The People's Marx, Abridged Popular Edition of the the Three Volumes of Capital, Borchardt 1921
(Extracted from vol. I, cli. 6.)
Now that we have seen that the value of commodities is constituted solely by the human labour contained in them, let us return to the question as to how it is possible for the manufacturer to obtain from his commodities a greater value than that invested by him in them.
We will put the case once more before the reader: a capitalist needs a definite sum, say £ 5, for the production of a certain commodity. He subsequently sells the finished product for £ 5 10 s. As our investigation has shown that the surplus value of 10 shillings cannot have arisen in the process of circulation (i. e. in the turnover of the commodities), it must have its origin in the process of production. It is now incumbent on us to show how this comes about.
The problem, it is true, is partly solved, once we know that value is created by socially necessary labour. In order to produce yarn with the available means of production, e.g. spinning and cotton, labour is performed in the spinning-mill. In so far as such labour is socially necessary, it creates value. It therefore adds a new value to the already existing means of production - in this case raw cotton - by transmitting at the same time the value of worn-out machinery etc. to the yarn. But the difficulty remains, that the capitalist would also seem to have included payment for the newly performed labour in his costs of production, seeing that wages are likewise reckoned among such costs of production along with the value of the machines, buildings, raw materials, and other requisites. And these wages are paid precisely for the labour performed in spinning. It appears therefore as if all the values available after the process of production were also available previously.
But it is clear that the value which has been newly created by the work of spinning is not necessarily identical with the value paid by the capitalist in the shape of wages. It can be larger or smaller. If it be larger, we should then have discovered the origin of the surplus-value.
Have we not, however, proceeded from the assumption that in all purchases and sales the exact value is paid? Have we not satisfied ourselves that price often deviates from value, but that such deviations explain nothing? For this reason must 'the case of the capitalist paying the labourer less than the latter's value - however often such cases may occur - be here considered only as an exception. The origin of the surplus-value must also be explained in the normal case of the capitalist paying the full value of what he purchases for the purpose of labour. This particular transaction of purchase and sale, such as it takes place between capitalist and labourer, must hence be more closely scrutinised.
That which the capitalist obtains by paying wages, consequently that which he purchases from the labourer, is the latter's faculty, or power, of working. But in order that the capitalist may be able to purchase labour power, various conditions must be fulfilled. Labour power can only appear as a commodity on the market in so far, and because, it is offered for sale by its owner. In order to sell it as a commodity, the owner of such labour power must be able to dispose of it, that is to say he must be a free person, the free proprietor of his working faculty. He and the capitalist meet on the market and come into contact with each other as proprietors of commodities of equal rights -- differing from each other only in that the one is purchaser and the other vendor - consequently as legally equal persons. In order to ensure the continuity of these relations it is necessary that the proprietor of labour power sell the latter only for a specified length of time. For should he sell it in the bulk. once and for all, he would be selling himself, and converting himself from a free man into a slave; he would cease to be a proprietor of commodities and would become a commodity itself.
The second essential condition, if the capitalist is to find labour power as a commodity on the market, is that its proprietor, instead of being able to sell commodities in which his labour is incorporated, is obliged to offer his labour power itself, which exists solely in his living body. This is the case when he owns none of the means of production, e. g. raw materials, tools, etc., necessary for the manufacture of commodities, and no foodstuffs to keep him alive until the process of manufacture is completed and the commodities sold.
The capitalist must therefore find a free labourer on the market, free in a double sense of the word: namely, a free man able to dispose of his labour power as his own commodity; and, on the other hand, a man having no other commodities to sell, without ties of any sort, free from everything necessary to utilize his labour power.
The question as to why this free labourer meets him on the commodities market, does not interest the capitalist. And for the present it does not interest us either. But one thing is clear: Nature does not produce on the one hand capitalists and proprietors of commodities, on the other proprietors solely of their own individual labour power. This state of things is not a natural one, nor indeed a social one in the sense of being common to all periods of history. Manifestly it is the result of an antecedent historical development, the product of numerous economic revolutions, of the disappearance of a number of older forms of social production.
This peculiar commodity, labour power, must now be considered more closely. Like every other commodity it possesses value. How is this value determined?
The value of labour power, like that of every oilier commodity, is determined by the working-time necessary for its production, consequently also for its reproduction. Labour power exists solely as an attribute of a live individual, and hence it presupposes the latter's existence. A live individual needs a certain amount of necessaries in order to sustain himself. The working-time necessary for the production of labour power resolves itself therefore into the working-time required for the production of such necessaries of life, in other words: the value of labour power is the value of the necessaries required to sustain its proprietor.
The amount of necessaries must be sufficient to maintain the working individual in his normal condition of life. The natural wants themselves, such as food, clothing, heating, lodging, etc. vary according to the natural conditions pre- vailing in every country. On the other hand the extent of the so-called natural wants, and the manner in which they are satisfied, depend to a large extent on the degree of civilisation attained by any given country - especially on (amongst other factors) the conditions under which the class of free labourers has been formed, consequently on the customs and the standard of life acquired by this class. In the case of labour power a historical and a moral element thus enter into the determination of its value, contrary to the case of all other commodities. But for a given country at any given time, the average quantity of indispensable necessaries is practically known.
The proprietor of labour power is mortal. If such proprietors are to appear permanently on the market, and the unceasing demands of capital require this, then must that amount of labour power which is lost to the market in consequence of wear and tear or death be continually replaced by at least an equal amount of new power. The sum total of the necessaries required for the production of labour power thus includes those required by future (substitute) power, i. e. by the labourer's children. Likewise included in the sum total are the costs necessitated by learning the skill and dexterity requisite for a given branch of labour - costs which, however, are insignificant in so far as ordinary labour power is concerned.
The value of labour power consists in the value of a definite amount of necessaries of life. It varies according as to how such necessaries vary - i. e. according to the length of working-time needed for their production. Part of these necessaries, e. g. foodstuffs, fuel, etc., is consumed daily and must be replaced daily. Other necessaries, such as clothes, furniture, etc., take longer to consume and need hence be replaced only at longer intervals. Commodities of one kind must be bought or paid for daily, others weekly, quarterly, etc. But however the sum total of these costs be distributed over the course, say, of a year, it must be covered by the average income, taking one day with another. The real daily value of labour power will thus be ascertained by reckoning the value of all the necessaries of life required by the labourer during an entire year, and then dividing this sum by 365. If we assume that in the commodities required for an average day six hours social labour is contained, then does labour power represent half a day's average social work daily - or in other words, half a working-day is required for the daily production of labour power. [1] This quantity of labour necessary for the daily production of labour power constitutes the daily value of such power - or, if one likes, the value of daily reproduced power. If half a day's average social labour be incorporated also in a quantity of gold worth 3 shillings, then is this sum the price corresponding to the daily value of labour power. If the proprietor of labour power offers it for three shillings a day, then is the selling price equal to the value of such power; and we have assumed that the capitalist pays this value.
To the peculiar nature of the commodity we call labour power is due the fact that when the contract between buyer and seller has been concluded, the value in use of the commodity in question has not really been transferred to the buyer. The value in use of labour power consists in the subsequent exercise of force. The sale of labour power and the exercise of the latter are thus separated from each other in time. But in the case of commodities, the sale of whose value in use is separated in time from their effective transfer to the buyer, payment is as a general rule made subsequently. In all countries with capitalist production the power of labour is paid only after it has exercised itself, e. g. at the end of the week. The labourer thus everywhere advances the capitalist the value in use of labour power; he lets the latter be consumed by the buyer before receiving payment of its price. Therefore does the labourer everywhere give credit to the capitalist.
[1] The reader is particularly requested to read this attentively. Dr. Friedrich Kleimvächter, Professor of Political Economy at the University of Czernowitz, has understood this passage as meaning that Marx maintains that a labourer produces in about six hours everything needed by him for his sustenance! (Vide Kleinwächter, Lehrbuch der National Ökonomie, p. 453). EDITOR'S NOTE