5 hours of necessary and 5 hours of
surplus-labour, the same surplus-value can be attained as in 6 hours of
necessary and 6 hours of surplus-labour at lower intensity. (P.400
[410])

How is labour intensified? In manufacture, it has been proved (Note
159, p.401 [411, footernote 1]), pottery, for instance, etc., that mere
shortening of the working-day is sufficient to raise productivity
enormously. In machine labour, this was far more doubtful. But, R.
Gardner's proof. (Pp.401-02 [411-12])

As soon as the shortened working-day becomes law, the machine becomes a
means of squeezing more intensive labour out of the worker, either by
greater speed or fewer hands in relation to machine. Examples.
(Pp.403-07 [412-16]) Evidence that enrichment and expansion of the
factory grew simultaneously therewith. (Pp.407-09 [416-18])

C. The Whole Factory in Its Classical Form

In the factory, the machine takes care of the proper manipulation of the
tool; thus, the qualitative differences of labour developed in
manufacture are here abolished; labour is levelled-out more and more; at
most, difference in age and sex. The division of labour is here a
distribution of workers among the specialized machines. Here, division
is only between principal workers, who are really employed at the tool,
and feeders (this is true only for the self-acting mule, scarcely so for
the throttle, and still less for the corrected power loom), in addition
supervisors, engineers and stockers, mechanics, joiners, etc., a class
only outwardly aggregated to the factory. (Pp.411-12 [420])

The necessity for adapting the worker to the continuous motion of an
automaton requires training from childhood, but by no means that a
worker be any longer chained to one detail function all his life, as in
manufacture. Change of personnel can take place at the same machine
(relay system), and because of the slight effort required to learn, the
workers can be shifted from one kind of machine to another. The work of
the attendants is either very simple or is taken over more and more by
the machine. None the less, at the beginning, manufacture division of
labour persists traditionally, and itself becomes a greater weapon for
exploitation by capital. The worker becomes a lifelong part of a detail
machine. (P.413 [422-23])

All capitalist production, insofar as it is not only a labour process but
also a process for expanding the value of capital, has this in common
that it is not the worker who employs the instruments of labour, but vice
versa — the instruments of labour employ the worker; but only through
machinery does this perversion acquire technical, palpable reality.
Through its conversion into an automaton, the instrument of labour itself
confronts the labourer, during the labour process, as capital, as dead
labour that dominates and sucks dry the living labour-power. Ditto the
intellectual powers of the production process as the power of capital
over labour.... The detail skill of the individual, pumped-out machine
operator vanishes as a tiny secondary thing alongside science, the
tremendous natural forces and social mass labour which are embodied in
the machine system. (Pp.414,415 [423])

Barracks-like discipline of the factory, factory code. (P.416 [423-24])

Material conditions of the factory. (Pp.417-18 [425-27])

D. The Workers' Struggle

Against the Factory System and Machinery

This struggle, existing since the origin of the capitalist relationship,
first occurs here as a revolt against the machine as the material basis
of the capitalist mode of production. Ribbon looms. (P.419 [427-28])
Luddites. (P.420 [428-29]) Only later do the workers distinguish
between the material means of production and the social form of their
exploitation.

In manufacture, the improved division of labour was rather a means of
virtually replacing the labourers. (P.421 [429]) (Digression on
agriculture, displacement p.422 [430].) But, in machinery, the worker is
actually displaced; the machine competes with him directly. Hand-loom
weavers. (P.423 [431]) Likewise India. (P.424 [432]) This effect is
permanent, since machinery continually seizes upon new fields of
production. The self-dependent and estranged form that capitalist
production gives the instrument of labour, as against the labourer, is
developed by machinery into a thorough antagonism — hence, now the
labourer's revolt first against the instrument of labour. (P.424 [432])

Details of the displacement of workers by machines. (Pp.425,426
[433,435]) The machine as a means of breaking the workers' resistance to
capital by displacing them. (Pp.427,428 [435-37])

Liberal economics maintains that the machine, displacing workers, at the
same time releases capital that can employ these workers. On the
contrary, however, every introduction of machines locks up capital,
diminishes its variable and increases its constant components; it can,
therefore, merely restrict capital's capacity for employment. In fact
— and this is what these apologists also mean — in this manner, not
capital is set free; but the means of subsistence of the displaced
workers are set free; the workers are cut off from the means of
subsistence, which the apologist expresses by saying that the machine
liberates means of subsistence for the workers. (Pp.429-30 [438-39])

This further development (very good for Fortnightly [the magazine for
which this synopsis was ostensibly written]) (pp.431.431-32 [439-41]):
the antagonism inseparable from the capitalist employment of machinery
do not exist for the apologists, because they do not arise out of
machinery as such, but out of its capitalist employment. (P.432 [441])

Expansion of production by machines directly and indirectly, and thus
possible increase in number of workers hitherto employed: miners, slaves
in cotton states, etc. On the other hand, displacement of Scotch and
Irish by sheep to suit the requirements of the woollen factories.
(Pp.433,434 [443,444])

Machine production carries the social division of labour much further
than manufacture did. (P.435 [444])

E. Machinery and Surplus-Value

The first result of machinery: increasing surplus-value together with
the mass of products in which it is embodied and on which the capitalist
class and its hangers-on live, thus increasing the number of
capitalists; new luxury wants, together with the means of satisfying
them. Luxury production grows. Likewise, means of communication
(which, however, absorb only little labour-power in the more developed
countries) (evidence p.436 [445]) — finally, the servant class grows,
the modern domestic slaves, whose material is supplied by the releasing
[of workers]. (P.437 [446]) Statistics.

Economic contradictions. (P.437 [446])

Possibility of absolute increase in the mass of labour in one branch of
business owning to machines, and the modalities of this process.
(Pp.439-40 [449])

Enormous elasticity, capacity for sudden extension of large-scale
industry to a high degree of development. (P.441 [450-51]) Reaction
upon the countries producing raw materials. Emigration owing to release
of workers. International division of labour of the industrial and
agricultural countries — periodicity of crises and prosperity. (P.442
[451]) Workers thrown back and forth in this process of expansion.
(P.444 [454])

Historical data on this. (Pp.445-49 [455-59])

Displacement of co-operation and manufacture by machinery (and the
intermediate stages, pp.450-51 [459-60]) Also, displacement of
establishments not run on factory lines, industry branches in the spirit
of large-scale industry — domestic industry, an outside department of
the factory. (P.452 [461]) In home industry and modern manufacture,
exploitation still more shameless than in the factory proper. (P.453
[462]) Examples: London print-shops (p.453 [462-63]), book-binding,
rag-sorting (p.454 [463]), brick-making (p.455 [462-63]). Domestic
industry: lace-making (pp.457-59 [466-68]), straw plaiting (p.460
[468-69]). Conversion into factory production with achievement of
ultimate limit of exploitability: wearing apparel by the sewing-machine
(pp.462-66 [470-74]). Speeding-up of this conversion by extension of
the compulsory Factory Acts, which put an end to the old routine based
upon unlimited exploitation. (P.466 [475]) Examples: pottery (p.467
[475-76]), lucifer matches (pp.468 [476]). Furthermore, effect of the
Factory Acts upon irregular work, owing to the workers' habits, as well
as to seasons and fashions. (P.470 [478]) Overwork alongside idleness,
owing to the seasons, in domestic industry and manufacture. (P.471
[478-79])

Sanitary clauses of the Factory Acts. (P.473 [480-81]) Educational
clauses. (P.475 [482-83])

Discharge of workers merely because of age, as soon as they are grown up
and no longer fitted for the work, and can no longer live on a child's
wages, while at the same time, they have learned no new trade. (P.477
[484-85])

Dissolution of the mysteries, and of the traditional ossification of
manufacture and handicraft, by modern industry, which converts the
production process into a conscious application of natural forces.
Hence, it alone is revolutionary, as against all earlier forms. )P.479
[486-87]) But as a capitalist form, it lets the ossified division of
labour persist for the worker, and since it daily revolutionizes the
former's basis, it ruins the worker. On the other hand, in this very
thing, in this necessary change of activities of one and the same worker
lies the requirement of his being as versatile as possible and the
possibilities of the social revolution. (Pp.480-81 [487-88])

Need for extending factory legislation to all branches not operated on
factory lines. (P.482 ff. [489-ff.]) Act of 1867. (P.485 [493])
Mines, note. (P.486 ff. [495-503])

Concentrating effect of the Factory Acts; generalization of factory
production and thus of the classical form of capitalist production;
accentuation of its inherent contradictions, maturing of the elements
for overturning the old society, and of the elements for forming the
new. (Pp.488-93 [498-503])

Agriculture. Here the release of the workers by machines is even more
acute. Replacement of the peasant by the wage-labourer. Destruction of
rural domestic manufacture. Accentuation of the antithesis between town
and country. Dispersion and weakening of the rural labourers, whereas
the urban workers are reduced down to a minimum. At the same time
robbing the soil: the acme of the capitalist mode of production is the
undermining of the sources of all wealth: the soil and the labourer.
(Pp.493-96 [504-07])

CHAPTER V

FURTHER INVESTIGATION

OF THE PRODUCTION OF SURPLUS-VALUE

[ ... manuscript breaks off here ... ]

Marx/Engels Works

Synopsis to Capital Index