資本論 PART 6: WAGES

CHAPTER

19:

THE

TRANSFORMATION

OF

THE

VALUE

(AND

RESPECTIVE

PRICE)

OF

LABOUR-POWER

INTO

WAGES

On

the

surface

of

bourgeois

society

the

wage

of

the

labourer

appears

as

the

price

of

labour,

a

certain

quantity

of

money

that

is

paid

for

a

certain

quantity

of

labour.

Thus

people

speak

of

the

value

of

labour

and

call

its

expression

in

money

its

necessary

or

natural

price.

On

the

other

hand

they

speak

of

the

market-prices

of

labour,

i.e.,

prices

oscillating

above

or

below

its

natural

price.

But

what

is

the

value

of

a

commodity

The

objective

form

of

the

social

labour

expended

in

its

production.And

how

do

we

measure

the

quantity

of

this

valueBy

the

quantity

of

the

labour

contained

in

it.

How

then

is

the

value,

e.g.,

of

a

12

hour

working-day

to

be

determined

By

the

12

working-hours

contained

in

a

working

day

of

12

hours,

which

is

an

absurd

tautology.1

In

order

to

be

sold

as

a

commodity

in

the

market,labour

must

at

all

events

exist

before

it

is

sold.

But,could

the

labourer

give

it

an

independent

objective

existence,

he

would

sell

a

commodity

and

not

labour.2

Apart

from

these

contradictions,

a

direct

exchange

of

money,

i.e.,

of

realized

labour,

with

living

labour

would

either

do

away

with

the

law

of

value

which

only

begins

to

develop

itself

freely

on

the

basis

of

capitalist

production,

or

do

away

with

capitalist

production

itself,

which

rests

directly

on

wage-labour.The

working

day

of

12

hours

embodies

itself,

e.g.,

in

a

money-value

of

6s.

Either

equivalents

are

exchanged,and

then

the

labourer

receives

6s,

for

12

hours'

labour;the

price

of

his

labour

would

be

equal

to

the

price

of

his

product.

In

this

case

he

produces

no

surplus-value

for

the

buyer

of

his

labour,

the

6s.

are

not

transformed

into

capital,

the

basis

of

capitalist

production

vanishes.But

it

is

on

this

very

basis

that

he

sells

his

labour

and

that

his

labour

is

wage-labour.

Or

else

he

receives

for

12

hours'

labour

less

than

6s.,

i.e.,

less

than

12

hours'

labour.

Twelve

hours'

labour

are

exchanged

against

10,

6,

&c.,

hours'

labour.

This

equalisation

of

unequal

quantities

not

merely

does

away

with

the

determination

of

value.

Such

a

self-destructive

contradiction

cannot

be

in

any

way

even

enunciated

or

formulated

as

a

law.3

It

is

of

no

avail

to

deduce

the

exchange

of

more

labour

against

less,

from

their

difference

of

form,

the

one

being

realized,

the

other

living.4This

is

the

more

absurd

as

the

value

of

a

commodity

is

determined

not

by

the

quantity

of

labour

actually

realized

in

it,but

by

the

quantity

of

living

labour

necessary

for

its

production.

A

commodity

represents,

say,

6

working

hours.

If

an

invention

is

made

by

which

it

can

be

produced

in

3

hours,

the

value,

even

of

the

commodity

already

produced,

falls

by

half.

It

represents

now

3

hours

of

social

labour

instead

of

the

6

formerly

necessary.

It

is

the

quantity

of

labour

required

for

its

production,

not

the

realized

form

of

that

labour,by

which

the

amount

of

the

value

of

a

commodity

is

determined.

That

which

comes

directly

face

to

face

with

the

possessor

of

money

on

the

market,

is

in

fact

not

labour,

but

the

labourer.

What

the

latter

sells

is

his

labour-power.

As

soon

as

his

labour

actually

begins,

it

has

already

ceased

to

belong

to

him;

it

can

therefore

no

longer

be

sold

by

him.

Labour

is

the

substance,

and

the

immanent

measure

of

value,

but

has

itself

no

value.5

In

the

expression

\"value

of

labour,\"

the

idea

of

value

is

not

only

completely

obliterated,

but

actually

reversed.

It

is

an

expression

as

imaginary

as

the

value

of

the

earth.

These

imaginary

expressions,arise,

however,

from

the

relations

of

production

themselves.

They

are

categories

for

the

phenomenal

forms

of

essential

relations.

That

in

their

appearance

things

often

represent

themselves

in

inverted

form

is

pretty

well

known

in

every

science

except

Political

Economy.6

Classical

Political

Economy

borrowed

from

every

day

life

the

category

\"price

of

labour\"

without

further

criticism,

and

then

simply

asked

the

question,

how

is

this

price

determined

It

soon

recognized

that

the

change

in

the

relations

of

demand

and

supply

explained

in

regard

to

the

price

of

labour,

as

of

all

other

commodities,

nothing

except

its

changes

i.e.,the

oscillations

of

the

market-price

above

or

below

a

certain

mean.

If

demand

and

supply

balance,

the

oscillation

of

prices

ceases,

all

other

conditions

remaining

the

same.

But

then

demand

and

supply

also

cease

to

explain

anything.

The

price

of

labour,

at

the

moment

when

demand

and

supply

are

in

equilibrium,is

its

natural

price,

determined

independently

of

the

relation

of

demand

and

supply.

And

how

this

price

is

determined

is

just

the

question.

Or

a

larger

period

of

oscillations

in

the

market-price

is

taken,

e.g.,

a

year,

and

they

are

found

to

cancel

one

the

other,leaving

a

mean

average

quantity,

a

relatively

constant

magnitude.

This

had

naturally

to

be

determined

otherwise

than

by

its

own

compensating

variations.This

price

which

always

finally

predominates

over

the

accidental

market-prices

of

labour

and

regulates

them,

this

\"necessary

price\"

(Physiocrats)

or

\"natural

price\"

of

labour

(Adam

Smith)

can,

as

with

all

other

commodities,

be

nothing

else

than

its

value

expressed

in

money.

In

this

way

Political

Economy

expected

to

penetrate

athwart

the

accidental

prices

of

labour,

to

the

value

of

labour.

As

with

other

commodities,

this

value

was

determined

by

the

cost

of

production.

But

what

is

the

cost

of

production

—

of

the

labourer,

i.e.,the

cost

of

producing

or

reproducing

the

labourer

himself

This

question

unconsciously

substituted

itself

in

Political

Economy

for

the

original

one;

for

the

search

after

the

cost

of

production

of

labour

as

such

turned

in

a

circle

and

never

left

the

spot.

What

economists

therefore

call

value

of

labour,

is

in

fact

the

value

of

labour-power,

as

it

exists

in

the

personality

of

the

labourer,

which

is

as

different

from

its

function,labour,

as

a

machine

is

from

the

work

it

performs.Occupied

with

the

difference

between

the

market-price

of

labour

and

its

so-called

value,

with

the

relation

of

this

value

to

the

rate

of

profit,

and

to

the

values

of

the

commodities

produced

by

means

of

labour,

&c.,

they

never

discovered

that

the

course

of

the

analysis

had

led

not

only

from

the

market-prices

of

labour

to

its

presumed

value,

but

had

led

to

the

resolution

of

this

value

of

labour

itself

into

the

value

of

labour-power.Classical

economy

never

arrived

at

a

consciousness

of

the

results

of

its

own

analysis;

it

accepted

uncritically

the

categories

\"value

of

labour,\"

\"natural

price

of

labour,\"

&c.,

as

final

and

as

adequate

expressions

for

the

value-relation

under

consideration,

and

was

thus

led,

as

will

be

seen

later,

into

inextricable

confusion

and

contradiction,

while

it

offered

to

the

vulgar

economists

a

secure

basis

of

operations

for

their

shallowness,

which

on

principle

worships

appearances

only.

Let

us

next

see

how

value

(and

price)

of

labour

power,

present

themselves

in

this

transformed

condition

as

wages.

We

know

that

the

daily

value

of

labour-power

is

calculated

upon

a

certain

length

of

the

labourer's

life,

to

which,

again,

corresponds

a

certain

length

of

working

day.

Assume

the

habitual

working

day

as

12

hours,

the

daily

value

of

labour-power

as

3s.,

the

expression

in

money

of

a

value

that

embodies

6

hours

of

labour.

If

the

labourer

receives

3s.,

then

he

receives

the

value

of

his

labour-power

functioning

through

12

hours.

If,

now,

this

value

of

a

day's

labour-power

is

expressed

as

the

value

of

a

day's

labour

itself,

we

have

the

formula:

Twelve

hours'

labour

has

a

value

of

3s.The

value

of

labour-power

thus

determines

the

value

of

labour,

or,

expressed

in

money,

its

necessary

price.If,

on

the

other

hand,

the

price

of

labour-power

differs

from

its

value,

in

like

manner

the

price

of

labour

differs

from

its

so-called

value.

As

the

value

of

labour

is

only

an

irrational

expression

for

the

value

of

labour-power,

it

follows,of

course,

that

the

value

of

labour

must

always

be

less

than

the

value

it

produces,

for

the

capitalist

always

makes

labour-power

work

longer

than

is

necessary

for

the

reproduction

of

its

own

value.

In

the

above

example,

the

value

of

the

labour-power

that

functions

through

12

hours

is

3s.,

a

value

for

the

reproduction

of

which

6

hours

are

required.

The

value

which

the

labour-power

produces

is,

on

the

other

hand,

6s.,because

it,

in

fact,

functions

during

12

hours,

and

the

value

it

produces

depends,

not

on

its

own

value,

but

on

the

length

of

time

it

is

in

action.

Thus,

we

have

a

result

absurd

at

first

sight

that

labour

which

creates

a

value

of

6s.

possesses

a

value

of

3s.7

We

see,

further:

The

value

of

3s.

by

which

a

part

only

of

the

working

day

–

i.e.,

6

hours'

labour-is

paid

for,

appears

as

the

value

or

price

of

the

whole

working

day

of

12

hours,

which

thus

includes

6

hours

unpaid

for.

The

wage

form

thus

extinguishes

every

trace

of

the

division

of

the

working

day

into

necessary

labour

and

surplus

labour,

into

paid

and

unpaid

labour.

All

labour

appears

as

paid

labour.

In

the

corvée,

the

labour

of

the

worker

for

himself,

and

his

compulsory

labour

for

his

lord,

differ

in

space

and

time

in

the

clearest

possible

way.

In

slave

labour,

even

that

part

of

the

working

day

in

which

the

slave

is

only

replacing

the

value

of

his

own

means

of

existence,

in

which,therefore,

in

fact,

he

works

for

himself

alone,

appears

as

labour

for

his

master.

All

the

slave's

labour

appears

as

unpaid

labour.8In

wage

labour,

on

the

contrary,even

surplus

labour,

or

unpaid

labour,

appears

as

paid.There

the

property-relation

conceals

the

labour

of

the

slave

for

himself;

here

the

money-relation

conceals

the

unrequited

labour

of

the

wage

labourer.

Hence,

we

may

understand

the

decisive

importance

of

the

transformation

of

value

and

price

of

labour

power

into

the

form

of

wages,

or

into

the

value

and

price

of

labour

itself.

This

phenomenal

form,

which

makes

the

actual

relation

invisible,

and,

indeed,

shows

the

direct

opposite

of

that

relation,

forms

the

basis

of

all

the

juridical

notions

of

both

labourer

and

capitalist,of

all

the

mystifications

of

the

capitalistic

mode

of

production,

of

all

its

illusions

as

to

liberty,

of

all

the

apologetic

shifts

of

the

vulgar

economists.

If

history

took

a

long

time

to

get

at

the

bottom

of

the

mystery

of

wages,

nothing,

on

the

other

hand,

is

more

easy

to

understand

than

the

necessity,

the

raison

d'etre,of

this

phenomenon.

The

exchange

between

capital

and

labour

at

first

presents

itself

to

the

mind

in

the

same

guise

as

the

buying

and

selling

of

all

other

commodities.

The

buyer

gives

a

certain

sum

of

money,

the

seller

an

article

of

a

nature

different

from

money.

The

jurist's

consciousness

recognizes

in

this,

at

most,

a

material

difference,

expressed

in

the

juridically

equivalent

formula:

\"Do

ut

des,

do

ut

facias,

facio

ut

des,

facio

ut

facias.\"

9

Furthermore,

exchange-value

and

use-value,

being

intrinsically

incommensurable

magnitudes,

the

expressions

\"value

of

labour,\"

\"price

of

labour,\"

do

not

seem

more

irrational

than

the

expressions

\"value

of

cotton,\"

\"price

of

cotton.\"

Moreover,

the

labourer

is

paid

after

he

has

given

his

labour.

In

its

function

of

means

of

payment,

money

realizes

subsequently

the

value

or

price

of

the

article

supplied

–

i.e.,

in

this

particular

case,

the

value

or

price

of

the

labour

supplied.

Finally,

the

use-value

supplied

by

the

labourer

to

the

capitalist

is

not,

in

fact,

his

labour

power,

but

its

function,

some

definite

useful

labour,the

work

of

tailoring,

shoemaking,

spinning,

&c.

That

this

same

labour

is,

on

the

other

hand,

the

universal

value-creating

element,

and

thus

possesses

a

property

by

which

it

differs

from

all

other

commodities,

is

beyond

the

cognizance

of

the

ordinary

mind.

Let

us

put

ourselves

in

the

place

of

the

labourer

who

receives

for

12

hours'

labour,

say

the

value

produced

by

6

hours'

labour,

say

3s.

For

him,

in

fact,

his

12

hours'

labour

is

the

means

of

buying

the

3s.

The

value

of

his

labour-power

may

vary,

with

the

value

of

his

usual

means

of

subsistence,

from

3

to

4

shillings,

or

from

3

to

2

shillings;

or,

if

the

value

of

his

labour

power

remains

constant,

its

price

may,

in

consequence

of

changing

relations

of

demand

and

supply,

rise

to

4s.

or

fall

to

2s.

He

always

gives

12

hours

of

labour.Every

change

in

the

amount

of

the

equivalent

that

he

receives

appears

to

him,

therefore,

necessarily

as

a

change

in

the

value

or

price

of

his

12

hours'

work.

This

circumstance

misled

Adam

Smith,

who

treated

the

working

day

as

a

constant

quantity,10to

the

assertion

that

the

value

of

labour

is

constant,

although

the

value

of

the

means

of

subsistence

may

vary,

and

the

same

working

day,

therefore,

may

represent

itself

in

more

or

less

money

for

the

labourer.

Let

us

consider,

on

the

other

hand,

the

capitalist.

He

wishes

to

receive

as

much

labour

as

possible

for

as

little

money

as

possible.

Practically,

therefore,

the

only

thing

that

interests

him

is

the

difference

between

the

price

of

labour-power

and

the

value

which

its

function

creates.

But,

then,

he

tries

to

buy

all

commodities

as

cheaply

as

possible,

and

always

accounts

for

his

profit

by

simple

cheating,

by

buying

under,

and

selling

over

the

value.

Hence,

he

never

comes

to

see

that,

if

such

a

thing

as

the

value

of

labour

really

existed,

and

he

really

paid

this

value,

no

capital

would

exist,

his

money

would

not

be

turned

into

capital.

Moreover,

the

actual

movement

of

wages

presents

phenomena

which

seem

to

prove

that

not

the

value

of

labour-power

is

paid,

but

the

value

of

its

function,

of

labour

itself.

We

may

reduce

these

phenomena

to

two

great

classes:

1.)

Change

of

wages

with

the

changing

length

of

the

working

day.

One

might

as

well

conclude

that

not

the

value

of

a

machine

is

paid,

but

that

of

its

working,

because

it

costs

more

to

hire

a

machine

for

a

week

than

for

a

day.

2.)

The

individual

difference

in

the

wages

of

different

labourers

who

do

the

same

kind

of

work.

We

find

this

individual

difference,

but

are

not

deceived

by

it,

in

the

system

of

slavery,

where,

frankly

and

openly,

without

any

circumlocution,

labour

power

itself

is

sold.

Only,

in

the

slave

system,

the

advantage

of

a

labour-power

above

the

average,

and

the

disadvantage

of

a

labour-power

below

the

average,affects

the

slave-owner;

in

the

wage-labour

system,

it

affects

the

labourer

himself,

because

his

labour-power

is,

in

the

one

case,

sold

by

himself,

in

the

other,

by

a

third

person.

For

the

rest,

in

respect

to

the

phenomenal

form,\"value

and

price

of

labour,\"

or

\"wages,\"

as

contrasted

with

the

essential

relation

manifested

therein,

viz.,

the

value

and

price

of

labour-power,

the

same

difference

holds

that

holds

in

respect

to

all

phenomena

and

their

hidden

substratum.

The

former

appear

directly

and

spontaneously

as

current

modes

of

thought;

the

latter

must

first

be

discovered

by

science.

Classical

Political

Economy

nearly

touches

the

true

relation

of

things,without,

however,

consciously

formulating

it.

This

it

cannot,

so

long

as

it

sticks

in

its

bourgeois

skin.

NOTES:

1\"Mr.Ricardo

ingeniously

enough

avoids

a

difficulty

which,on

a

first

view,

threatens

to

encumber

his

doctrine

—

that

value

depends

on

the

quantity

of

labour

employed

in

production.

If

this

principle

is

rigidly

adhered

to,

it

follows

that

the

value

of

labour

depends

on

the

quantity

of

labour

employed

in

producing

it

—

which

is

evidently

absurd.

By

a

dexterous

turn,therefore,

Mr.

Ricardo

makes

the

value

of

labour

depend

on

the

quantity

of

labour

required

to

produce

wages;

or,

to

give

him

the

benefit

of

his

own

language,

he

maintains,

that

the

value

of

labour

is

to

be

estimated

by

the

quantity

of

labour

required

to

produce

wages;

by

which

he

means

the

quantity

of

labour

required

to

produce

the

money

or

commodities

given

to

the

labourer.

This

is

similar

to

saying,

that

the

value

of

cloth

is

estimated,

not

by

the

quantity

of

labour

bestowed

on

its

production,

but

by

the

quantity

of

labour

bestowed

on

the

production

of

the

silver,

for

which

the

cloth

is

exchanged.\"

—\"A

Critical

Dissertation

on

the

Nature,

&c.,

of

Value,\"

pp.

50,51.

2\"If

you

call

labour

a

commodity,

it

is

not

like

a

commodity

which

is

first

produced

in

order

to

exchange,

and

then

brought

to

market

where

it

must

exchange

with

other

commodities

according

to

the

respective

quantities

of

each

which

there

may

be

in

the

market

at

the

time;

labour

is

created

the

moment

it

is

brought

to

market;

nay,

it

is

brought

to

market

before

it

is

created.\"

—

\"Observations

on

Certain

Verbal

Disputes,\"

&c.,pp.

75,

76.

3\"Treating

labour

as

a

commodity,

and

capital,

the

produce

of

labour,

as

another,

then,

if

the

values

of

these

two

commodities

were

regulated

by

equal

quantities

of

labour,

a

given

amount

of

labour

would

...

exchange

for

that

quantity

of

capital

which

had

been

produced

by

the

same

amount

of

labour;

antecedent

labour

would

...

exchange

for

the

same

amount

as

present

labour.

But

the

value

of

labour

in

relation

to

other

commodities

...

is

determined

not

by

equal

quantities

of

labour.\"

—

E.

G.

Wakefield

in

his

edition

of

Adam

Smith's\"Wealth

of

Nations,\"

Vol.

I.,

London,

1836,

p.

231,

note.

4\"There

has

to

be

a

new

agreement\"

(a

new

edition

of

the

social

contract!)

\"that

whenever

there

is

an

exchange

of

work

done

for

work

to

be

done,

the

latter\"

(the

capitalist)\"is

to

receive

a

higher

value

than

the

former\"

(the

worker).—

Simonde

(de

Sismondi),

\"De

la

Richesse

Commerciale,\"Geneva,

1803,

Vol

I,

p.

37.

5\"Labour

the

exclusive

standard

of

value

...

the

creator

of

all

wealth,

no

commodity.\"

Thomas

Hodgskin,

\"Popul.

Polit.Econ.,\"

p.

186.

6On

the

other

hand,

the

attempt

to

explain

such

expressions

as

merely

poetic

license

only

shows

the

impotence

of

the

analysis.

Hence,

in

answer

to

Proudhon's

phrase;

\"Labour

is

called

value,

not

as

being

a

commodity

itself,

but

in

view

of

the

values

supposed

to

be

potentially

embodied

in

it.

The

value

of

labour

is

a

figurative

expression,\"

&c.

I

have

remarked:

\"In

labour,

commodity,

which

is

a

frightful

reality,

he

(Proudhon)

sees

nothing

but

a

grammatical

ellipsis.

The

whole

of

existing

society,

then,

based

upon

labour

commodity,

is

henceforth

based

upon

a

poetic

license,

on

a

figurative

expression.

Does

society

desire

to

eliminate

all

the

inconveniences

which

trouble

it,

it

has

only

to

eliminate

all

the

ill-sounding

terms.

Let

it

change

the

language,

and

for

that

it

has

only

to

address

itself

to

the

Academy

and

ask

it

for

a

new

edition

of

its

dictionary.\"(Karl

Marx,

\"Misère

de

la

Philosophie,\"

pp.

34,

35.)

It

is

naturally

still

more

convenient

to

understand

by

value

nothing

at

all.

Then

one

can

without

difficulty

subsume

everything

under

this

category.

Thus,

e.g.,

J.

B.

Say:

\"What

is

value\"Answer:

\"That

which

a

thing

is

worth\";

and

what

is

\"price\"Answer:

\"The

value

of

a

thing

expressed

in

money.\"

And

why

has

agriculture

a

value

Answer:

\"Because

one

sets

a

price

on

it.\"

Therefore

value

is

what

a

thing

is

worth,

and

the

land

has

its

\"value,\"

because

its

value

is

\"expressed

in

money.\"

This

is,

anyhow,

a

very

simple

way

of

explaining

the

why

and

the

wherefore

of

things.

7Cf.

\"Zur

Kritik

&c.,\"

p.

40,

where

I

state

that,

in

the

portion

of

that

work

that

deals

with

Capital,

this

problem

will

be

solved:

\"How

does

production,

on

the

basis

of

exchange

value

determined

simply

by

labour-time,

lead

to

the

result

that

the

exchange-value

of

labour

is

less

than

the

exchange-value

of

its

product\"

8The

\"Morning

Star,\"

a

London

Free-trade

organ,

naif

to

silliness,

protested

again

and

again

during

the

American

Civil

War,

with

all

the

moral

indignation

of

which

man

is

capable,that

the

Negro

in

the

\"Confederate

States\"

worked

absolutely

for

nothing.

It

should

have

compared

the

daily

cost

of

such

a

Negro

with

that

of

the

free

workman

in

the

East-end

of

London.

9I

give

in

order

that

you

may

give;

I

give

in

order

that

you

may

produce;

I

produce

so

that

you

may

give;

I

produce

so

that

you

may

produce.

10Adam

Smith

only

accidentally

alludes

to

the

variation

of

the

working

day

when

he

is

referring

to

piece-wages.