資本論 PART 3: THE PRODUCTION OF ABSOLUTE SURPLUS-VALUE

CHAPTER

7:

THE

LABOUR-PROCESS

AND

THE

PROCESS

OF

PRODUCING

SURPLUS-VALUE

Section

1:

The

Labour-Process

or

the

Production

of

Use-Values

The

capitalist

buys

labour-power

in

order

to

use

it;

and

labour-power

in

use

is

labour

itself.

The

purchaser

of

labour-power

consumes

it

by

setting

the

seller

of

it

to

work.

By

working,

the

latter

becomes

actually,

what

before

he

only

was

potentially,

labour

power

in

action,

a

labourer.

In

order

that

his

labour

may

re-appear

in

a

commodity,

he

must,

before

all

things,

expend

it

on

something

useful,

on

something

capable

of

satisfying

a

want

of

some

sort.

Hence,what

the

capitalist

sets

the

labourer

to

produce,

is

a

particular

use-value,

a

specified

article.

The

fact

that

the

production

of

use-values,

or

goods,

is

carried

on

under

the

control

of

a

capitalist

and

on

his

behalf,

does

not

alter

the

general

character

of

that

production.

We

shall,

therefore,

in

the

first

place,

have

to

consider

the

labour-process

independently

of

the

particular

form

it

assumes

under

given

social

conditions.

Labour

is,

in

the

first

place,

a

process

in

which

both

man

and

Nature

participate,

and

in

which

man

of

his

own

accord

starts,

regulates,

and

controls

the

material

re-actions

between

himself

and

Nature.

He

opposes

himself

to

Nature

as

one

of

her

own

forces,

setting

in

motion

arms

and

legs,

head

and

hands,

the

natural

forces

of

his

body,

in

order

to

appropriate

Nature's

productions

in

a

form

adapted

to

his

own

wants.By

thus

acting

on

the

external

world

and

changing

it,

he

at

the

same

time

changes

his

own

nature.

He

develops

his

slumbering

powers

and

compels

them

to

act

in

obedience

to

his

sway.

We

are

not

now

dealing

with

those

primitive

instinctive

forms

of

labour

that

remind

us

of

the

mere

animal.

An

immeasurable

interval

of

time

separates

the

state

of

things

in

which

a

man

brings

his

labour-power

to

market

for

sale

as

a

commodity,

from

that

state

in

which

human

labour

was

still

in

its

first

instinctive

stage.

We

pre-suppose

labour

in

a

form

that

stamps

it

as

exclusively

human.A

spider

conducts

operations

that

resemble

those

of

a

weaver,

and

a

bee

puts

to

shame

many

an

architect

in

the

construction

of

her

cells.

But

what

distinguishes

the

worst

architect

from

the

best

of

bees

is

this,

that

the

architect

raises

his

structure

in

imagination

before

he

erects

it

in

reality.

At

the

end

of

every

labour

process,

we

get

a

result

that

already

existed

in

the

imagination

of

the

labourer

at

its

commencement.He

not

only

effects

a

change

of

form

in

the

material

on

which

he

works,

but

he

also

realises

a

purpose

of

his

own

that

gives

the

law

to

his

modus

operandi,and

to

which

he

must

subordinate

his

will.

And

this

subordination

is

no

mere

momentary

act.

Besides

the

exertion

of

the

bodily

organs,

the

process

demands

that,

during

the

whole

operation,

the

workman's

will

be

steadily

in

consonance

with

his

purpose.

This

means

close

attention.

The

less

he

is

attracted

by

the

nature

of

the

work,

and

the

mode

in

which

it

is

carried

on,

and

the

less,

therefore,

he

enjoys

it

as

something

which

gives

play

to

his

bodily

and

mental

powers,

the

more

close

his

attention

is

forced

to

be.

The

elementary

factors

of

the

labour-process

are

1,the

personal

activity

of

man,

i.e.,

work

itself,

2,

the

subject

of

that

work,

and

3,

its

instruments.

The

soil

(and

this,

economically

speaking,

includes

water)

in

the

virgin

state

in

which

it

supplies

1man

with

necessaries

or

the

means

of

subsistence

ready

to

hand,

exists

independently

of

him,

and

is

the

universal

subject

of

human

labour.

All

those

things

which

labour

merely

separates

from

immediate

connexion

with

their

environment,

are

subjects

of

labour

spontaneously

provided

by

Nature.

Such

are

fish

which

we

catch

and

take

from

their

element,

water,

timber

which

we

fell

in

the

virgin

forest,

and

ores

which

we

extract

from

their

veins.

If,

on

the

other

hand,

the

subject

of

labour

has,so

to

say,

been

filtered

through

previous

labour,

we

call

it

raw

material;

such

is

ore

already

extracted

and

ready

for

washing.

All

raw

material

is

the

subject

of

labour,

but

not

every

subject

of

labour

is

raw

material:it

can

only

become

so,

after

it

has

undergone

some

alteration

by

means

of

labour.

An

instrument

of

labour

is

a

thing,

or

a

complex

of

things,

which

the

labourer

interposes

between

himself

and

the

subject

of

his

labour,

and

which

serves

as

the

conductor

of

his

activity.

He

makes

use

of

the

mechanical,

physical,

and

chemical

properties

of

some

substances

in

order

to

make

other

substances

subservient

to

his

aims.2Leaving

out

of

consideration

such

ready-made

means

of

subsistence

as

fruits,in

gathering

which

a

man's

own

limbs

serve

as

the

instruments

of

his

labour,

the

first

thing

of

which

the

labourer

possesses

himself

is

not

the

subject

of

labour

but

its

instrument.

Thus

Nature

becomes

one

of

the

organs

of

his

activity,

one

that

he

annexes

to

his

own

bodily

organs,

adding

stature

to

himself

in

spite

of

the

Bible.

As

the

earth

is

his

original

larder,

so

too

it

is

his

original

tool

house.

It

supplies

him,

for

instance,with

stones

for

throwing,

grinding,

pressing,

cutting,&c.

The

earth

itself

is

an

instrument

of

labour,

but

when

used

as

such

in

agriculture

implies

a

whole

series

of

other

instruments

and

a

comparatively

high

development

of

labour.3No

sooner

does

labour

undergo

the

least

development,

than

it

requires

specially

prepared

instruments.

Thus

in

the

oldest

caves

we

find

stone

implements

and

weapons.

In

the

earliest

period

of

human

history

domesticated

animals,i.e.,

animals

which

have

been

bred

for

the

purpose,and

have

undergone

modifications

by

means

of

labour,play

the

chief

part

as

instruments

of

labour

along

with

specially

prepared

stones,

wood,

bones,

and

shells.4The

use

and

fabrication

of

instruments

of

labour,although

existing

in

the

germ

among

certain

species

of

animals,

is

specifically

characteristic

of

the

human

labour-process,

and

Franklin

therefore

defines

man

as

a

tool-making

animal.

Relics

of

bygone

instruments

of

labour

possess

the

same

importance

for

the

investigation

of

extinct

economic

forms

of

society,

as

do

fossil

bones

for

the

determination

of

extinct

species

of

animals.

It

is

not

the

articles

made,

but

how

they

are

made,

and

by

what

instruments,

that

enables

us

to

distinguish

different

economic

epochs.

5Instruments

of

labour

not

only

supply

a

standard

of

the

degree

of

development

to

which

human

labour

has

attained,

but

they

are

also

indicators

of

the

social

conditions

under

which

that

labour

is

carried

on.

Among

the

instruments

of

labour,

those

of

a

mechanical

nature,

which,

taken

as

a

whole,

we

may

call

the

bone

and

muscles

of

production,

offer

much

more

decided

characteristics

of

a

given

epoch

of

production,

than

those

which,

like

pipes,

tubs,

baskets,

jars,

&c.,

serve

only

to

hold

the

materials

for

labour,

which

latter

class,

we

may

in

a

general

way,

call

the

vascular

system

of

production.The

latter

first

begins

to

play

an

important

part

in

the

chemical

industries.

In

a

wider

sense

we

may

include

among

the

instruments

of

labour,

in

addition

to

those

things

that

are

used

for

directly

transferring

labour

to

its

subject,and

which

therefore,

in

one

way

or

another,

serve

as

conductors

of

activity,

all

such

objects

as

are

necessary

for

carrying

on

the

labour-process.

These

do

not

enter

directly

into

the

process,

but

without

them

it

is

either

impossible

for

it

to

take

place

at

all,

or

possible

only

to

a

partial

extent.

Once

more

we

find

the

earth

to

be

a

universal

instrument

of

this

sort,

for

it

furnishes

a

locus

standi

to

the

labourer

and

a

field

of

employment

for

his

activity.

Among

instruments

that

are

the

result

of

previous

labour

and

also

belong

to

this

class,

we

find

workshops,

canals,

roads,

and

so

forth.

In

the

labour-process,

therefore,

man's

activity,with

the

help

of

the

instruments

of

labour,

effects

an

alteration,

designed

from

the

commencement,

in

the

material

worked

upon.

The

process

disappears

in

the

product,

the

latter

is

a

use-value,

Nature's

material

adapted

by

a

change

of

form

to

the

wants

of

man.Labour

has

incorporated

itself

with

its

subject:

the

former

is

materialised,

the

latter

transformed.

That

which

in

the

labourer

appeared

as

movement,

now

appears

in

the

product

as

a

fixed

quality

without

motion.

The

blacksmith

forges

and

the

product

is

a

forging.

If

we

examine

the

whole

process

from

the

point

of

view

of

its

result,

the

product,

it

is

plain

that

both

the

instruments

and

the

subject

of

labour,

are

means

of

production,6and

that

the

labour

itself

is

productive

labour.7

Though

a

use-value,

in

the

form

of

a

product,issues

from

the

labour-process,

yet

other

use-values,products

of

previous

labour,

enter

into

it

as

means

of

production.

The

same

use-value

is

both

the

product

of

a

previous

process,

and

a

means

of

production

in

a

later

process.

Products

are

therefore

not

only

results,but

also

essential

conditions

of

labour.

With

the

exception

of

the

extractive

industries,

in

which

the

material

for

labour

is

provided

immediately

by

Nature,

such

as

mining,

hunting,

fishing,

and

agriculture

(so

far

as

the

latter

is

confined

to

breaking

up

virgin

soil),

all

branches

of

industry

manipulate

raw

material,

objects

already

filtered

through

labour,

already

products

of

labour.

Such

is

seed

in

agriculture.

Animals

and

plants,

which

we

are

accustomed

to

consider

as

products

of

Nature,

are

in

their

present

form,

not

only

products

of,

say

last

year's

labour,

but

the

result

of

a

gradual

transformation,continued

through

many

generations,

under

man's

superintendence,

and

by

means

of

his

labour.

But

in

the

great

majority

of

cases,

instruments

of

labour

show

even

to

the

most

superficial

observer,

traces

of

the

labour

of

past

ages.

Raw

material

may

either

form

the

principal

substance

of

a

product,

or

it

may

enter

into

its

formation

only

as

an

accessory.

An

accessory

may

be

consumed

by

the

instruments

of

labour,

as

coal

under

a

boiler,

oil

by

a

wheel,

hay

by

draft-horses,

or

it

may

be

mixed

with

the

raw

material

in

order

to

produce

some

modification

thereof,

as

chlorine

into

unbleached

linen,

coal

with

iron,

dye-stuff

with

wool,

or

again,

it

may

help

to

carry

on

the

work

itself,

as

in

the

case

of

the

materials

used

for

heating

and

lighting

workshops.The

distinction

between

principal

substance

and

accessory

vanishes

in

the

true

chemical

industries,because

there

none

of

the

raw

material

re-appears,in

its

original

composition,

in

the

substance

of

the

product.8

Every

object

possesses

various

properties,

and

is

thus

capable

of

being

applied

to

different

uses.

One

and

the

same

product

may

therefore

serve

as

raw

material

in

very

different

processes.

Corn,

for

example,

is

a

raw

material

for

millers,

starch-manufacturers,

distillers,and

cattlebreeders.

It

also

enters

as

raw

material

into

its

own

production

in

the

shape

of

seed;

coal,

too,is

at

the

same

time

the

product

of,

and

a

means

of

production

in,

coal-mining.

Again,

a

particular

product

may

be

used

in

one

and

the

same

process,

both

as

an

instrument

of

labour

and

as

raw

material.

Take,

for

instance,

the

fattening

of

cattle,

where

the

animal

is

the

raw

material,

and

at

the

same

time

an

instrument

for

the

production

of

manure.

A

product,

though

ready

for

immediate

consumption,may

yet

serve

as

raw

material

for

a

further

product,

as

grapes

when

they

become

the

raw

material

for

wine.On

the

other

hand,

labour

may

give

us

its

product

in

such

a

form,

that

we

can

use

it

only

as

raw

material,as

is

the

case

with

cotton,

thread,

and

yarn.

Such

a

raw

material,

though

itself

a

product,

may

have

to

go

through

a

whole

series

of

different

processes:

in

each

of

these

in

turn,

it

serves,

with

constantly

varying

form,

as

raw

material,

until

the

last

process

of

the

series

leaves

it

a

perfect

product,

ready

for

individual

consumption,

or

for

use

as

an

instrument

of

labour.

Hence

we

see,

that

whether

a

use-value

is

to

be

regarded

as

raw

material,

as

instrument

of

labour,

or

as

product,

this

is

determined

entirely

by

its

function

in

the

labour-process,

by

the

position

it

there

occupies:

as

this

varies,

so

does

its

character.

Whenever

therefore

a

product

enters

as

a

means

of

production

into

a

new

labour-process,

it

thereby

loses

its

character

of

product,

and

becomes

a

mere

factor

in

the

process.

A

spinner

treats

spindles

only

as

implements

for

spinning,

and

flax

only

as

the

material

that

he

spins.

Of

course

it

is

impossible

to

spin

without

material

and

spindles;

and

therefore

the

existence

of

these

things

as

products,

at

the

commencement

of

the

spinning

operation,

must

be

presumed:

but

in

the

process

itself,

the

fact

that

they

are

products

of

previous

labour,

is

a

matter

of

utter

indifference;just

as

in

the

digestive

process,

it

is

of

no

importance

whatever,

that

bread

is

the

produce

of

the

previous

labour

of

the

farmer,

the

miller,

and

the

baker.

On

the

contrary,

it

is

generally

by

their

imperfections

as

products,

that

the

means

of

production

in

any

process

assert

themselves

in

their

character

of

products.

A

blunt

knife

or

weak

thread

forcibly

remind

us

of

Mr.A.,

the

cutler,

or

Mr.

B.,

the

spinner.

In

the

finished

product

the

labour

by

means

of

which

it

has

acquired

its

useful

qualities

is

not

palpable,

has

apparently

vanished.

A

machine

which

does

not

serve

the

purposes

of

labour,

is

useless.

In

addition,

it

falls

a

prey

to

the

destructive

influence

of

natural

forces.

Iron

rusts

and

wood

rots.

Yarn

with

which

we

neither

weave

nor

knit,

is

cotton

wasted.

Living

labour

must

seize

upon

these

things

and

rouse

them

from

their

death-sleep,change

them

from

mere

possible

use-values

into

real

and

effective

ones.

Bathed

in

the

fire

of

labour,appropriated

as

part

and

parcel

of

labour's

organism,and,

as

it

were,

made

alive

for

the

performance

of

their

functions

in

the

process,

they

are

in

truth

consumed,

but

consumed

with

a

purpose,

as

elementary

constituents

of

new

use-values,

of

new

products,

ever

ready

as

means

of

subsistence

for

individual

consumption,

or

as

means

of

production

for

some

new

labour-process.

If

then,

on

the

one

hand,

finished

products

are

not

only

results,

but

also

necessary

conditions,

of

the

labour-process,

on

the

other

hand,

their

assumption

into

that

process,

their

contact

with

living

labour,

is

the

sole

means

by

which

they

can

be

made

to

retain

their

character

of

use-values,

and

be

utilised.

Labour

uses

up

its

material

factors,

its

subject

and

its

instruments,

consumes

them,

and

is

therefore

a

process

of

consumption.

Such

productive

consumption

is

distinguished

from

individual

consumption

by

this,

that

the

latter

uses

up

products,

as

means

of

subsistence

for

the

living

individual;

the

former,

as

means

whereby

alone,

labour,

the

labour-power

of

the

living

individual,

is

enabled

to

act.

The

product,therefore,

of

individual

consumption,

is

the

consumer

himself;

the

result

of

productive

consumption,

is

a

product

distinct

from

the

consumer.

In

so

far

then,

as

its

instruments

and

subjects

are

themselves

products,

labour

consumes

products

in

order

to

create

products,

or

in

other

words,consumes

one

set

of

products

by

turning

them

into

means

of

production

for

another

set.

But,

just

as

in

the

beginning,

the

only

participators

in

the

labour

process

were

man

and

the

earth,

which

latter

exists

independently

of

man,

so

even

now

we

still

employ

in

the

process

many

means

of

production,

provided

directly

by

Nature,

that

do

not

represent

any

combination

of

natural

substances

with

human

labour.

The

labour-process,

resolved

as

above

into

its

simple

elementary

factors,

is

human

action

with

a

view

to

the

production

of

use-values,

appropriation

of

natural

substances

to

human

requirements;

it

is

the

necessary

condition

for

effecting

exchange

of

matter

between

man

and

Nature;

it

is

the

everlasting

Nature

imposed

condition

of

human

existence,

and

therefore

is

independent

of

every

social

phase

of

that

existence,or

rather,

is

common

to

every

such

phase.

It

was,therefore,

not

necessary

to

represent

our

labourer

in

connexion

with

other

labourers;

man

and

his

labour

on

one

side,

Nature

and

its

materials

on

the

other,sufficed.

As

the

taste

of

the

porridge

does

not

tell

you

who

grew

the

oats,

no

more

does

this

simple

process

tell

you

of

itself

what

are

the

social

conditions

under

which

it

is

taking

place,

whether

under

the

slave

owner's

brutal

lash,

or

the

anxious

eye

of

the

capitalist,whether

Cincinnatus

carries

it

on

in

tilling

his

modest

farm

or

a

savage

in

killing

wild

animals

with

stones.9

Let

us

now

return

to

our

would-be

capitalist.

We

left

him

just

after

he

had

purchased,

in

the

open

market,all

the

necessary

factors

of

the

labour

process;

its

objective

factors,

the

means

of

production,

as

well

as

its

subjective

factor,

labour-power.

With

the

keen

eye

of

an

expert,

he

has

selected

the

means

of

production

and

the

kind

of

labour-power

best

adapted

to

his

particular

trade,

be

it

spinning,

bootmaking,

or

any

other

kind.He

then

proceeds

to

consume

the

commodity,

the

labour-power

that

he

has

just

bought,

by

causing

the

labourer,

the

impersonation

of

that

labour-power,

to

consume

the

means

of

production

by

his

labour.

The

general

character

of

the

labour-process

is

evidently

not

changed

by

the

fact,

that

the

labourer

works

for

the

capitalist

instead

of

for

himself;

moreover,the

particular

methods

and

operations

employed

in

bootmaking

or

spinning

are

not

immediately

changed

by

the

intervention

of

the

capitalist.

He

must

begin

by

taking

the

labour-power

as

he

finds

it

in

the

market,and

consequently

be

satisfied

with

labour

of

such

a

kind

as

would

be

found

in

the

period

immediately

preceding

the

rise

of

capitalists.

Changes

in

the

methods

of

production

by

the

subordination

of

labour

to

capital,

can

take

place

only

at

a

later

period,

and

therefore

will

have

to

be

treated

of

in

a

later

chapter.

The

labour-process,

turned

into

the

process

by

which

the

capitalist

consumes

labour-power,

exhibits

two

characteristic

phenomena.

First,

the

labourer

works

under

the

control

of

the

capitalist

to

whom

his

labour

belongs;

the

capitalist

taking

good

care

that

the

work

is

done

in

a

proper

manner,

and

that

the

means

of

production

are

used

with

intelligence,

so

that

there

is

no

unnecessary

waste

of

raw

material,

and

no

wear

and

tear

of

the

implements

beyond

what

is

necessarily

caused

by

the

work.

Secondly,

the

product

is

the

property

of

the

capitalist

and

not

that

of

the

labourer,

its

immediate

producer.Suppose

that

a

capitalist

pays

for

a

day's

labour-power

at

its

value;

then

the

right

to

use

that

power

for

a

day

belongs

to

him,

just

as

much

as

the

right

to

use

any

other

commodity,

such

as

a

horse

that

he

has

hired

for

the

day.

To

the

purchaser

of

a

commodity

belongs

its

use,

and

the

seller

of

labour-power,

by

giving

his

labour,

does

no

more,

in

reality,

than

part

with

the

use-value

that

he

has

sold.

From

the

instant

he

steps

into

the

workshop,

the

use-value

of

his

labour-power,and

therefore

also

its

use,

which

is

labour,

belongs

to

the

capitalist.

By

the

purchase

of

labour-power,

the

capitalist

incorporates

labour,

as

a

living

ferment,

with

the

lifeless

constituents

of

the

product.

From

his

point

of

view,

the

labour-process

is

nothing

more

than

the

consumption

of

the

commodity

purchased,

i.

e.,

of

labour-power;

but

this

consumption

cannot

be

effected

except

by

supplying

the

labour-power

with

the

means

of

production.

The

labour-process

is

a

process

between

things

that

the

capitalist

has

purchased,

things

that

have

become

his

property.

The

product

of

this

process

belongs,

therefore,

to

him,

just

as

much

as

does

the

wine

which

is

the

product

of

a

process

of

fermentation

completed

in

his

cellar.10

Section

2:

The

Production

of

Surplus-Value

The

product

appropriated

by

the

capitalist

is

a

use

value,

as

yarn,

for

example,

or

boots.

But,

although

boots

are,

in

one

sense,

the

basis

of

all

social

progress,and

our

capitalist

is

a

decided

\"progressist,\"

yet

he

does

not

manufacture

boots

for

their

own

sake.

Use

value

is,

by

no

means,

the

thing

\"qu'on

aime

pour

lui-m錨me\"

in

the

production

of

commodities.

Use

values

are

only

produced

by

capitalists,

because,and

in

so

far

as,

they

are

the

material

substratum,

the

depositories

of

exchange-value.

Our

capitalist

has

two

objects

in

view:

in

the

first

place,

he

wants

to

produce

a

use-value

that

has

a

value

in

exchange,

that

is

to

say,

an

article

destined

to

be

sold,

a

commodity;

and

secondly,

he

desires

to

produce

a

commodity

whose

value

shall

be

greater

than

the

sum

of

the

values

of

the

commodities

used

in

its

production,

that

is,

of

the

means

of

production

and

the

labour-power,

that

he

purchased

with

his

good

money

in

the

open

market.His

aim

is

to

produce

not

only

a

use-value,

but

a

commodity

also;

not

only

use-value,

but

value;

not

only

value,

but

at

the

same

time

surplus-value.

It

must

be

borne

in

mind,

that

we

are

now

dealing

with

the

production

of

commodities,

and

that,

up

to

this

point,

we

have

only

considered

one

aspect

of

the

process.

Just

as

commodities

are,

at

the

same

time,

use-values

and

values,

so

the

process

of

producing

them

must

be

a

labour-process,

and

at

the

same

time,

a

process

of

creating

value.11

Let

us

now

examine

production

as

a

creation

of

value.

We

know

that

the

value

of

each

commodity

is

determined

by

the

quantity

of

labour

expended

on

and

materialised

in

it,

by

the

working-time

necessary,under

given

social

conditions,

for

its

production.

This

rule

also

holds

good

in

the

case

of

the

product

that

accrued

to

our

capitalist,

as

the

result

of

the

labour

process

carried

on

for

him.

Assuming

this

product

to

be

10

lbs.

of

yarn,

our

first

step

is

to

calculate

the

quantity

of

labour

realised

in

it.

For

spinning

the

yarn,

raw

material

is

required;suppose

in

this

case

10

lbs.

of

cotton.

We

have

no

need

at

present

to

investigate

the

value

of

this

cotton,for

our

capitalist

has,

we

will

assume,

bought

it

at

its

full

value,

say

of

ten

shillings.

In

this

price

the

labour

required

for

the

production

of

the

cotton

is

already

expressed

in

terms

of

the

average

labour

of

society.We

will

further

assume

that

the

wear

and

tear

of

the

spindle,

which,

for

our

present

purpose,

may

represent

all

other

instruments

of

labour

employed,

amounts

to

the

value

of

2s.

If,

then,

twenty-four

hours'

labour,

or

two

working

days,

are

required

to

produce

the

quantity

of

gold

represented

by

twelve

shillings,

we

have

here,to

begin

with,

two

days'

labour

already

incorporated

in

the

yarn.

We

must

not

let

ourselves

be

misled

by

the

circumstance

that

the

cotton

has

taken

a

new

shape

while

the

substance

of

the

spindle

has

to

a

certain

extent

been

used

up.

By

the

general

law

of

value,

if

the

value

of

40

lbs.

of

yarn

=

the

value

of

40

lbs.

of

cotton

the

value

of

a

whole

spindle,

i.

e.,

if

the

same

working-time

is

required

to

produce

the

commodities

on

either

side

of

this

equation,

then

10

lbs.

of

yarn

are

an

equivalent

for

10

lbs.

of

cotton,

together

with

onefourth

of

a

spindle.

In

the

case

we

are

considering

the

same

working-time

is

materialised

in

the

10

lbs.of

yarn

on

the

one

hand,

and

in

the

10

lbs.

of

cotton

and

the

fraction

of

a

spindle

on

the

other.

Therefore,whether

value

appears

in

cotton,

in

a

spindle,

or

in

yarn,

makes

no

difference

in

the

amount

of

that

value.The

spindle

and

cotton,

instead

of

resting

quietly

side

by

side,

join

together

in

the

process,

their

forms

are

altered,

and

they

are

turned

into

yarn;

but

their

value

is

no

more

affected

by

this

fact

than

it

would

be

if

they

had

been

simply

exchanged

for

their

equivalent

in

yarn.

The

labour

required

for

the

production

of

the

cotton,

the

raw

material

of

the

yarn,

is

part

of

the

labour

necessary

to

produce

the

yarn,

and

is

therefore

contained

in

the

yarn.

The

same

applies

to

the

labour

embodied

in

the

spindle,

without

whose

wear

and

tear

the

cotton

could

not

be

spun.

Hence,

in

determining

the

value

of

the

yarn,

or

the

labour-time

required

for

its

production,

all

the

special

processes

carried

on

at

various

times

and

in

different

places,

which

were

necessary,

first

to

produce

the

cotton

and

the

wasted

portion

of

the

spindle,

and

then

with

the

cotton

and

spindle

to

spin

the

yarn,

may

together

be

looked

on

as

different

and

successive

phases

of

one

and

the

same

process.

The

whole

of

the

labour

in

the

yarn

is

past

labour;

and

it

is

a

matter

of

no

importance

that

the

operations

necessary

for

the

production

of

its

constituent

elements

were

carried

on

at

times

which,

referred

to

the

present,are

more

remote

than

the

final

operation

of

spinning.If

a

definite

quantity

of

labour,

say

thirty

days,

is

requisite

to

build

a

house,

the

total

amount

of

labour

incorporated

in

it

is

not

altered

by

the

fact

that

the

work

of

the

last

day

is

done

twenty-nine

days

later

than

that

of

the

first.

Therefore

the

labour

contained

in

the

raw

material

and

the

instruments

of

labour

can

be

treated

just

as

if

it

were

labour

expended

in

an

earlier

stage

of

the

spinning

process,

before

the

labour

of

actual

spinning

commenced.

The

values

of

the

means

of

production,

i.

e.,

the

cotton

and

the

spindle,

which

values

are

expressed

in

the

price

of

twelve

shillings,

are

therefore

constituent

parts

of

the

value

of

the

yarn,

or,

in

other

words,

of

the

value

of

the

product.

Two

conditions

must

nevertheless

be

fulfilled.

First,the

cotton

and

spindle

must

concur

in

the

production

of

a

use-value;

they

must

in

the

present

case

become

yarn.

Value

is

independent

of

the

particular

use-value

by

which

it

is

borne,

but

it

must

be

embodied

in

a

use-value

of

some

kind.

Secondly,

the

time

occupied

in

the

labour

of

production

must

not

exceed

the

time

really

necessary

under

the

given

social

conditions

of

the

case.

Therefore,

if

no

more

than

1

lb.

of

cotton

be

requisite

to

spin

1

lb.

of

yarn,

care

must

be

taken

that

no

more

than

this

weight

of

cotton

is

consumed

in

the

production

of

1

lb.

of

yarn;

and

similarly

with

regard

to

the

spindle.

Though

the

capitalist

have

a

hobby,and

use

a

gold

instead

of

a

steel

spindle,

yet

the

only

labour

that

counts

for

anything

in

the

value

of

the

yarn

is

that

which

would

be

required

to

produce

a

steel

spindle,

because

no

more

is

necessary

under

the

given

social

conditions.

We

now

know

what

portion

of

the

value

of

the

yarn

is

owing

to

the

cotton

and

the

spindle.

It

amounts

to

twelve

shillings

or

the

value

of

two

days'

work.

The

next

point

for

our

consideration

is,

what

portion

of

the

value

of

the

yarn

is

added

to

the

cotton

by

the

labour

of

the

spinner.

We

have

now

to

consider

this

labour

under

a

very

different

aspect

from

that

which

it

had

during

the

labour-process;

there,

we

viewed

it

solely

as

that

particular

kind

of

human

activity

which

changes

cotton

into

yarn;

there,

the

more

the

labour

was

suited

to

the

work,

the

better

the

yarn,

other

circumstances

remaining

the

same.

The

labour

of

the

spinner

was

then

viewed

as

specifically

different

from

other

kinds

of

productive

labour,

different

on

the

one

hand

in

its

special

aim,

viz.,

spinning,

different,

on

the

other

hand,

in

the

special

character

of

its

operations,

in

the

special

nature

of

its

means

of

production

and

in

the

special

use-value

of

its

product.

For

the

operation

of

spinning,

cotton

and

spindles

are

a

necessity,

but

for

making

rifled

cannon

they

would

be

of

no

use

whatever.

Here,

on

the

contrary,

where

we

consider

the

labour

of

the

spinner

only

so

far

as

it

is

value-creating,i.e.,

a

source

of

value,

his

labour

differs

in

no

respect

from

the

labour

of

the

man

who

bores

cannon,

or(what

here

more

nearly

concerns

us),

from

the

labour

of

the

cotton-planter

and

spindle-maker

incorporated

in

the

means

of

production.

It

is

solely

by

reason

of

this

identity,

that

cotton

planting,

spindle

making

and

spinning,

are

capable

of

forming

the

component

parts

differing

only

quantitatively

from

each

other,

of

one

whole,

namely,

the

value

of

the

yarn.

Here,

we

have

nothing

more

to

do

with

the

quality,

the

nature

and

the

specific

character

of

the

labour,

but

merely

with

its

quantity.

And

this

simply

requires

to

be

calculated.

We

proceed

upon

the

assumption

that

spinning

is

simple,unskilled

labour,

the

average

labour

of

a

given

state

of

society.

Hereafter

we

shall

see

that

the

contrary

assumption

would

make

no

difference.