資本論 CHAPTER 22: NATIONAL DIFFERENCES OF WAGES

In

the

17th

chapter

we

were

occupied

with

the

manifold

combinations

which

may

bring

about

a

change

in

magnitude

of

the

value

of

labour-power–

this

magnitude

being

considered

either

absolutely

or

relatively,

i.e.,

as

compared

with

surplus-value;whilst

on

the

other

hand,

the

quantum

of

the

means

of

subsistence

in

which

the

price

of

labour

is

realized

might

again

undergo

fluctuations

independent

of,

or

different

from,

the

changes

of

this

price.1As

has

been

already

said,

the

simple

translation

of

the

value,

or

respectively

of

the

price,

of

labour-power

into

the

exoteric

form

of

wages

transforms

all

these

laws

into

laws

of

the

fluctuations

of

wages.

That

which

appears

in

these

fluctuations

of

wages

within

a

single

country

as

a

series

of

varying

combinations,

may

appear

in

different

countries

as

contemporaneous

difference

of

national

wages.

In

the

comparison

of

the

wages

in

different

nations,

we

must

therefore

take

into

account

all

the

factors

that

determine

changes

in

the

amount

of

the

value

of

labour-power;

the

price

and

the

extent

of

the

prime

necessaries

of

life

as

naturally

and

historically

developed,

the

cost

of

training

the

labourers,

the

part

played

by

the

labour

of

women

and

children,

the

productiveness

of

labour,

its

extensive

and

intensive

magnitude.

Even

the

most

superficial

comparison

requires

the

reduction

first

of

the

average

day-wage

for

the

same

trades,

in

different

countries,

to

a

uniform

working

day.

After

this

reduction

to

the

same

terms

of

the

day-wages,

time-wage

must

again

be

translated

into

piece-wage,

as

the

latter

only

can

be

a

measure

both

of

the

productivity

and

the

intensity

of

labour.

In

every

country

there

is

a

certain

average

intensity

of

labour

below

which

the

labour

for

the

production

of

a

commodity

requires

more

than

the

socially

necessary

time,

and

therefore

does

not

reckon

as

labour

of

normal

quality.

Only

a

degree

of

intensity

above

the

national

average

affects,

in

a

given

country,

the

measure

of

value

by

the

mere

duration

of

the

working

time.

This

is

not

the

case

on

the

universal

market,whose

integral

parts

are

the

individual

countries.

The

average

intensity

of

labour

changes

from

country

to

country;

here

it

is

greater,

there

less.

These

national

averages

form

a

scale,

whose

unit

of

measure

is

the

average

unit

of

universal

labour.

The

more

intense

national

labour,

therefore,

as

compared

with

the

less

intense,

produces

in

the

same

time

more

value,

which

expresses

itself

in

more

money.

But

the

law

of

value

in

its

international

application

is

yet

more

modified

by

the

fact

that

on

the

world-market

the

more

productive

national

labour

reckons

also

as

the

more

intense,

so

long

as

the

more

productive

nation

is

not

compelled

by

competition

to

lower

the

selling

price

of

its

commodities

to

the

level

of

their

value.

In

proportion

as

capitalist

production

is

developed

in

a

country,

in

the

same

proportion

do

the

national

intensity

and

productivity

of

labour

there

rise

above

the

international

level.2The

different

quantities

of

commodities

of

the

same

kind,

produced

in

different

countries

in

the

same

working-time,

have,

therefore,unequal

international

values,

which

are

expressed

in

different

prices,

i.e.,

in

sums

of

money

varying

according

to

international

values.

The

relative

value

of

money

will,

therefore,

be

less

in

the

nation

with

more

developed

capitalist

mode

of

production

than

in

the

nation

with

less

developed.

It

follows,

then,that

the

nominal

wages,

the

equivalent

of

labour

power

expressed

in

money,

will

also

be

higher

in

the

first

nation

than

in

the

second;

which

does

not

at

all

prove

that

this

holds

also

for

the

real

wages,

i.e.,

for

the

means

of

subsistence

placed

at

the

disposal

of

the

labourer.

But

even

apart

from

these

relative

differences

of

the

value

of

money

in

different

countries,

it

will

be

found,

frequently,

that

the

daily

or

weekly,

&tc.,

wage

in

the

first

nation

is

higher

than

in

the

second,

whilst

the

relative

price

of

labour,

i.e.,

the

price

of

labour

as

compared

both

with

surplus-value

and

with

the

value

of

the

product,

stands

higher

in

the

second

than

in

the

first.3

J.

W.

Cowell,

member

of

the

Factory

Commission

of

1833,

after

careful

investigation

of

the

spinning

trade,came

to

the

conclusion

that

\"in

England

wages

are

virtually

lower

to

the

capitalist,

though

higher

to

the

operative

than

on

the

Continent

of

Europe.\"4

The

English

Factory

Inspector,

Alexander

Redgrave,in

his

report

of

Oct.

31st,

1866,

proves

by

comparative

statistics

with

continental

states,

that

in

spite

of

lower

wages

and

much

longer

working-time,

continental

labour

is,

in

proportion

to

the

product,

dearer

than

English.

An

English

manager

of

a

cotton

factory

in

Oldenburg

declares

that

the

working

time

there

lasted

from

5:30

a.m.

to

8

p.m.,

Saturdays

included,and

that

the

workpeople

there,

when

under

English

overlookers,

did

not

supply

during

this

time

quite

so

much

product

as

the

English

in

10

hours,

but

under

German

overlookers

much

less.

Wages

are

much

lower

than

in

England,

in

many

cases

50%,

but

the

number

of

hands

in

proportion

to

the

machinery

was

much

greater,

in

certain

departments

in

the

proportion

of

5:3.

Mr.

Redgrave

gives

very

full

details

as

to

the

Russian

cotton

factories.

The

data

were

given

him

by

an

English

manager

until

recently

employed

there.On

this

Russian

soil,

so

fruitful

of

all

infamies,

the

old

horrors

of

the

early

days

of

English

factories

are

in

full

swing.

The

managers

are,

of

course,

English,as

the

native

Russian

capitalist

is

of

no

use

in

factory

business.

Despite

all

over-work,

continued

day

and

night,

despite

the

most

shameful

under-payment

of

the

workpeople,

Russian

manufacture

manages

to

vegetate

only

by

prohibition

of

foreign

competition.

I

give,

in

conclusion,

a

comparative

table

of

Mr.Redgrave's,

on

the

average

number

of

spindles

per

factory

and

per

spinner

in

the

different

countries

of

Europe.

He

himself

remarks

that

he

had

collected

these

figures

a

few

years

ago,

and

that

since

that

time

the

size

of

the

factories

and

the

number

of

spindles

per

labourer

in

England

has

increased.

He

supposes,however,

an

approximately

equal

progress

in

the

continental

countries

mentioned,

so

that

the

numbers

given

would

still

have

their

value

for

purposes

of

comparison.

AVERAGE

NUMBER

OF

SPINDLES

PER

FACTORY

AVERAGE

NUMBER

OF

PERSONS

EMPLOYED

TO

SPINDLES

\"This

comparison,\"

says

Mr.

Redgrave,

\"is

yet

more

unfavorable

to

Great

Britain,

inasmuch

as

there

is

so

large

a

number

of

factories

in

which

weaving

by

power

is

carried

on

in

conjunction

with

spinning\"(whilst

in

the

table

the

weavers

are

not

deducted),

\"and

the

factories

abroad

are

chiefly

spinning

factories;if

it

were

possible

to

compare

like

with

like,

strictly,I

could

find

many

cotton

spinning

factories

in

my

district

in

which

mules

containing

2,200

spindles

are

minded

by

one

man

(the

minder)

and

two

assistants

only,

turning

off

daily

220

lbs.

of

yarn,

measuring

400

miles

in

length.\"

5

It

is

well

known

that

in

Eastern

Europe,

as

well

as

in

Asia,

English

companies

have

undertaken

the

construction

of

railways,

and

have,

in

making

them,employed

side

by

side

with

the

native

labourers,

a

certain

number

of

English

working-men.

Compelled

by

practical

necessity,

they

thus

have

had

to

take

into

account

the

national

difference

in

the

intensity

of

labour,

but

this

has

brought

them

no

loss.

Their

experience

shows

that

even

if

the

height

of

wages

corresponds

more

or

less

with

the

average

intensity

of

labour,

the

relative

price

of

labour

varies

generally

in

the

inverse

direction.

In

an

\"Essay

on

the

Rate

of

Wages,\"6one

of

his

first

economic

writings,

H.

Carey

tries

to

prove

that

the

wages

of

the

different

nations

are

directly

proportional

to

the

degree

of

productiveness

of

the

national

working

days,

in

order

to

draw

from

this

international

relation

the

conclusion

that

wages

everywhere

rise

and

fall

in

proportion

to

the

productiveness

of

labour.

The

whole

of

our

analysis

of

the

production

of

surplus

value

shows

the

absurdity

of

this

conclusion,

even

if

Carey

himself

had

proved

his

premises

instead

of,

after

his

usual

uncritical

and

superficial

fashion,shuffling

to

and

fro

a

confused

mass

of

statistical

materials.

The

best

of

it

is

that

he

does

not

assert

that

things

actually

are

as

they

ought

to

be

according

to

his

theory.

For

State

intervention

has

falsified

the

natural

economic

relations.

The

different

national

wages

must

be

reckoned,

therefore,

as

if

that

part

of

each

that

goes

to

the

State

in

the

form

of

taxes,

came

to

the

labourer

himself.

Ought

not

Mr.

Carey

to

consider

further

whether

those

\"State

expenses\"

are

not

the

\"natural\"fruits

of

capitalistic

development

The

reasoning

is

quite

worthy

of

the

man

who

first

declared

the

relations

of

capitalist

production

to

be

eternal

laws

of

nature

and

reason,

whose

free,

harmonious

working

is

only

disturbed

by

the

intervention

of

the

State,

in

order

afterwards

to

discover

that

the

diabolical

influence

of

England

on

the

world

market

(an

influence

which,it

appears,

does

not

spring

from

the

natural

laws

of

capitalist

production)

necessitates

State

intervention,i.e.,

the

protection

of

those

laws

of

nature

and

reason

by

the

State,

alias

the

System

of

Protection.

He

discovered

further

that

the

theorems

of

Ricardo

and

others,

in

which

existing

social

antagonisms

and

contradictions

are

formulated,

are

not

the

ideal

product

of

the

real

economic

movement,

but

on

the

contrary,that

the

real

antagonisms

of

capitalist

production

in

England

and

elsewhere

are

the

result

of

the

theories

of

Ricardo

and

others!

Finally

he

discovered

that

it

is,

in

the

last

resort,

commerce

that

destroys

the

inborn

beauties

and

harmonies

of

the

capitalist

mode

of

production.

A

step

further

and

he

will,

perhaps,discover

that

the

one

evil

in

capitalist

production

is

capital

itself.

Only

a

man

with

such

atrocious

want

of

the

critical

faculty

and

such

spurious

erudition

deserved,

in

spite

of

his

Protectionist

heresy,

to

become

the

secret

source

of

the

harmonious

wisdom

of

a

Bastiat,

and

of

all

the

other

Free-trade

optimists

of

today.

NOTES:

1\"It

is

not

accurate

to

say

that

wages\"

(he

deals

here

with

their

money

expression)

\"are

increased,

because

they

purchase

more

of

a

cheaper

article.\"

(David

Buchanan

in

his

edition

of

Adam

Smith's

\"Wealth

of

Nations,\"

1814,

Vol.

1,

p.

417,

note.)

2We

shall

inquire,

in

another

place,

what

circumstances

in

relation

to

productivity

may

modify

this

law

for

individual

branches

of

industry.

3James

Anderson

remarks

in

his

polemic

against

Adam

Smith:

\"It

deserves,

likewise,

to

be

remarked,

that

although

the

apparent

price

of

Labour

is

usually

lower

in

poor

countries,where

the

produce

of

the

soil,

and

grain

in

general,

is

cheap;yet

it

is

in

fact

for

the

most

part

really

higher

than

in

other

countries.

For

it

is

not

the

wages

that

is

given

to

the

labourer

per

day

that

constitutes

the

real

price

of

labour,

although

it

is

its

apparent

price.

The

real

price

is

that

which

a

certain

quantity

of

work

performed

actually

costs

the

employer;

and

considered

in

this

light,

labour

is

in

almost

all

cases

cheaper

in

rich

countries

than

in

those

that

are

poorer,

although

the

price

of

grain

and

other

provisions

is

usually

much

lower

in

the

last

than

in

the

first....

Labour

estimated

by

the

day

is

much

lower

in

Scotland

than

in

England....

Labour

by

the

piece

is

generally

cheaper

in

England.\"

(James

Anderson,

\"Observations

on

the

Means

of

Exciting

a

Spirit

of

National

Industry,\"

&tc.,

Edin.

1777,

pp.350,

351.)

On

the

contrary,

lowness

of

wages

produces,

in

its

turn,

dearness

of

labour.

\"Labour

being

dearer

in

Ireland

than

it

is

in

England

...

because

the

wages

are

so

much

lower.\"

(N.2079

in

\"Royal

Commission

on

Railways,

Minutes,\"

1867.)

4(Ure,

op.

cit.,

p.

314.)

5(\"Reports

of

Insp.

of

Fact.,\"

31st

Oct.,

1866,

pp.

31-37,passim.)

6\"Essay

on

the

Rate

of

Wages,

with

an

Examination

of

the

Causes

of

the

Differences

in

the

Condition

of

the

Labouring

Population

throughout

the

World,\"

Philadelphia,

1835.