- 歡迎訪問欣可小說小說網
-
桌麵快捷
-
加入收藏
-
設為首頁
桌麵快捷
加入收藏
設為首頁
欣可小說 >
其他 >
資本論 >
CHAPTER 17:
CHANGES
OF
MAGNITUDE
IN
THE
PRICE
OF
LABOUR-POWER
AND
IN
SURPLUS-VALUE
The
value
of
labour-power
is
determined
by
the
value
of
the
necessaries
of
life
habitually
required
by
the
average
labourer.
The
quantity
of
these
necessaries
is
known
at
any
given
epoch
of
a
given
society,
and
can
therefore
be
treated
as
a
constant
magnitude.
What
changes,
is
the
value
of
this
quantity.There
are,
besides,
two
other
factors
that
enter
into
the
determination
of
the
value
of
labour-power.
One,
the
expenses
of
developing
that
power,
which
expenses
vary
with
the
mode
of
production;
the
other,
its
natural
diversity,
the
difference
between
the
labour
power
of
men
and
women,
of
children
and
adults.
The
employment
of
these
different
sorts
of
labour-power,an
employment
which
is,
in
its
turn,
made
necessary
by
the
mode
of
production,
makes
a
great
difference
in
the
cost
of
maintaining
the
family
of
the
labourer,and
in
the
value
of
the
labour-power
of
the
adult
male.
Both
these
factors,
however,
are
excluded
in
the
following
investigation.1
I
assume
(1)
that
commodities
are
sold
at
their
value;(2)
that
the
price
of
labour-power
rises
occasionally
above
its
value,
but
never
sinks
below
it.
On
this
assumption
we
have
seen
that
the
relative
magnitudes
of
surplus-value
and
of
price
of
labour
power
are
determined
by
three
circumstances;
(1)
the
length
of
the
working
day,
or
the
extensive
magnitude
of
labour;
(2)
the
normal
intensity
of
labour,
its
intensive
magnitude,
whereby
a
given
quantity
of
labour
is
expended
in
a
given
time;
(3)
the
productiveness
of
labour,
whereby
the
same
quantum
of
labour
yields,
in
a
given
time,
a
greater
or
less
quantum
of
product,
dependent
on
the
degree
of
development
in
the
conditions
of
production.
Very
different
combinations
are
clearly
possible,
according
as
one
of
the
three
factors
is
constant
and
two
variable,or
two
constant
and
one
variable,
or
lastly,
all
three
simultaneously
variable.
And
the
number
of
these
combinations
is
augmented
by
the
fact
that,
when
these
factors
simultaneously
vary,
the
amount
and
direction
of
their
respective
variations
may
differ.In
what
follows
the
chief
combinations
alone
are
considered.
Section
1:
Length
of
the
Working
day
and
Intensity
of
Labour
Constant.Productiveness
of
Labour
Variable
On
these
assumptions
the
value
of
labour-power,and
the
magnitude
of
surplus-value,
are
determined
by
three
laws.
(1.)
A
working
day
of
given
length
always
creates
the
same
amount
of
value,
no
matter
how
the
productiveness
of
labour,
and,
with
it,
the
mass
of
the
product,
and
the
price
of
each
single
commodity
produced,
may
vary.
If
the
value
created
by
a
working
day
of
12
hours
be,
say,
six
shillings,
then,
although
the
mass
of
the
articles
produced
varies
with
the
productiveness
of
labour,
the
only
result
is
that
the
value
represented
by
six
shillings
is
spread
over
a
greater
or
less
number
of
articles.
(2.)
Surplus-value
and
the
value
of
labour-power
vary
in
opposite
directions.
A
variation
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
its
increase
or
diminution,causes
a
variation
in
the
opposite
direction
in
the
value
of
labour-power,
and
in
the
same
direction
in
surplus
value.
The
value
created
by
a
working
day
of
12
hours
is
a
constant
quantity,
say,
six
shillings.
This
constant
quantity
is
the
sum
of
the
surplus-value
plus
the
value
of
the
labour-power,
which
latter
value
the
labourer
replaces
by
an
equivalent.
It
is
self-evident,
that
if
a
constant
quantity
consists
of
two
parts,
neither
of
them
can
increase
without
the
other
diminishing.
Let
the
two
parts
at
starting
be
equal;
3
shillings
value
of
labour-power,
3
shillings
surplus-value.
Then
the
value
of
the
labour-power
cannot
rise
from
three
shillings
to
four,
without
the
surplus-value
falling
from
three
shillings
to
two;
and
the
surplus-value
cannot
rise
from
three
shillings
to
four,
without
the
value
of
labour-power
falling
from
three
shillings
to
two.
Under
these
circumstances,
therefore,
no
change
can
take
place
in
the
absolute
magnitude,
either
of
the
surplus-value,
or
of
the
value
of
labour-power,
without
a
simultaneous
change
in
their
relative
magnitudes,i.e.,
relatively
to
each
other.
It
is
impossible
for
them
to
rise
or
fall
simultaneously.
Further,
the
value
of
labour-power
cannot
fall,
and
consequently
surplus-value
cannot
rise,
without
a
rise
in
the
productiveness
of
labour.
For
instance,
in
the
above
case,
the
value
of
the
labour-power
cannot
sink
from
three
shillings
to
two,
unless
an
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour
makes
it
possible
to
produce
in
4
hours
the
same
quantity
of
necessaries
as
previously
required
6
hours
to
produce.
On
the
other
hand,
the
value
of
the
labour-power
cannot
rise
from
three
shillings
to
four,
without
a
decrease
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
whereby
eight
hours
become
requisite
to
produce
the
same
quantity
of
necessaries,for
the
production
of
which
six
hours
previously
sufficed.
It
follows
from
this,
that
an
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour
causes
a
fall
in
the
value
of
labour-power
and
a
consequent
rise
in
surplus
value,
while,
on
the
other
hand,
a
decrease
in
such
productiveness
causes
a
rise
in
the
value
of
labour
power,
and
a
fall
in
surplus-value.
In
formulating
this
law,
Ricardo
overlooked
one
circumstance;
although
a
change
in
the
magnitude
of
the
surplus-value
or
surplus
labour
causes
a
change
in
the
opposite
direction
in
the
magnitude
of
the
value
of
labour-power,
or
in
the
quantity
of
necessary
labour,it
by
no
means
follows
that
they
vary
in
the
same
proportion.
They
do
increase
or
diminish
by
the
same
quantity.
But
their
proportional
increase
or
diminution
depends
on
their
original
magnitudes
before
the
change
in
the
productiveness
of
labour
took
place.
If
the
value
of
the
labour-power
be
4
shillings,
or
the
necessary
labour
time
8
hours,
and
the
surplus-value
be
2
shillings,
or
the
surplus
labour
4
hours,
and
if,in
consequence
of
an
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
the
value
of
the
labour-power
fall
to
3
shillings,
or
the
necessary
labour
to
6
hours,
the
surplus-value
will
rise
to
3
shillings,
or
the
surplus
labour
to
6
hours.
The
same
quantity,
1
shilling
or
2
hours,
is
added
in
one
case
and
subtracted
in
the
other.But
the
proportional
change
of
magnitude
is
different
in
each
case.
While
the
value
of
the
labour-power
falls
from
4
shillings
to
3,
i.e.,
by
1\/4
or
25%,
the
surplus
value
rises
from
2
shillings
to
3,
i.e.,
by
1\/2
or
50%.It
therefore
follows
that
the
proportional
increase
or
diminution
in
surplus-value,
consequent
on
a
given
change
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
depends
on
the
original
magnitude
of
that
portion
of
the
working
day
which
embodies
itself
in
surplus-value;
the
smaller
that
portion,
the
greater
is
the
proportional
change;the
greater
that
portion,
the
less
is
the
proportional
change.
(3.)
Increase
or
diminution
in
surplus-value
is
always
consequent
on,
and
never
the
cause
of,
the
corresponding
diminution
or
increase
in
the
value
of
labour-power.2
Since
the
working
day
is
constant
in
magnitude,
and
is
represented
by
a
value
of
constant
magnitude,
since,to
every
variation
in
the
magnitude
of
surplus-value,there
corresponds
an
inverse
variation
in
the
value
of
labour-power,
and
since
the
value
of
labour-power
cannot
change,
except
in
consequence
of
a
change
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
it
clearly
follows,
under
these
conditions,
that
every
change
of
magnitude
in
surplus-value
arises
from
an
inverse
change
of
magnitude
in
the
value
of
labour-power.
If,
then,as
we
have
already
seen,
there
can
be
no
change
of
absolute
magnitude
in
the
value
of
labour-power,
and
in
surplus-value,
unaccompanied
by
a
change
in
their
relative
magnitudes,
so
now
it
follows
that
no
change
in
their
relative
magnitudes
is
possible,
without
a
previous
change
in
the
absolute
magnitude
of
the
value
of
labour-power.
According
to
the
third
law,
a
change
in
the
magnitude
of
surplus-value,
presupposes
a
movement
in
the
value
of
labour-power,
which
movement
is
brought
about
by
a
variation
in
the
productiveness
of
labour.
The
limit
of
this
change
is
given
by
the
altered
value
of
labour-power.
Nevertheless,
even
when
circumstances
allow
the
law
to
operate,
subsidiary
movements
may
occur.
For
example:
if
in
consequence
of
the
increased
productiveness
of
labour,
the
value
of
labour-power
falls
from
4
shillings
to
3,
or
the
necessary
labour
time
from
8
hours
to
6,
the
price
of
labour-power
may
possibly
not
fall
below
3s.
8d.,
3s.6d.,
or
3s.
2d.,
and
the
surplus-value
consequently
not
rise
above
3s.
4d.,
3s.
6d.,
or
3s.
10d.
The
amount
of
this
fall,
the
lowest
limit
of
which
is
3
shillings
(the
new
value
of
labour-power),
depends
on
the
relative
weight,
which
the
pressure
of
capital
on
the
one
side,and
the
resistance
of
the
labourer
on
the
other,
throws
into
the
scale.
The
value
of
labour-power
is
determined
by
the
value
of
a
given
quantity
of
necessaries.
It
is
the
value
and
not
the
mass
of
these
necessaries
that
varies
with
the
productiveness
of
labour.
It
is,
however,
possible
that,
owing
to
an
increase
of
productiveness,
both
the
labourer
and
the
capitalist
may
simultaneously
be
able
to
appropriate
a
greater
quantity
of
these
necessaries,without
any
change
in
the
price
of
labour-power
or
in
surplus-value.
If
the
value
of
labour-power
be
3
shillings,
and
the
necessary
labour
time
amount
to
6
hours,
if
the
surplus-value
likewise
be
3
shillings,
and
the
surplus
labour
6
hours,
then
if
the
productiveness
of
labour
were
doubled
without
altering
the
ratio
of
necessary
labour
to
surplus
labour,
there
would
be
no
change
of
magnitude
in
surplus-value
and
price
of
labour-power.
The
only
result
would
be
that
each
of
them
would
represent
twice
as
many
use-values
as
before;
these
use-values
being
twice
as
cheap
as
before.
Although
labour-power
would
be
unchanged
in
price,
it
would
be
above
its
value.
If,
however,
the
price
of
labour-power
had
fallen,
not
to
1s.
6d.,
the
lowest
possible
point
consistent
with
its
new
value,but
to
2s.
10d.
or
2s.
6d.,
still
this
lower
price
would
represent
an
increased
mass
of
necessaries.
In
this
way
it
is
possible
with
an
increasing
productiveness
of
labour,
for
the
price
of
labour-power
to
keep
on
falling,
and
yet
this
fall
to
be
accompanied
by
a
constant
growth
in
the
mass
of
the
labourer's
means
of
subsistence.
But
even
in
such
case,
the
fall
in
the
value
of
labour-power
would
cause
a
corresponding
rise
of
surplus-value,
and
thus
the
abyss
between
the
labourer's
position
and
that
of
the
capitalist
would
keep
widening.3
Ricardo
was
the
first
who
accurately
formulated
the
three
laws
we
have
above
stated.
But
he
falls
into
the
following
errors:
(1)
he
looks
upon
the
special
conditions
under
which
these
laws
hold
good
as
the
general
and
sole
conditions
of
capitalist
production.
He
knows
no
change,
either
in
the
length
of
the
working
day,
or
in
the
intensity
of
labour;
consequently
with
him
there
can
be
only
one
variable
factor,
viz.,
the
productiveness
of
labour;
(2),
and
this
error
vitiates
his
analysis
much
more
than
(1),
he
has
not,
any
more
than
have
the
other
economists,
investigated
surplus
value
as
such,
i.e.,
independently
of
its
particular
forms,
such
as
profit,
rent,
&c.
He
therefore
confounds
together
the
laws
of
the
rate
of
surplus-value
and
the
laws
of
the
rate
of
profit.
The
rate
of
profit
is,
as
we
have
already
said,
the
ratio
of
the
surplus-value
to
the
total
capital
advanced;
the
rate
of
surplus-value
is
the
ratio
of
the
surplus-value
to
the
variable
part
of
that
capital.
Assume
that
a
capital
C
of
￡500
is
made
up
of
raw
material,
instruments
of
labour,
&c.
(c)
to
the
amount
of
￡400;
and
of
wages
(v)
to
the
amount
of￡100;
and
further,
that
the
surplus-value
(s)
=
￡100.Then
we
have
rate
of
surplus-value
s\/v
=
￡100\/￡100
=100%.
But
the
rate
of
profit
s\/c
=
￡100\/￡500
=
20%.
It
is,
besides,
obvious
that
the
rate
of
profit
may
depend
on
circumstances
that
in
no
way
affect
the
rate
of
surplus-value.
I
shall
show
in
Book
III.
that,
with
a
given
rate
of
surplus-value,
we
may
have
any
number
of
rates
of
profit,
and
that
various
rates
of
surplus
value
may,
under
given
conditions,
express
themselves
in
a
single
rate
of
profit.
Section
2:
Working
day
Constant.Productiveness
of
Labour
Constant.
Intensity
of
Labour
Variable
Increased
intensity
of
labour
means
increased
expenditure
of
labour
in
a
given
time.
Hence
a
working
day
of
more
intense
labour
is
embodied
in
more
products
than
is
one
of
less
intense
labour,the
length
of
each
day
being
the
same.
Increased
productiveness
of
labour
also,
it
is
true,
will
supply
more
products
in
a
given
working
day.
But
in
this
latter
case,
the
value
of
each
single
product
falls,
for
it
costs
less
labour
than
before;
in
the
former
case,
that
value
remains
unchanged,
for
each
article
costs
the
same
labour
as
before.
Here
we
have
an
increase
in
the
number
of
products,
unaccompanied
by
a
fall
in
their
individual
prices:
as
their
number
increases,
so
does
the
sum
of
their
prices.
But
in
the
case
of
increased
productiveness,
a
given
value
is
spread
over
a
greater
mass
of
products.
Hence
the
length
of
the
working
day
being
constant,
a
day's
labour
of
increased
intensity
will
be
incorporated
in
an
increased
value,
and,
the
value
of
money
remaining
unchanged,
in
more
money.The
value
created
varies
with
the
extent
to
which
the
intensity
of
labour
deviates
from
its
normal
intensity
in
the
society.
A
given
working
day,
therefore,
no
longer
creates
a
constant,
but
a
variable
value;
in
a
day
of
12
hours
of
ordinary
intensity,
the
value
created
is,
say
6
shillings,
but
with
increased
intensity,the
value
created
may
be
7,
8,
or
more
shillings.
It
is
clear
that,
if
the
value
created
by
a
day's
labour
increases
from,
say,
6
to
8
shillings
then
the
two
parts
into
which
this
value
is
divided,
viz.,
price
of
labour
power
and
surplus-value,
may
both
of
them
increase
simultaneously,
and
either
equally
or
unequally.
They
may
both
simultaneously
increase
from
3
shillings
to
4.
Here,
the
rise
in
the
price
of
labour-power
does
not
necessarily
imply
that
the
price
has
risen
above
the
value
of
labour-power.
On
the
contrary,
the
rise
in
price
may
be
accompanied
by
a
fall
in
value.
This
occurs
whenever
the
rise
in
the
price
of
labour-power
does
not
compensate
for
its
increased
wear
and
tear.
We
know
that,
with
transitory
exceptions,
a
change
in
the
productiveness
of
labour
does
not
cause
any
change
in
the
value
of
labour-power,
nor
consequently
in
the
magnitude
of
surplus-value,
unless
the
products
of
the
industries
affected
are
articles
habitually
consumed
by
the
labourers.
In
the
present
case
this
condition
no
longer
applies.
For
when
the
variation
is
either
in
the
duration
or
in
the
intensity
of
labour,
there
is
always
a
corresponding
change
in
the
magnitude
of
the
value
created,
independently
of
the
nature
of
the
article
in
which
that
value
is
embodied.
If
the
intensity
of
labour
were
to
increase
simultaneously
and
equally
in
every
branch
of
industry,
then
the
new
and
higher
degree
of
intensity
would
become
the
normal
degree
for
the
society,
and
would
therefore
cease
to
be
taken
account
of.
But
still,even
then,
the
intensity
of
labour
would
be
different
in
different
countries,
and
would
modify
the
international
application
of
the
law
of
value.
The
more
intense
working
day
of
one
nation
would
be
represented
by
a
greater
sum
of
money
than
would
the
less
intense
day
of
another
nation.4
Section
3:
Productiveness
and
Intensity
of
Labour
Constant.
Length
of
the
Working
day
Variable
The
working
day
may
vary
in
two
ways.
It
may
be
made
either
longer
or
shorter.
From
our
present
data,and
within
the
limits
of
the
assumptions
made
above
we
obtain
the
following
laws:
(1.)
The
working
day
creates
a
greater
or
less
amount
of
value
in
proportion
to
its
length
–
thus,
a
variable
and
not
a
constant
quantity
of
value.
(2.)
Every
change
in
the
relation
between
the
magnitudes
of
surplus-value
and
of
the
value
of
labour-power
arises
from
a
change
in
the
absolute
magnitude
of
the
surplus
labour,
and
consequently
of
the
surplus-value.
(3.)
The
absolute
value
of
labour-power
can
change
only
in
consequence
of
the
reaction
exercised
by
the
prolongation
of
surplus
labour
upon
the
wear
and
tear
of
labour-power.
Every
change
in
this
absolute
value
is
therefore
the
effect,
but
never
the
cause,
of
a
change
in
the
magnitude
of
surplus-value.
We
begin
with
the
case
in
which
the
working
day
is
shortened.
(1.)
A
shortening
of
the
working
day
under
the
conditions
given
above,
leaves
the
value
of
labour
power,
and
with
it,
the
necessary
labour
time,unaltered.
It
reduces
the
surplus
labour
and
surplus
value.
Along
with
the
absolute
magnitude
of
the
latter,its
relative
magnitude
also
falls,
i.e.,
its
magnitude
relatively
to
the
value
of
labour-power
whose
magnitude
remains
unaltered.
Only
by
lowering
the
price
of
labour-power
below
its
value
could
the
capitalist
save
himself
harmless.
All
the
usual
arguments
against
the
shortening
of
the
working
day,
assume
that
it
takes
place
under
the
conditions
we
have
here
supposed
to
exist;
but
in
reality
the
very
contrary
is
the
case:
a
change
in
the
productiveness
and
intensity
of
labour
either
precedes,or
immediately
follows,
a
shortening
of
the
working
day.5
(2.)
Lengthening
of
the
working
day.
Let
the
necessary
labour
time
be
6
hours,
or
the
value
of
labour-power
3
shillings;
also
let
the
surplus
labour
be
6
hours
or
the
surplus-value
3
shillings.
The
whole
working
day
then
amounts
to
12
hours
and
is
embodied
in
a
value
of
6
shillings.
If,
now,
the
working
day
be
lengthened
by
2
hours
and
the
price
of
labour-power
remain
unaltered,
the
surplus-value
increases
both
absolutely
and
relatively.
Although
there
is
no
absolute
change
in
the
value
of
labour
power,
it
suffers
a
relative
fall.
Under
the
conditions
assumed
in
1.
there
could
not
be
a
change
of
relative
magnitude
in
the
value
of
labour-power
without
a
change
in
its
absolute
magnitude.
Here,
on
the
contrary,
the
change
of
relative
magnitude
in
the
value
of
labour-power
is
the
result
of
the
change
of
absolute
magnitude
in
surplus-value.
Since
the
value
in
which
a
day's
labour
is
embodied,increases
with
the
length
of
that
day,
it
is
evident
that
the
surplus-value
and
the
price
of
labour-power
may
simultaneously
increase,
either
by
equal
or
unequal
quantities.
This
simultaneous
increase
is
therefore
possible
in
two
cases,
one,
the
actual
lengthening
of
the
working
day,
the
other,
an
increase
in
the
intensity
of
labour
unaccompanied
by
such
lengthening.
When
the
working
day
is
prolonged,
the
price
of
labour-power
may
fall
below
its
value,
although
that
price
be
nominally
unchanged
or
even
rise.
The
value
of
a
day's
labour-power
is,
as
will
be
remembered,estimated
from
its
normal
average
duration,
or
from
the
normal
duration
of
life
among
the
labourers,and
from
corresponding
normal
transformations
of
organised
bodily
matter
into
motion,6in
conformity
with
the
nature
of
man.
Up
to
a
certain
point,
the
increased
wear
and
tear
of
labour-power,
inseparable
from
a
lengthened
working
day,
may
be
compensated
by
higher
wages.
But
beyond
this
point
the
wear
and
tear
increases
in
geometrical
progression,
and
every
condition
suitable
for
the
normal
reproduction
and
functioning
of
labour-power
is
suppressed.
The
price
of
labour-power
and
the
degree
of
its
exploitation
cease
to
be
commensurable
quantities.
Section
4:
Simultaneous
Variations
in
the
Duration,
Productiveness,and
Intensity
of
Labour
It
is
obvious
that
a
large
number
of
combinations
are
here
possible.
Any
two
of
the
factors
may
vary
and
the
third
remain
constant,
or
all
three
may
vary
at
once.
They
may
vary
either
in
the
same
or
in
different
degrees,
in
the
same
or
in
opposite
directions,
with
the
result
that
the
variations
counteract
one
another,
either
wholly
or
in
part.
Nevertheless
the
analysis
of
every
possible
case
is
easy
in
view
of
the
results
given
in
I.,II.,
and
III.
The
effect
of
every
possible
combination
may
be
found
by
treating
each
factor
in
turn
as
variable,
and
the
other
two
constant
for
the
time
being.We
shall,
therefore,
notice,
and
that
briefly,
but
two
important
cases.
A.
Diminishing
Productiveness
of
Labour
with
a
Simultaneous
Lengthening
of
the
Working
day
In
speaking
of
diminishing
productiveness
of
labour,we
here
refer
to
diminution
in
those
industries
whose
products
determine
the
value
of
labour-power;
such
a
diminution,
for
example,
as
results
from
decreasing
fertility
of
the
soil,
and
from
the
corresponding
dearness
of
its
products.
Take
the
working
day
at
12
hours
and
the
value
created
by
it
at
6
shillings,of
which
one
half
replaces
the
value
of
the
labour
power,
the
other
forms
the
surplus-value.
Suppose,
in
consequence
of
the
increased
dearness
of
the
products
of
the
soil,
that
the
value
of
labour-power
rises
from
3
shillings
to
4,
and
therefore
the
necessary
labour
time
from
6
hours
to
8.
If
there
be
no
change
in
the
length
of
the
working
day,
the
surplus
labour
would
fall
from
6
hours
to
4,
the
surplus-value
from
3
shillings
to
2.
If
the
day
be
lengthened
by
2
hours,
i.e.,
from
12
hours
to
14,
the
surplus
labour
remains
at
6
hours,the
surplus-value
at
3
shillings[1],
but
the
surplus-value
decreases
compared
with
the
value
of
labour-power,
as
measured
by
the
necessary
labour
time.
If
the
day
be
lengthened
by
4
hours,
viz.,
from
12
hours
to
16,
the
proportional
magnitudes
of
surplus-value
and
value
of
labour-power,
of
surplus
labour
and
necessary
labour,continue
unchanged,
but
the
absolute
magnitude
of
surplus-value
rises
from
3
shillings
to
4,
that
of
the
surplus
labour
from
6
hours
to
8,
an
increment
of
33
1\/3%.
Therefore,
with
diminishing
productiveness
of
labour
and
a
simultaneous
lengthening
of
the
working
day,
the
absolute
magnitude
of
surplus-value
may
continue
unaltered,
at
the
same
time
that
its
relative
magnitude
diminishes;
its
relative
magnitude
may
continue
unchanged,
at
the
same
time
that
its
absolute
magnitude
increases;
and,
provided
the
lengthening
of
the
day
be
sufficient,
both
may
increase.
In
the
period
between
1799
and
1815
the
increasing
price
of
provisions
led
in
England
to
a
nominal
rise
in
wages,
although
the
real
wages,
expressed
in
the
necessaries
of
life,
fell.
From
this
fact
West
and
Ricardo
drew
the
conclusion,
that
the
diminution
in
the
productiveness
of
agricultural
labour
had
brought
about
a
fall
in
the
rate
of
surplus-value,
and
they
made
this
assumption
of
a
fact
that
existed
only
in
their
imaginations,
the
starting-point
of
important
investigations
into
the
relative
magnitudes
of
wages,profits,
and
rent.
But,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
surplus
value
had
at
that
time,
thanks
to
the
increased
intensity
of
labour,
and
to
the
prolongation
of
the
working
day,
increased
both
in
absolute
and
relative
magnitude.
This
was
the
period
in
which
the
right
to
prolong
the
hours
of
labour
to
an
outrageous
extent
was
established;
7the
period
that
was
especially
characterised
by
an
accelerated
accumulation
of
capital
here,
by
pauperism
there.8
B.
Increasing
Intensity
and
Productiveness
of
Labour
with
Simultaneous
Shortening
of
the
Working
day
Increased
productiveness
and
greater
intensity
of
labour,
both
have
a
like
effect.
They
both
augment
the
mass
of
articles
produced
in
a
given
time.
Both,therefore,
shorten
that
portion
of
the
working
day
which
the
labourer
needs
to
produce
his
means
of
subsistence
or
their
equivalent.
The
minimum
length
of
the
working
day
is
fixed
by
this
necessary
but
contractile
portion
of
it.
If
the
whole
working
day
were
to
shrink
to
the
length
of
this
portion,
surplus
labour
would
vanish,
a
consummation
utterly
impossible
under
the
régime
of
capital.
Only
by
suppressing
the
capitalist
form
of
production
could
the
length
of
the
working
day
be
reduced
to
the
necessary
labour
time.But,
even
in
that
case,
the
latter
would
extend
its
limits.
On
the
one
hand,
because
the
notion
of
\"means
of
subsistence\"
would
considerably
expand,
and
the
labourer
would
lay
claim
to
an
altogether
different
standard
of
life.
On
the
other
hand,
because
a
part
of
what
is
now
surplus
labour,
would
then
count
as
necessary
labour;
I
mean
the
labour
of
forming
a
fund
for
reserve
and
accumulation.
The
more
the
productiveness
of
labour
increases,the
more
can
the
working
day
be
shortened;
and
the
more
the
working
day
is
shortened,
the
more
can
the
intensity
of
labour
increase.
From
a
social
point
of
view,
the
productiveness
increases
in
the
same
ratio
as
the
economy
of
labour,
which,
in
its
turn,
includes
not
only
economy
of
the
means
of
production,
but
also
the
avoidance
of
all
useless
labour.
The
capitalist
mode
of
production,
while
on
the
one
hand,
enforcing
economy
in
each
individual
business,
on
the
other
hand,
begets,
by
its
anarchical
system
of
competition,the
most
outrageous
squandering
of
labour-power
and
of
the
social
means
of
production,
not
to
mention
the
creation
of
a
vast
number
of
employments,
at
present
indispensable,
but
in
themselves
superfluous.
The
intensity
and
productiveness
of
labour
being
given,
the
time
which
society
is
bound
to
devote
to
material
production
is
shorter,
and
as
a
consequence,
the
time
at
its
disposal
for
the
free
development,intellectual
and
social,
of
the
individual
is
greater,in
proportion
as
the
work
is
more
and
more
evenly
divided
among
all
the
able-bodied
members
of
society,and
as
a
particular
class
is
more
and
more
deprived
of
the
power
to
shift
the
natural
burden
of
labour
from
its
own
shoulders
to
those
of
another
layer
of
society.In
this
direction,
the
shortening
of
the
working
day
finds
at
last
a
limit
in
the
generalisation
of
labour.
In
capitalist
society
spare
time
is
acquired
for
one
class
by
converting
the
whole
life-time
of
the
masses
into
labour
time.
NOTES:
1Note
in
the
3rd
German
edition.
—
The
case
considered
atpages
321-324
is
here
of
course
omitted.
—
F.
E.
2To
this
third
law
MacCulloch
has
made,
amongst
others,
this
absurd
addition,
that
a
rise
in
surplus-value,unaccompanied
by
a
fall
in
the
value
of
labour-power,
can
occur
through
the
abolition
of
taxes
payable
by
the
capitalist.The
abolition
of
such
taxes
makes
no
change
whatever
in
the
quantity
of
surplus-value
that
the
capitalist
extorts
at
first-hand
from
the
labourer.
It
alters
only
the
proportion
in
which
that
surplus-value
is
divided
between
himself
and
third
persons.
It
consequently
makes
no
alteration
whatever
in
the
relation
between
surplus-value
and
value
of
labour
power.
MacCulloch's
exception
therefore
proves
only
his
misapprehension
of
the
rule,
a
misfortune
that
as
often
happens
to
him
in
the
vulgarisation
of
Ricardo,
as
it
does
to
J.
B.
Say
in
the
vulgarisation
of
Adam
Smith.
3\"When
an
alteration
takes
place
in
the
productiveness
of
industry,
and
that
either
more
or
less
is
produced
by
a
given
quantity
of
labour
and
capital,
the
proportion
of
wages
may
obviously
vary,
whilst
the
quantity,
which
that
proportion
represents,
remains
the
same,
or
the
quantity
may
vary,
whilst
the
proportion
remains
the
same.\"
(\"Outlines
of
Political
Economy,
&c.,\"
p.
67.)
4\"All
things
being
equal,
the
English
manufacturer
can
turn
out
a
considerably
larger
amount
of
work
in
a
given
time
than
a
foreign
manufacturer,
so
much
as
to
counterbalance
the
difference
of
the
working
days,
between
60
hours
a
week
here,
and
72
or
80
elsewhere.\"
(Rep.
of
Insp.
of
Fact.
for
31st
Oct.,
1855,
p.
65.)
The
most
infallible
means
for
reducing
this
qualitative
difference
between
the
English
and
Continental
working
hour
would
be
a
law
shortening
quantitatively
the
length
of
the
working
day
in
Continental
factories.
5\"There
are
compensating
circumstances
...
which
the
working
of
the
Ten
Hours'
Act
has
brought
to
light.\"
(\"Rep.
of
Insp.
of
Fact.
for
31st
Oct.
1848,\"
p.
7.)
6\"The
amount
of
labour
which
a
man
had
undergone
in
the
course
of
24
hours
might
be
approximately
arrived
at
by
an
examination
of
the
chemical
changes
which
had
taken
place
in
his
body,
changed
forms
in
matter
indicating
the
anterior
exercise
of
dynamic
force.\"
(Grove:
\"On
the
Correlation
of
Physical
Forces.\")
7\"Corn
and
labour
rarely
march
quite
abreast;
but
there
is
an
obvious
limit,
beyond
which
they
cannot
be
separated.With
regard
to
the
unusual
exertions
made
by
the
labouring
classes
in
periods
of
dearness,
which
produce
the
fall
of
wages
noticed
in
the
evidence\"
(namely,
before
the
Parliamentary
Committee
of
Inquiry,
1814-15),
\"they
are
most
meritorious
in
the
individuals,
and
certainly
favour
the
growth
of
capital.But
no
man
of
humanity
could
wish
to
see
them
constant
and
unremitted.
They
are
most
admirable
as
a
temporary
relief;but
if
they
were
constantly
in
action,
effects
of
a
similar
kind
would
result
from
them,
as
from
the
population
of
a
country
being
pushed
to
the
very
extreme
limits
of
its
food.\"
(Malthus:\"Inquiry
into
the
Nature
and
Progress
of
Rent,\"
Lond.,
1815,p.
48,
note.)
All
honour
to
Malthus
that
he
lays
stress
on
the
lengthening
of
the
hours
of
labour,
a
fact
to
which
he
elsewhere
in
his
pamphlet
draws
attention,
while
Ricardo
and
others,
in
face
of
the
most
notorious
facts,
make
invariability
in
the
length
of
the
working
day
the
groundwork
of
all
their
investigations.But
the
conservative
interests,
which
Malthus
served,
prevented
him
from
seeing
that
an
unlimited
prolongation
of
the
working
day,
combined
with
an
extraordinary
development
of
machinery,
and
the
exploitation
of
women
and
children,must
inevitably
have
made
a
great
portion
of
the
working-class\"supernumerary,\"
particularly
whenever
the
war
should
have
ceased,
and
the
monopoly
of
England
in
the
markets
of
the
world
should
have
come
to
an
end.
It
was,
of
course,
far
more
convenient,
and
much
more
in
conformity
with
the
interests
of
the
ruling
classes,
whom
Malthus
adored
like
a
true
priest,
to
explain
this
\"over-population\"
by
the
eternal
laws
of
Nature,rather
than
by
the
historical
laws
of
capitalist
production.
8\"A
principal
cause
of
the
increase
of
capital,
during
the
war,
proceeded
from
the
greater
exertions,
and
perhaps
the
greater
privations
of
the
labouring
classes,
the
most
numerous
in
every
society.
More
women
and
children
were
compelled
by
necessitous
circumstances,
to
enter
upon
laborious
occupations,and
former
workmen
were,
from
the
same
cause,
obliged
to
devote
a
greater
portion
of
their
time
to
increase
production.\"(Essays
on
Pol.
Econ.,
in
which
are
illustrated
the
principal
causes
of
the
present
national
distress.
Lond.,
1830,
p.
248.)
[1]
Earlier
English
translations
have
'6
sh.'
instead
of
3
shillings.
This
error
was
pointed
out
to
us
by
a
reader,
we
have
investigated
and
checked
with
the
1872
German
Edition
and
duly
corrected
an
obvious
error.
精選分類