Since 1848, the factory
inspectors
have never tired of twitting the masters with this --last,?
Marx - Capital-Volume-I
London, 1837.
Here we find, amongst others, the following edifying passage:
--Under the present law, no mill in which persons under 18 years of age are employed, . . . can be worked more than 111/2 hours a day, that is, 12 hours for 5 days in the week, and nine on Saturday.
--Now the following analysis (! ) will show that in a mill so worked, the whole net profit is derived from the last hour. I will suppose a manufacturer to invest ? 100,000: - ? 80,000 in his mill and machinery, and ? 20,000 in raw material and wages. The annual return of that mill, supposing the capital to be turned once a year, and gross profits to be 15 per cent. , ought to be goods worth ? 15,000. . . . Of this ? 115,000, each of the twenty-three half-hours of work produces 5-115ths or one twenty-third. Of these 23-23rds (constituting the whole ? 115,000) twenty, that is to say ? 100,000 out of the ? 115,000, simply replace the capital; - one twenty- third (or ? 5,000 out of the ? 115,000) makes up for the deterioration of the mill and machinery. The remaining 2-23rds, that is, the last two of the twenty-three half-hours of every day, produce the net profit of 10 per cent. If, therefore (prices remaining the same), the factory could be kept at work thirteen hours instead of eleven and a half, with an addition of about ? 2,600 to the circulating capital, the net profit would be more than doubled. On the other hand, if the hours of working were reduced by one hour per day (prices remaining the same), the net profit would be destroyed - if they were reduced by one hour and a half, even the gross profit would be destroyed. ? 10
And the Professor calls this an --analysis! ? If, giving credence to the out-cries of the manufacturers, he believed that the workmen spend the best part of the day in the production, i. e. , the reproduction or replacement of the value of the buildings, machinery, cotton, coal, &c. , then his analysis was superfluous. His answer would simply have been: - Gentlemen! if you work your mills for 10 hours instead of 111/2, then, other things being equal, the daily consumption of cotton, machinery, &c. , will decrease in proportion. You gain just as much as you lose. Your work-people will in future spend one hour and a half less time in reproducing or replacing the capital that has been advanced. - If, on the other hand, he did not believe them without further inquiry, but, as being an expert in such matters, deemed an analysis necessary, then he ought, in a question that is concerned exclusively with the relations of net profit to the length of the working day, before all things to have asked the manufacturers, to be careful not to lump together machinery, workshops, raw material, and labour, but to be good enough to place the constant capital, invested in buildings, machinery, raw material, &c. , on one side of the account, and the capital advanced in wages on the other side. If the Professor then found, that in accordance with the calculation of the manufacturers, the workman reproduced or replaced his wages in 2 half- hours, in that case, he should have continued his analysis thus:
According to your figures, the workman in the last hour but one produces his wages, and in the last hour your surplus value or net profit. Now, since in equal periods he produces equal values, the produce of the last hour but one, must have the same value as that of the last hour. Further, it is only while he labours that he produces any value at all, and the amount of his labour is measured by his labour-time. This you say, amounts to 111/2 hours a day. He employs one portion of these 111/2 hours, in producing or replacing his wages, and the remaining portion in producing your net profit. Beyond this he does absolutely nothing. But since, on your assumption, his wages, and the surplus value he yields, are of equal value, it is clear that he produces his wages in
? 155 Chapter 9
53/4 hours, and your net profit in the other 53/4 hours. Again, since the value of the yarn produced in 2 hours, is equal to the sum of the values of his wages and of your net profit, the measure of the value of this yarn must be 111/2 working-hours, of which 53/4 hours measure the value of the yarn produced in the last hour but one, and 53/4, the value of the yarn produced in the last hour. We now come to a ticklish point; therefore, attention! The last working-hour but one is, like the first, an ordinary working-hour, neither more nor less. How then can the spinner produce in one hour, in the shape of yarn, a value that embodies 53/4 hours' labour? The truth is that he performs no such miracle. The use-value produced by him in one hour, is a definite quantity of yarn. The value of this yarn is measured by 53/4 working-hours, of which 43/4 were, without any assistance from him, previously embodied in the means of production, in the cotton, the machinery, and so on; the remaining one hour alone is added by him. Therefore since his wages are produced in 53/4 hours, and the yarn produced in one hour also contains 53/4 hours' work, there is no witchcraft in the result, that the value created by his 53/4 hours' spinning, is equal to the value of the product spun in one hour. You are altogether on the wrong track, if you think that he loses a single moment of his working day, in reproducing or replacing the values of the cotton, the machinery, and so on. On the contrary, it is because his labour converts the cotton and spindles into yarn, because he spins, that the values of the cotton and spindles go over to the yarn of their own accord. This result is owing to the quality of his labour, not to its quantity. It is true, he will in one hour transfer to the yarn more value, in the shape of cotton, than he will in half an hour; but that is only because in one hour he spins up more cotton than in half an hour. You see then, your assertion, that the workman produces, in the last hour but one, the value of his wages, and in the last hour your net profit, amounts to no more than this, that in the yarn produced by him in 2 working-hours, whether they are the 2 first or the 2 last hours of the working day, in that yarn, there are incorporated 111/2 working-hours, or just a whole day's work, i. e. , two hours of his own work and 91/2 hours of other people's. And my assertion that, in the first 53/4 hours, he produces his wages, and in the last 53/4 hours your net profit, amounts only to this, that you pay him for the former, but not for the latter. In speaking of payment of labour, instead of payment of labour- power, I only talk your own slang. Now, gentlemen, if you compare the working-time you pay for, with that which you do not pay for, you will find that they are to one another, as half a day is to half a day; this gives a rate of 100%, and a very pretty percentage it is. Further, there is not the least doubt, that if you make you --hands? toil for 13 hours, instead of 111/2, and, as may be expected from you, treat the work done in that extra one hour and a half, as pure surplus labour, then the latter will be increased from 53/4 hours' labour to 71/4 hours' labour, and the rate of surplus value from 100% to 126 2/23%. So that you are altogether too sanguine, in expecting that by such an addition of 11/2 hours to the working day, the rate will rise from 100% to 200% and more, in other words that it will be --more than doubled. ? On the other hand-man's heart is a wonderful thing, especially when carried in the purse - you take too pessimist a view, when you fear, that with a reduction of the hours of labour from 111/2 to 10, the whole of your net profit will go to the dogs. Not at all. All other conditions remaining the same, the surplus labour will fall from 53/4 hours to 43/4 hours, a period that still gives a very profitable rate of surplus value, namely 82 14/23%. But this dreadful --last hour,? about which you have invented more stories than have the millenarians about the day of judgment, is --all bosh. ? If it goes, it will cost neither you, your net profit, nor the boys and girls whom you employ, their --purity of mind. ? 11 Whenever your --last hour? strikes in earnest, think of the Oxford Professor. And now, gentlemen, --farewell, and may we meet again in yonder better world, but not before. ?
Senior invented the battle cry of the --last hour? in 1836. 12 In the London Economist of the 15th April, 1848, the same cry was again raised by James Wilson, an economic mandarin of high standing: this time in opposition to the 10 hours' bill.
? 156
Chapter 9
Section 4: Surplus-Produce
The portion of the product that represents the surplus value, (one tenth of the 20 lbs. , or 2 lbs. of yarn, in the example given in Sec. 2) we call --surplus-produce. ? Just as the rate of surplus value is determined by its relation, not to the sum total of the capital, but to its variable part; in like manner, the relative quantity of surplus-produce is determined by the ratio that this produce bears, not to the remaining part of the total product, but to that part of it in which is incorporated the necessary labour. Since the production of surplus value is the chief end and aim of capitalist production, it is clear, that the greatness of a man's or a nation's wealth should be measured, not by the absolute quantity produced, but by the relative magnitude of the surplus-produce. 13
The sum of the necessary labour and the surplus labour, i. e. , of the periods of time during which the workman replaces the value of his labour-power, and produces the surplus value, this sum constitutes the actual time during which he works, i. e. , the working day.
1 --If we reckon the value of the fixed capital employed as a part of the advances, we must reckon the remaining value of such capital at the end of the year as a part of the annual returns. ? (Malthus, --Princ. of Pol. Econ. ? 2nd. ed. , Lond. , 1836, p. 269. )
2 What Lucretius says is self-evident; --nil posse creari de nihilo,? out of nothing, nothing can be created. Creation of value is transformation of labour-power into labour. Labour-power itself is energy transferred to a human organism by means of nourishing matter.
3 In the same way that the English use the terms --rate of profit,? --rate of interest. ? We shall see, in Book III, that the rate of profit is no mystery, so soon as we know the laws of surplus value. If we reverse the process, we cannot comprehend either the one or the other.
4 Note added in the 3rd German edition. -- The author resorts here to the economic language in current use. It will be remembered that on p. 182 (present edition, p. 174) it was shown that in reality the labourer --advances? to the capitalist and not the capitalist to the labourer. -- F. E.
5 In this work, we have, up to now, employed the term --necessary labour-time,? to designate the time necessary under given social conditions for the production of any commodity. Henceforward we use it to designate also the time necessary for the production of the particular commodity labour-power. The use of one and the same technical term in different senses is inconvenient, but in no science can it be altogether avoided. Compare, for instance, the higher with the lower branches of mathematics.
6 Herr Wilhelm Thucydides Roscher has found a mare's nest. He has made the important discovery that if, on the one hand, the formation of surplus value, or surplus-produce, and the consequent accumulation of capital, is now-a-days due to the thrift of the capitalist, on the other hand, in the lowest stages of civilisation it is the strong who compel the weak to economise. (l. c. , p. 78. ) To economise what? Labour? Or superfluous wealth that does not exist? What is it that makes such men as Roscher account for the origin of surplus value, by a mere rechauffe? of the more of less plausible excuses by the capitalist, for his appropriation of surplus value? It is, besides their real ignorance, their apologetic dread of a scientific analysis of value and surplus value, and of obtaining a result, possibly not altogether palatable to the powers that be.
7 Although the rate of surplus value is an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labour- power, it is, in no sense, an expression for the absolute amount of exploitation. For example, if the necessary labour 5 hours and the surplus labour = 5 hours, the degree of exploitation is 100%. The amount of exploitation is here measured by 5 hours. If, on the other hand, the necessary labour = 6 hours and the surplus labour = 6 hours, the degree of exploitation remains, as before, 100%, while the actual amount of exploitation has increased 20%, namely from five hours to six.
? ? 157 Chapter 9
8 The above data, which may be relied upon, were given me by a Manchester spinner. In England the horse-power of an engine was formerly calculated from the diameter of its cylinder, now the actual horse-power shown by the indicator is taken.
9 The calculations given in the text are intended merely as illustrations. We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall, however, see, in Book Ill. , that even in the case of average prices the assumption cannot be made in this very simple manner.
10 Senior, l. c. , pp. 12, 13. We let pass such extraordinary notions as are of no importance for our purpose; for instance, the assertion, that manufacturers reckon as part of their profit, gross or net, the amount required to make good wear and tear of machinery, or in other words, to replace a part of the capital. So, too, we pass over any question as to the accuracy of his figures. Leonard Horner has shown in --A Letter to Mr. Senior,? &c. , London, 1837, that they are worth no more than so-called --Analysis. ? Leonard Horner was one of the Factory Inquiry Commissioners in 1833, and Inspector, or rather Censor of Factories till 1859. He rendered undying service to the English working-class. He carried on a life-long contest, not only with the embittered manufacturers, but also with the Cabinet, to whom the number of votes given by the masters in the Lower House, was a matter of far greater importance than the number of hours worked by the --hands? in the mills.
Apart from efforts in principle, Senior's statement is confused. What he really intended to say was this: The manufacturer employs the workman for 111/2 hours or for 23 half-hours daily. As the working day, so, too, the working year, may be conceived to consist of 111/2 hours or 23 half-hours, but each multiplied by the number of working days in the year. On this supposition, the 23 half-hours yield an annual product of ? 115,000; one half-hour yields 1/23 * ? 115,000; 20 half-hours yield 20/23 * ? 115,000 = ? 100,000, i. e. , they replace no more than the capital advanced. There remain 3 half- hours, which yield 1/23 * ? 115,000 = ? 5,000 or the gross profit. Of these 3 half-hours, one yields 1/23 * ? 115,000 = ? 5,000; i. e. , it makes up for the wear and tear of the machinery; the remaining 2 half- hours, i. e. , the last hour, yield 2/23 * ? 115,000 = ? 10,000 or the net profit. In the text Senior converts the last 2/23 of the product into portions of the working day itself.
11 If, on the one hand, Senior proved that the net profit of the manufacturer, the existence of he English cotton industry, and England's command of the markets of the world, depend on --the last working-hour,? on the other hand, Dr. Andrew Ure showed, that if children and young persons under 18 years of age, instead of being kept the full 12 hours in the warm and pure moral atmosphere of the factory, are turned out an hour sooner into the heartless and frivolous outer world, they will be deprived, by idleness and vice, of all hope of salvation for their souls.
Since 1848, the factory inspectors have never tired of twitting the masters with this --last,? this --fatal hour. ? Thus Mr. Hovell in his report of the 21st May, 1855: --Had the following ingenious calculation (he quotes Senior) been correct, every cotton factory in the United Kingdom would have been working at a loss since the year 1850. ? (Reports of the Insp. of Fact. , for the half-year, ending 30th April, 1855, pp. 19, 20. ) In the year 1848, after the passing of the 10 hours' bill, the masters of some flax spinning mills, scattered, few and far between, over the country on the borders of Dorset and Somerset, foisted a petition against the bill on to the shoulders of a few of their work-people. One of the clauses of this petition is as follows: --Your petitioners, as parents, conceive that an additional hour of leisure will tend more to demoralise the children than otherwise, believing that idleness is the parent of vice. ? On this the factory report of 31st Oct. , 1848, says: The atmosphere of the flax mills, in which the children of these virtuous and tender parents work, is so loaded with dust and fibre from the raw material, that it is exceptionally unpleasant to stand even 10 minutes in the spinning rooms: for you are unable to do so without the most painful sensation, owing to the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, and mouth, being immediately filled by the clouds of flax dust from which there is no escape. The labour itself, owing to the feverish haste of the machinery, demands unceasing application of skill and movement, under the control of a watchfulness that never tires, and it seems somewhat hard, to let parents apply the term
? ? 158 Chapter 9
--idling? to their own children, who, after allowing for meal-times, are fettered for 10 whole hours to such an occupation, in such an atmosphere. . . . These children work longer than the labourers in the neighbouring villages. . . . Such cruel talk about --idleness and vice? ought to be branded as the purest cant, and the most shameless hypocrisy. . . . That portion of the public, who, about 12 years ago, were struck by the assurance with which, under the sanction of high authority, it was publicly and most earnestly proclaimed, that the whole net profit of the manufacturer flows from the labour of the last hour, and that, therefore, the reduction of the working day by one hour, would destroy his net profit, that portion of the public, we say, will hardly believe its own eyes, when it now finds, that the original discovery of the virtues of --the last hour? has since been so far improved, as to include morals as well as profit; so that, if the duration of the labour of children, is reduced to a full 10 hours, their morals, together with the net profits of their employers, will vanish, both being dependent on this last, this fatal hour. (See Repts. , Insp. of Fact. , for 31st Oct. , 1848, p. 101. ) The same report then gives some examples of the morality and virtue of these same pure-minded manufacturers, of the tricks, the artifices, the cajoling, the threats, and the falsifications, they made use of, in order, first, to compel a few defenceless workmen to sign petitions of such a kind, and then to impose them upon Parliament as the petitions of a whole branch of industry, or a whole country. It is highly characteristic of the present status of so-called economic science, that neither Senior himself, who, at a later period, to his honour be it said, energetically supported the factory legislation, nor his opponents, from first to last, have ever been able to explain the false conclusions of the --original discovery. ? They appeal to actual experience, but the why and wherefore remains a mystery.
12 Nevertheless, the learned professor was not without some benefit from his journey to Manchester. In the --Letters on the Factory Act,? he makes the whole net gains including --profit? and --interests? and even --something more,? depend upon a single unpaid hour's work of the labourer. One year previously, in his --Outlines of Political Economy,? written for the instruction of Oxford students and cultivated Philistines, he had also --discovered, in opposition to Ricardo's determination of value by labour, that profit is derived from the labour of the capitalist, and interest from his asceticism, in other words, from his abstinence. ? The dodge was an old one, but the word --abstinence? was new. Herr Roscher translates it rightly by --Enthaltung. ? Some of his countrymen, the Browns, Jones, and Robinsons, of Germany, not so well versed in Latin as he, have, monk-like, rendered it by --Entsagung? (renunciation).
13 --To an individual with a capital of ? 20,000, whose profits were ? 2,000 per annum, it would be a matter quite indifferent whether his capital would employ a 100 or 1,000 men, whether the commodity produced sold for ? 10,000 or ? 20,000, provided, in all cases, his profit were not diminished below ? 2,000. Is not the real interest of the nation similar? Provided its net real income, its rent and profits, be the same, it is of no importance whether the nation consists of 10 or of 12 millions of inhabitants. ? (Ric. l. c. ,. p. 416. ) Long before Ricardo, Arthur Young, a fanatical upholder of surplus-produce, for the rest, a rambling, uncritical writer, whose reputation is in the inverse ratio of his merit, says, --Of what use, in a modem kingdom, would be a whole province thus divided [in the old Roman manner, by small independent peasants], however well cultivated, except for the mere purpose of breeding men, which taken singly is a most useless purpose? ? (Arthur Young: --Political Arithmetic, &c. ? London, 1774, p. 47. )
Very curious is --the strong inclination. . . to represent net wealth as beneficial to the labouring class. . . though it is evidently not on account of being net. ? (Th . Hopkins, --On Rent of Land, &c. ? London, 1828, p. 126. )
? ? Chapter 10: The Working day
Section 1: The Limits of the Working day
We started with the supposition that labour-power is bought and sold at its value. Its value, like that of all other commodities, is determined by the working-time necessary to its production. If the production of the average daily means of subsistence of the labourer takes up 6 hours, he must work, on the average, 6 hours every day, to produce his daily labour-power, or to reproduce the value received as the result of its sale. The necessary part of his working day amounts to 6 hours, and is, therefore, caeteris paribus [other things being equal], a given quantity. But with this, the extent of the working day itself is not yet given.
Let us assume that the line A---B represents the length of the necessary working-time, say 6 hours. If the labour be prolonged 1, 3, or 6 hours beyond A--B, we have 3 other lines:
Working day I. Working day II. Working day III. A---B-C. A---B--C. A---B---C.
representing 3 different working days of 7, 9, and 12 hours. The extension B--C of the line A--B represents the length of the surplus labour. As the working day is A--B + B--C or A--C, it varies with the variable quantity B--C. Since A--B is constant, the ratio of B--C to A--B can always be calculated. In working day I, it is 1/6, in working day II, 3/6, in working day III 6/6 of A--B. Since further the ratio (surplus working-time)/(necessary working-time), determines the rate of the surplus value, the latter is given by the ratio of B--C to A--B. It amounts in the 3 different working days respectively to 16 2/3, 50 and 100 per cent. On the other hand, the rate of surplus value alone would not give us the extent of the working day. If this rate, e. g. , were 100 per cent. , the working day might be of 8, 10, 12, or more hours. It would indicate that the 2 constituent parts of the working day, necessary-labour and surplus labour time, were equal in extent, but not how long each of these two constituent parts was.
The working day is thus not a constant, but a variable quantity. One of its parts, certainly, is determined by the working-time required for the reproduction of the labour-power of the labourer himself. But its total amount varies with the duration of the surplus labour. The working day is, therefore, determinable, but is, per se, indeterminate. 1
Although the working day is not a fixed, but a fluent quantity, it can, on the other hand, only vary within certain limits. The minimum limit is, however, not determinable; of course, if we make the extension line B--C or the surplus labour = 0, we have a minimum limit, i. e. , the part of the day which the labourer must necessarily work for his own maintenance. On the basis of capitalist production, however, this necessary labour can form a part only of the working day; the working day itself can never be reduced to this minimum. On the other hand, the working day has a maximum limit. It cannot be prolonged beyond a certain point. This maximum limit is conditioned by two things. First, by the physical bounds of labour-power. Within the 24 hours of the natural day a man can expend only a definite quantity of his vital force. A horse, in like manner, can only work from day to day, 8 hours. During part of the day this force must rest, sleep; during another part the man has to satisfy other physical needs, to feed, wash, and clothe himself. Besides these purely physical limitations, the extension of the working day encounters moral ones. The labourer needs time for satisfying his intellectual and social wants, the extent and number of which are conditioned by the general state of social advancement. The variation of the
? 160 Chapter 10
working day fluctuates, therefore, within physical and social bounds. But both these limiting conditions are of a very elastic nature, and allow the greatest latitude. So we find working days of 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 hours, i. e. , of the most different lengths.
The capitalist has bought the labour-power at its day-rate. To him its use-value belongs during one working day. He has thus acquired the right to make the labourer work for him during one day. But, what is a working day? 2
At all events, less than a natural day. By how much? The capitalist has his own views of this ultima Thule [the outermost limit], the necessary limit of the working day. As capitalist, he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital. But capital has one single life impulse, the tendency to create value and surplus value, to make its constant factor, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus labour. 3
Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him. 4
If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist. 5
The capitalist then takes his stand on the law of the exchange of commodities. He, like all other buyers, seeks to get the greatest possible benefit out of the use-value of his commodity. Suddenly the voice of the labourer, which had been stifled in the storm and stress of the process of production, rises:
The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the crowd of other commodities, in that its use creates value, and a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it. That which on your side appears a spontaneous expansion of capital, is on mine extra expenditure of labour-power. You and I know on the market only one law, that of the exchange of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again. Apart from natural exhaustion through age, &c. , I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal amount of force, health and freshness as to-day. You preach to me constantly the gospel of --saving? and --abstinence. ? Good! I will, like a sensible saving owner, husband my sole wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it. I will each day spend, set in motion, put into action only as much of it as is compatible with its normal duration, and healthy development. By an unlimited extension of the working day, you may in one day use up a quantity of labour- power greater than I can restore in three. What you gain in labour I lose in substance. The use of my labour-power and the spoliation of it are quite different things. If the average time that (doing a reasonable amount of work) an average labourer can live, is 30 years, the value of my labour- power, which you pay me from day to day is 1/(365*30) or 1/10950 of its total value. But if you consume it in 10 years, you pay me daily 1/10950 instead of 1/3650 of its total value, i. e. , only 1/3 of its daily value, and you rob me, therefore, every day of 2/3 of the value of my commodity. You pay me for one day's labour-power, whilst you use that of 3 days. That is against our contract and the law of exchanges. I demand, therefore, a working day of normal length, and I demand it without any appeal to your heart, for in money matters sentiment is out of place. You may be a model citizen, perhaps a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and in the odour of sanctity to boot; but the thing that you represent face to face with me has no heart in its breast. That which seems to throb there is my own heart-beating. I demand the normal working day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity. 6
? 161 Chapter 10
We see then, that, apart from extremely elastic bounds, the nature of the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit to the working day, no limit to surplus labour. The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i. e. , the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i. e. , the working-class.
Section 2: The Greed for Surplus-Labor, Manufacturer and Boyard
Capital has not invented surplus labour. Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the labourer, free or not free, must add to the working-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production7, whether this proprietor be the Athenian ? ? ?
--Under the present law, no mill in which persons under 18 years of age are employed, . . . can be worked more than 111/2 hours a day, that is, 12 hours for 5 days in the week, and nine on Saturday.
--Now the following analysis (! ) will show that in a mill so worked, the whole net profit is derived from the last hour. I will suppose a manufacturer to invest ? 100,000: - ? 80,000 in his mill and machinery, and ? 20,000 in raw material and wages. The annual return of that mill, supposing the capital to be turned once a year, and gross profits to be 15 per cent. , ought to be goods worth ? 15,000. . . . Of this ? 115,000, each of the twenty-three half-hours of work produces 5-115ths or one twenty-third. Of these 23-23rds (constituting the whole ? 115,000) twenty, that is to say ? 100,000 out of the ? 115,000, simply replace the capital; - one twenty- third (or ? 5,000 out of the ? 115,000) makes up for the deterioration of the mill and machinery. The remaining 2-23rds, that is, the last two of the twenty-three half-hours of every day, produce the net profit of 10 per cent. If, therefore (prices remaining the same), the factory could be kept at work thirteen hours instead of eleven and a half, with an addition of about ? 2,600 to the circulating capital, the net profit would be more than doubled. On the other hand, if the hours of working were reduced by one hour per day (prices remaining the same), the net profit would be destroyed - if they were reduced by one hour and a half, even the gross profit would be destroyed. ? 10
And the Professor calls this an --analysis! ? If, giving credence to the out-cries of the manufacturers, he believed that the workmen spend the best part of the day in the production, i. e. , the reproduction or replacement of the value of the buildings, machinery, cotton, coal, &c. , then his analysis was superfluous. His answer would simply have been: - Gentlemen! if you work your mills for 10 hours instead of 111/2, then, other things being equal, the daily consumption of cotton, machinery, &c. , will decrease in proportion. You gain just as much as you lose. Your work-people will in future spend one hour and a half less time in reproducing or replacing the capital that has been advanced. - If, on the other hand, he did not believe them without further inquiry, but, as being an expert in such matters, deemed an analysis necessary, then he ought, in a question that is concerned exclusively with the relations of net profit to the length of the working day, before all things to have asked the manufacturers, to be careful not to lump together machinery, workshops, raw material, and labour, but to be good enough to place the constant capital, invested in buildings, machinery, raw material, &c. , on one side of the account, and the capital advanced in wages on the other side. If the Professor then found, that in accordance with the calculation of the manufacturers, the workman reproduced or replaced his wages in 2 half- hours, in that case, he should have continued his analysis thus:
According to your figures, the workman in the last hour but one produces his wages, and in the last hour your surplus value or net profit. Now, since in equal periods he produces equal values, the produce of the last hour but one, must have the same value as that of the last hour. Further, it is only while he labours that he produces any value at all, and the amount of his labour is measured by his labour-time. This you say, amounts to 111/2 hours a day. He employs one portion of these 111/2 hours, in producing or replacing his wages, and the remaining portion in producing your net profit. Beyond this he does absolutely nothing. But since, on your assumption, his wages, and the surplus value he yields, are of equal value, it is clear that he produces his wages in
? 155 Chapter 9
53/4 hours, and your net profit in the other 53/4 hours. Again, since the value of the yarn produced in 2 hours, is equal to the sum of the values of his wages and of your net profit, the measure of the value of this yarn must be 111/2 working-hours, of which 53/4 hours measure the value of the yarn produced in the last hour but one, and 53/4, the value of the yarn produced in the last hour. We now come to a ticklish point; therefore, attention! The last working-hour but one is, like the first, an ordinary working-hour, neither more nor less. How then can the spinner produce in one hour, in the shape of yarn, a value that embodies 53/4 hours' labour? The truth is that he performs no such miracle. The use-value produced by him in one hour, is a definite quantity of yarn. The value of this yarn is measured by 53/4 working-hours, of which 43/4 were, without any assistance from him, previously embodied in the means of production, in the cotton, the machinery, and so on; the remaining one hour alone is added by him. Therefore since his wages are produced in 53/4 hours, and the yarn produced in one hour also contains 53/4 hours' work, there is no witchcraft in the result, that the value created by his 53/4 hours' spinning, is equal to the value of the product spun in one hour. You are altogether on the wrong track, if you think that he loses a single moment of his working day, in reproducing or replacing the values of the cotton, the machinery, and so on. On the contrary, it is because his labour converts the cotton and spindles into yarn, because he spins, that the values of the cotton and spindles go over to the yarn of their own accord. This result is owing to the quality of his labour, not to its quantity. It is true, he will in one hour transfer to the yarn more value, in the shape of cotton, than he will in half an hour; but that is only because in one hour he spins up more cotton than in half an hour. You see then, your assertion, that the workman produces, in the last hour but one, the value of his wages, and in the last hour your net profit, amounts to no more than this, that in the yarn produced by him in 2 working-hours, whether they are the 2 first or the 2 last hours of the working day, in that yarn, there are incorporated 111/2 working-hours, or just a whole day's work, i. e. , two hours of his own work and 91/2 hours of other people's. And my assertion that, in the first 53/4 hours, he produces his wages, and in the last 53/4 hours your net profit, amounts only to this, that you pay him for the former, but not for the latter. In speaking of payment of labour, instead of payment of labour- power, I only talk your own slang. Now, gentlemen, if you compare the working-time you pay for, with that which you do not pay for, you will find that they are to one another, as half a day is to half a day; this gives a rate of 100%, and a very pretty percentage it is. Further, there is not the least doubt, that if you make you --hands? toil for 13 hours, instead of 111/2, and, as may be expected from you, treat the work done in that extra one hour and a half, as pure surplus labour, then the latter will be increased from 53/4 hours' labour to 71/4 hours' labour, and the rate of surplus value from 100% to 126 2/23%. So that you are altogether too sanguine, in expecting that by such an addition of 11/2 hours to the working day, the rate will rise from 100% to 200% and more, in other words that it will be --more than doubled. ? On the other hand-man's heart is a wonderful thing, especially when carried in the purse - you take too pessimist a view, when you fear, that with a reduction of the hours of labour from 111/2 to 10, the whole of your net profit will go to the dogs. Not at all. All other conditions remaining the same, the surplus labour will fall from 53/4 hours to 43/4 hours, a period that still gives a very profitable rate of surplus value, namely 82 14/23%. But this dreadful --last hour,? about which you have invented more stories than have the millenarians about the day of judgment, is --all bosh. ? If it goes, it will cost neither you, your net profit, nor the boys and girls whom you employ, their --purity of mind. ? 11 Whenever your --last hour? strikes in earnest, think of the Oxford Professor. And now, gentlemen, --farewell, and may we meet again in yonder better world, but not before. ?
Senior invented the battle cry of the --last hour? in 1836. 12 In the London Economist of the 15th April, 1848, the same cry was again raised by James Wilson, an economic mandarin of high standing: this time in opposition to the 10 hours' bill.
? 156
Chapter 9
Section 4: Surplus-Produce
The portion of the product that represents the surplus value, (one tenth of the 20 lbs. , or 2 lbs. of yarn, in the example given in Sec. 2) we call --surplus-produce. ? Just as the rate of surplus value is determined by its relation, not to the sum total of the capital, but to its variable part; in like manner, the relative quantity of surplus-produce is determined by the ratio that this produce bears, not to the remaining part of the total product, but to that part of it in which is incorporated the necessary labour. Since the production of surplus value is the chief end and aim of capitalist production, it is clear, that the greatness of a man's or a nation's wealth should be measured, not by the absolute quantity produced, but by the relative magnitude of the surplus-produce. 13
The sum of the necessary labour and the surplus labour, i. e. , of the periods of time during which the workman replaces the value of his labour-power, and produces the surplus value, this sum constitutes the actual time during which he works, i. e. , the working day.
1 --If we reckon the value of the fixed capital employed as a part of the advances, we must reckon the remaining value of such capital at the end of the year as a part of the annual returns. ? (Malthus, --Princ. of Pol. Econ. ? 2nd. ed. , Lond. , 1836, p. 269. )
2 What Lucretius says is self-evident; --nil posse creari de nihilo,? out of nothing, nothing can be created. Creation of value is transformation of labour-power into labour. Labour-power itself is energy transferred to a human organism by means of nourishing matter.
3 In the same way that the English use the terms --rate of profit,? --rate of interest. ? We shall see, in Book III, that the rate of profit is no mystery, so soon as we know the laws of surplus value. If we reverse the process, we cannot comprehend either the one or the other.
4 Note added in the 3rd German edition. -- The author resorts here to the economic language in current use. It will be remembered that on p. 182 (present edition, p. 174) it was shown that in reality the labourer --advances? to the capitalist and not the capitalist to the labourer. -- F. E.
5 In this work, we have, up to now, employed the term --necessary labour-time,? to designate the time necessary under given social conditions for the production of any commodity. Henceforward we use it to designate also the time necessary for the production of the particular commodity labour-power. The use of one and the same technical term in different senses is inconvenient, but in no science can it be altogether avoided. Compare, for instance, the higher with the lower branches of mathematics.
6 Herr Wilhelm Thucydides Roscher has found a mare's nest. He has made the important discovery that if, on the one hand, the formation of surplus value, or surplus-produce, and the consequent accumulation of capital, is now-a-days due to the thrift of the capitalist, on the other hand, in the lowest stages of civilisation it is the strong who compel the weak to economise. (l. c. , p. 78. ) To economise what? Labour? Or superfluous wealth that does not exist? What is it that makes such men as Roscher account for the origin of surplus value, by a mere rechauffe? of the more of less plausible excuses by the capitalist, for his appropriation of surplus value? It is, besides their real ignorance, their apologetic dread of a scientific analysis of value and surplus value, and of obtaining a result, possibly not altogether palatable to the powers that be.
7 Although the rate of surplus value is an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labour- power, it is, in no sense, an expression for the absolute amount of exploitation. For example, if the necessary labour 5 hours and the surplus labour = 5 hours, the degree of exploitation is 100%. The amount of exploitation is here measured by 5 hours. If, on the other hand, the necessary labour = 6 hours and the surplus labour = 6 hours, the degree of exploitation remains, as before, 100%, while the actual amount of exploitation has increased 20%, namely from five hours to six.
? ? 157 Chapter 9
8 The above data, which may be relied upon, were given me by a Manchester spinner. In England the horse-power of an engine was formerly calculated from the diameter of its cylinder, now the actual horse-power shown by the indicator is taken.
9 The calculations given in the text are intended merely as illustrations. We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall, however, see, in Book Ill. , that even in the case of average prices the assumption cannot be made in this very simple manner.
10 Senior, l. c. , pp. 12, 13. We let pass such extraordinary notions as are of no importance for our purpose; for instance, the assertion, that manufacturers reckon as part of their profit, gross or net, the amount required to make good wear and tear of machinery, or in other words, to replace a part of the capital. So, too, we pass over any question as to the accuracy of his figures. Leonard Horner has shown in --A Letter to Mr. Senior,? &c. , London, 1837, that they are worth no more than so-called --Analysis. ? Leonard Horner was one of the Factory Inquiry Commissioners in 1833, and Inspector, or rather Censor of Factories till 1859. He rendered undying service to the English working-class. He carried on a life-long contest, not only with the embittered manufacturers, but also with the Cabinet, to whom the number of votes given by the masters in the Lower House, was a matter of far greater importance than the number of hours worked by the --hands? in the mills.
Apart from efforts in principle, Senior's statement is confused. What he really intended to say was this: The manufacturer employs the workman for 111/2 hours or for 23 half-hours daily. As the working day, so, too, the working year, may be conceived to consist of 111/2 hours or 23 half-hours, but each multiplied by the number of working days in the year. On this supposition, the 23 half-hours yield an annual product of ? 115,000; one half-hour yields 1/23 * ? 115,000; 20 half-hours yield 20/23 * ? 115,000 = ? 100,000, i. e. , they replace no more than the capital advanced. There remain 3 half- hours, which yield 1/23 * ? 115,000 = ? 5,000 or the gross profit. Of these 3 half-hours, one yields 1/23 * ? 115,000 = ? 5,000; i. e. , it makes up for the wear and tear of the machinery; the remaining 2 half- hours, i. e. , the last hour, yield 2/23 * ? 115,000 = ? 10,000 or the net profit. In the text Senior converts the last 2/23 of the product into portions of the working day itself.
11 If, on the one hand, Senior proved that the net profit of the manufacturer, the existence of he English cotton industry, and England's command of the markets of the world, depend on --the last working-hour,? on the other hand, Dr. Andrew Ure showed, that if children and young persons under 18 years of age, instead of being kept the full 12 hours in the warm and pure moral atmosphere of the factory, are turned out an hour sooner into the heartless and frivolous outer world, they will be deprived, by idleness and vice, of all hope of salvation for their souls.
Since 1848, the factory inspectors have never tired of twitting the masters with this --last,? this --fatal hour. ? Thus Mr. Hovell in his report of the 21st May, 1855: --Had the following ingenious calculation (he quotes Senior) been correct, every cotton factory in the United Kingdom would have been working at a loss since the year 1850. ? (Reports of the Insp. of Fact. , for the half-year, ending 30th April, 1855, pp. 19, 20. ) In the year 1848, after the passing of the 10 hours' bill, the masters of some flax spinning mills, scattered, few and far between, over the country on the borders of Dorset and Somerset, foisted a petition against the bill on to the shoulders of a few of their work-people. One of the clauses of this petition is as follows: --Your petitioners, as parents, conceive that an additional hour of leisure will tend more to demoralise the children than otherwise, believing that idleness is the parent of vice. ? On this the factory report of 31st Oct. , 1848, says: The atmosphere of the flax mills, in which the children of these virtuous and tender parents work, is so loaded with dust and fibre from the raw material, that it is exceptionally unpleasant to stand even 10 minutes in the spinning rooms: for you are unable to do so without the most painful sensation, owing to the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, and mouth, being immediately filled by the clouds of flax dust from which there is no escape. The labour itself, owing to the feverish haste of the machinery, demands unceasing application of skill and movement, under the control of a watchfulness that never tires, and it seems somewhat hard, to let parents apply the term
? ? 158 Chapter 9
--idling? to their own children, who, after allowing for meal-times, are fettered for 10 whole hours to such an occupation, in such an atmosphere. . . . These children work longer than the labourers in the neighbouring villages. . . . Such cruel talk about --idleness and vice? ought to be branded as the purest cant, and the most shameless hypocrisy. . . . That portion of the public, who, about 12 years ago, were struck by the assurance with which, under the sanction of high authority, it was publicly and most earnestly proclaimed, that the whole net profit of the manufacturer flows from the labour of the last hour, and that, therefore, the reduction of the working day by one hour, would destroy his net profit, that portion of the public, we say, will hardly believe its own eyes, when it now finds, that the original discovery of the virtues of --the last hour? has since been so far improved, as to include morals as well as profit; so that, if the duration of the labour of children, is reduced to a full 10 hours, their morals, together with the net profits of their employers, will vanish, both being dependent on this last, this fatal hour. (See Repts. , Insp. of Fact. , for 31st Oct. , 1848, p. 101. ) The same report then gives some examples of the morality and virtue of these same pure-minded manufacturers, of the tricks, the artifices, the cajoling, the threats, and the falsifications, they made use of, in order, first, to compel a few defenceless workmen to sign petitions of such a kind, and then to impose them upon Parliament as the petitions of a whole branch of industry, or a whole country. It is highly characteristic of the present status of so-called economic science, that neither Senior himself, who, at a later period, to his honour be it said, energetically supported the factory legislation, nor his opponents, from first to last, have ever been able to explain the false conclusions of the --original discovery. ? They appeal to actual experience, but the why and wherefore remains a mystery.
12 Nevertheless, the learned professor was not without some benefit from his journey to Manchester. In the --Letters on the Factory Act,? he makes the whole net gains including --profit? and --interests? and even --something more,? depend upon a single unpaid hour's work of the labourer. One year previously, in his --Outlines of Political Economy,? written for the instruction of Oxford students and cultivated Philistines, he had also --discovered, in opposition to Ricardo's determination of value by labour, that profit is derived from the labour of the capitalist, and interest from his asceticism, in other words, from his abstinence. ? The dodge was an old one, but the word --abstinence? was new. Herr Roscher translates it rightly by --Enthaltung. ? Some of his countrymen, the Browns, Jones, and Robinsons, of Germany, not so well versed in Latin as he, have, monk-like, rendered it by --Entsagung? (renunciation).
13 --To an individual with a capital of ? 20,000, whose profits were ? 2,000 per annum, it would be a matter quite indifferent whether his capital would employ a 100 or 1,000 men, whether the commodity produced sold for ? 10,000 or ? 20,000, provided, in all cases, his profit were not diminished below ? 2,000. Is not the real interest of the nation similar? Provided its net real income, its rent and profits, be the same, it is of no importance whether the nation consists of 10 or of 12 millions of inhabitants. ? (Ric. l. c. ,. p. 416. ) Long before Ricardo, Arthur Young, a fanatical upholder of surplus-produce, for the rest, a rambling, uncritical writer, whose reputation is in the inverse ratio of his merit, says, --Of what use, in a modem kingdom, would be a whole province thus divided [in the old Roman manner, by small independent peasants], however well cultivated, except for the mere purpose of breeding men, which taken singly is a most useless purpose? ? (Arthur Young: --Political Arithmetic, &c. ? London, 1774, p. 47. )
Very curious is --the strong inclination. . . to represent net wealth as beneficial to the labouring class. . . though it is evidently not on account of being net. ? (Th . Hopkins, --On Rent of Land, &c. ? London, 1828, p. 126. )
? ? Chapter 10: The Working day
Section 1: The Limits of the Working day
We started with the supposition that labour-power is bought and sold at its value. Its value, like that of all other commodities, is determined by the working-time necessary to its production. If the production of the average daily means of subsistence of the labourer takes up 6 hours, he must work, on the average, 6 hours every day, to produce his daily labour-power, or to reproduce the value received as the result of its sale. The necessary part of his working day amounts to 6 hours, and is, therefore, caeteris paribus [other things being equal], a given quantity. But with this, the extent of the working day itself is not yet given.
Let us assume that the line A---B represents the length of the necessary working-time, say 6 hours. If the labour be prolonged 1, 3, or 6 hours beyond A--B, we have 3 other lines:
Working day I. Working day II. Working day III. A---B-C. A---B--C. A---B---C.
representing 3 different working days of 7, 9, and 12 hours. The extension B--C of the line A--B represents the length of the surplus labour. As the working day is A--B + B--C or A--C, it varies with the variable quantity B--C. Since A--B is constant, the ratio of B--C to A--B can always be calculated. In working day I, it is 1/6, in working day II, 3/6, in working day III 6/6 of A--B. Since further the ratio (surplus working-time)/(necessary working-time), determines the rate of the surplus value, the latter is given by the ratio of B--C to A--B. It amounts in the 3 different working days respectively to 16 2/3, 50 and 100 per cent. On the other hand, the rate of surplus value alone would not give us the extent of the working day. If this rate, e. g. , were 100 per cent. , the working day might be of 8, 10, 12, or more hours. It would indicate that the 2 constituent parts of the working day, necessary-labour and surplus labour time, were equal in extent, but not how long each of these two constituent parts was.
The working day is thus not a constant, but a variable quantity. One of its parts, certainly, is determined by the working-time required for the reproduction of the labour-power of the labourer himself. But its total amount varies with the duration of the surplus labour. The working day is, therefore, determinable, but is, per se, indeterminate. 1
Although the working day is not a fixed, but a fluent quantity, it can, on the other hand, only vary within certain limits. The minimum limit is, however, not determinable; of course, if we make the extension line B--C or the surplus labour = 0, we have a minimum limit, i. e. , the part of the day which the labourer must necessarily work for his own maintenance. On the basis of capitalist production, however, this necessary labour can form a part only of the working day; the working day itself can never be reduced to this minimum. On the other hand, the working day has a maximum limit. It cannot be prolonged beyond a certain point. This maximum limit is conditioned by two things. First, by the physical bounds of labour-power. Within the 24 hours of the natural day a man can expend only a definite quantity of his vital force. A horse, in like manner, can only work from day to day, 8 hours. During part of the day this force must rest, sleep; during another part the man has to satisfy other physical needs, to feed, wash, and clothe himself. Besides these purely physical limitations, the extension of the working day encounters moral ones. The labourer needs time for satisfying his intellectual and social wants, the extent and number of which are conditioned by the general state of social advancement. The variation of the
? 160 Chapter 10
working day fluctuates, therefore, within physical and social bounds. But both these limiting conditions are of a very elastic nature, and allow the greatest latitude. So we find working days of 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 hours, i. e. , of the most different lengths.
The capitalist has bought the labour-power at its day-rate. To him its use-value belongs during one working day. He has thus acquired the right to make the labourer work for him during one day. But, what is a working day? 2
At all events, less than a natural day. By how much? The capitalist has his own views of this ultima Thule [the outermost limit], the necessary limit of the working day. As capitalist, he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital. But capital has one single life impulse, the tendency to create value and surplus value, to make its constant factor, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus labour. 3
Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him. 4
If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist. 5
The capitalist then takes his stand on the law of the exchange of commodities. He, like all other buyers, seeks to get the greatest possible benefit out of the use-value of his commodity. Suddenly the voice of the labourer, which had been stifled in the storm and stress of the process of production, rises:
The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the crowd of other commodities, in that its use creates value, and a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it. That which on your side appears a spontaneous expansion of capital, is on mine extra expenditure of labour-power. You and I know on the market only one law, that of the exchange of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again. Apart from natural exhaustion through age, &c. , I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal amount of force, health and freshness as to-day. You preach to me constantly the gospel of --saving? and --abstinence. ? Good! I will, like a sensible saving owner, husband my sole wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it. I will each day spend, set in motion, put into action only as much of it as is compatible with its normal duration, and healthy development. By an unlimited extension of the working day, you may in one day use up a quantity of labour- power greater than I can restore in three. What you gain in labour I lose in substance. The use of my labour-power and the spoliation of it are quite different things. If the average time that (doing a reasonable amount of work) an average labourer can live, is 30 years, the value of my labour- power, which you pay me from day to day is 1/(365*30) or 1/10950 of its total value. But if you consume it in 10 years, you pay me daily 1/10950 instead of 1/3650 of its total value, i. e. , only 1/3 of its daily value, and you rob me, therefore, every day of 2/3 of the value of my commodity. You pay me for one day's labour-power, whilst you use that of 3 days. That is against our contract and the law of exchanges. I demand, therefore, a working day of normal length, and I demand it without any appeal to your heart, for in money matters sentiment is out of place. You may be a model citizen, perhaps a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and in the odour of sanctity to boot; but the thing that you represent face to face with me has no heart in its breast. That which seems to throb there is my own heart-beating. I demand the normal working day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity. 6
? 161 Chapter 10
We see then, that, apart from extremely elastic bounds, the nature of the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit to the working day, no limit to surplus labour. The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i. e. , the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i. e. , the working-class.
Section 2: The Greed for Surplus-Labor, Manufacturer and Boyard
Capital has not invented surplus labour. Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the labourer, free or not free, must add to the working-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production7, whether this proprietor be the Athenian ? ? ?
