資本論 CHAPTER 18:

VARIOUS

FORMULA

FOR

THE

RATE

OF

SURPLUS-VALUE

We

have

seen

that

the

rate

of

surplus-value

is

represented

by

the

following

formulae:

The

two

first

of

these

formulae

represent,

as

a

ratio

of

values,

that

which,

in

the

third,

is

represented

as

a

ratio

of

the

times

during

which

those

values

are

produced.

These

formulae,

supplementary

the

one

to

the

other,

are

rigorously

definite

and

correct.

We

therefore

find

them

substantially,

but

not

consciously,worked

out

in

classical

Political

Economy.

There

we

meet

with

the

following

derivative

formulae.

One

and

the

same

ratio

is

here

expressed

as

a

ratio

of

labour-times,

of

the

values

in

which

those

labour

times

are

embodied,

and

of

the

products

in

which

those

values

exist.

It

is

of

course

understood

that,

by\"Value

of

the

Product,\"

is

meant

only

the

value

newly

created

in

a

working

day,

the

constant

part

of

the

value

of

the

product

being

excluded.

In

all

of

these

formulae

(II.),

the

actual

degree

of

exploitation

of

labour,

or

the

rate

of

surplus-value,

is

falsely

expressed.

Let

the

working

day

be

12

hours.Then,

making

the

same

assumptions

as

in

former

instances,

the

real

degree

of

exploitation

of

labour

will

be

represented

in

the

following

proportions.

These

derivative

formulae

express,

in

reality,

only

the

proportion

in

which

the

working

day,

or

the

value

produced

by

it,

is

divided

between

capitalist

and

labourer.

If

they

are

to

be

treated

as

direct

expressions

of

the

degree

of

self-expansion

of

capital,

the

following

erroneous

law

would

hold

good:

Surplus

labour

or

surplus-value

can

never

reach

100%.1Since

the

surplus-labour

is

only

an

aliquot

part

of

the

working

day,

or

since

surplus-value

is

only

an

aliquot

part

of

the

value

created,

the

surplus-labour

must

necessarily

be

always

less

than

the

working

day,

or

the

surplus-value

always

less

than

the

total

value

created.In

order,

however,

to

attain

the

ratio

of

100:100

they

must

be

equal.

In

order

that

the

surplus-labour

may

absorb

the

whole

day

(i.e.,

an

average

day

of

any

week

or

year),

the

necessary

labour

must

sink

to

zero.

But

if

the

necessary

labour

vanish,

so

too

does

the

surplus

labour,

since

it

is

only

a

function

of

the

former.

The

ratio

can

therefore

never

reach

the

limit

100\/100,

still

less

rise

to

100

x\/100.

But

not

so

the

rate

of

surplus

value,

the

real

degree

of

exploitation

of

labour.

Take,e.g.,

the

estimate

of

L.

de

Lavergne,

according

to

which

the

English

agricultural

labourer

gets

only

1\/4,

the

capitalist

(farmer)

on

the

other

hand

3\/4

of

the

product

2or

its

value,

apart

from

the

question

of

how

the

booty

is

subsequently

divided

between

the

capitalist,

the

landlord,

and

others.

According

to

this,this

surplus-labour

of

the

English

agricultural

labourer

is

to

his

necessary

labour

as

3:1,

which

gives

a

rate

of

exploitation

of

300%.

The

favorite

method

of

treating

the

working

day

as

constant

in

magnitude

became,

through

the

use

of

formulae

II.,

a

fixed

usage,

because

in

them

surplus-labour

is

always

compared

with

a

working

day

of

given

length.

The

same

holds

good

when

the

repartition

of

the

value

produced

is

exclusively

kept

in

sight.

The

working

day

that

has

already

been

realized

in

given

value,

must

necessarily

be

a

day

of

given

length.

The

habit

of

representing

surplus-value

and

value

of

labour-power

as

fractions

of

the

value

created

–

a

habit

that

originates

in

the

capitalist

mode

of

production

itself,

and

whose

import

will

hereafter

be

disclosed–

conceals

the

very

transaction

that

characterizes

capital,

namely

the

exchange

of

variable

capital

for

living

labour-power,

and

the

consequent

exclusion

of

the

labourer

from

the

product.

Instead

of

the

real

fact,we

have

false

semblance

of

an

association,

in

which

labourer

and

capitalist

divide

the

product

in

proportion

to

the

different

elements

which

they

respectively

contribute

towards

its

formation.3

Moreover,

the

formulae

II.

can

at

any

time

be

reconverted

into

formulae

I.

If,

for

instance,

we

have

then

the

necessary

labour-time

being

12

hours

less

the

surplus-labour

of

6

hours,

we

get

the

following

result,

There

is

a

third

formula

which

I

have

occasionally

already

anticipated;

it

is

After

the

investigations

we

have

given

above,

it

is

no

longer

possible

to

be

misled,

by

the

formula

into

concluding,

that

the

capitalist

pays

for

labour

and

not

for

labour-power.

This

formula

is

only

a

popular

expression

for

The

capitalist

pays

the

value,

so

far

as

price

coincides

with

value,

of

the

labour-power,

and

receives

in

exchange

the

disposal

of

the

living

labour

power

itself.

His

usufruct

is

spread

over

two

periods.During

one

the

labourer

produces

a

value

that

is

only

equal

to

the

value

of

his

labour-power;

he

produces

its

equivalent.

This

the

capitalist

receives

in

return

for

his

advance

of

the

price

of

the

labour-power,

a

product

ready

made

in

the

market.

During

the

other

period,

the

period

of

surplus-labour,

the

usufruct

of

the

labour

power

creates

a

value

for

the

capitalist,

that

costs

him

no

equivalent.4This

expenditure

of

labour-power

comes

to

him

gratis.

In

this

sense

it

is

that

surplus

labour

can

be

called

unpaid

labour.

Capital,

therefore,

it

not

only,

as

Adam

Smith

says,

the

command

over

labour.

It

is

essentially

the

command

over

unpaid

labour.

All

surplus-value,whatever

particular

form

(profit,

interest,

or

rent),

it

may

subsequently

crystallize

into,

is

in

substance

the

materialisation

of

unpaid

labour.

The

secret

of

the

self-expansion

of

capital

resolves

itself

into

having

the

disposal

of

a

definite

quantity

of

other

people's

unpaid

labour.

NOTES:

1Thus,

e.g.,

in

\"Dritter

Brief

an

v.

Kirchmann

von

Rodbertus.

Widerlegung

der

Ricardo'schen

Lehre

von

der

Grundrente

und

Begrundung

einer

neuen

Rententheorie.\"Berlin,

1851.

I

shall

return

to

this

letter

later

on;

in

spite

of

its

erroneous

theory

of

rent,

it

sees

through

the

nature

of

capitalist

production.

NOTE

ADDED

IN

THE

3RD

GERMAN

EDITION:

It

may

be

seen

from

this

how

favorably

Marx

judged

his

predecessors,whenever

he

found

in

them

real

progress,

or

new

and

sound

ideas.

The

subsequent

publications

of

Robertus'

letters

to

Rud.Meyer

has

shown

that

the

above

acknowledgement

by

Marx

wants

restricting

to

some

extent.

In

those

letters

this

passage

occurs:

\"Capital

must

be

rescued

not

only

from

labor,

but

from

itself,

and

that

will

be

best

effected,

by

treating

the

acts

of

the

industrial

capitalist

as

economic

and

political

functions,

that

have

been

delegated

to

him

with

his

capital,

and

by

treating

his

profit

as

a

form

of

salary,

because

we

still

know

no

other

social

organisation.

But

salaries

may

be

regulated,

and

may

also

be

reduced

if

they

take

too

much

from

wages.

The

irruption

of

Marx

into

Society,

as

I

may

call

his

book,

must

be

warded

off....

Altogether,

Marx's

book

is

not

so

much

an

investigation

into

capital,

as

a

polemic

against

the

present

form

of

capital,

a

form

which

he

confounds

with

the

concept

itself

of

capital.\"

(\"Briefe,

&c.,

von

Dr.

Robertus-Jagetzow,

herausgg.

von

Dr.

Rud.

Meyer,\"

Berlin,

1881,

I,

Bd.

P.111,

46.

Brief

von

Rodbertus.)

To

such

ideological

commonplaces

did

the

bold

attack

by

Robertus

in

his

\"social

letters\"

finally

dwindle

down.—

F.

E.

2That

part

of

the

product

which

merely

replaces

the

constant

capital

advanced

is

of

course

left

out

in

this

calculation.

Mr.

L.de

Lavergne,

a

blind

admirer

of

England,

is

inclined

to

estimate

the

share

of

the

capitalist

too

low,

rather

than

too

high.

3All

well-developed

forms

of

capitalist

production

being

forms

of

co-operation,

nothing

is,

of

course,

easier,

than

to

make

abstraction

from

their

antagonistic

character,

and

to

transform

them

by

a

word

into

some

form

of

free

association,as

is

done

by

A.

de

Laborde

in

\"De

l'Esprit

d'Association

dans

tous

les

intérêts

de

la

communauté\".

Paris

1818.

H.

Carey,

the

Yankee,

occasionally

performs

this

conjuring

trick

with

like

success,

even

with

the

relations

resulting

from

slavery.

4Although

the

Physiocrats

could

not

penetrate

the

mystery

of

surplus-value,

yet

this

much

was

clear

to

them,

viz.,

that

it

is\"une

richesse

indépendante

et

disponible

qu'il

(the

possessor)

n'a

point

achetée

et

qu'il

vend.\"

[a

wealth

which

is

independent

and

disposable,

which

he

...

has

not

bought

and

which

he

sells](Turgot:

\"Réflexions

sur

la

Formation

et

la

Distribution

des

Richesses,\"

p.11.)