RELATION OF WAGE-LABOR TO CAPITAL
What is it that takes place in the exchange between the
capitalist and the wage-labor?
The laborer receives means of subsistence in exchange for his
labor-power; the capitalist receives, in exchange for his means of
subsistence, labor, the productive activity of the laborer, the
creative force by which the worker not only replaces what he
consumes, but also gives to the accumulated labor a greater
value than it previously possessed. The laborer gets from the
capitalist a portion of the existing means of subsistence. For what
purpose do these means of subsistence serve him? For
immediate consumption. But as soon as I consume means of
subsistence, they are irrevocably lost to me, unless I employ the
time during which these means sustain my life in producing new
means of subsistence, in creating by my labor new values in
place of the values lost in consumption. But it is just this noble
reproductive power that the laborer surrenders to the capitalist in
exchange for means of subsistence received. Consequently, he
has lost it for himself.
Let us take an example. For one shilling a laborer works all day
long in the fields of a farmer, to whom he thus secures a return of
two shillings. The farmer not only receives the replaced value
which he has given to the day laborer, he has doubled it.
Therefore, he has consumed the one shilling that he gave to the
day laborer in a fruitful, productive manner. For the one shilling
he has bought the labor-power of the day-laborer, which creates
products of the soil of twice the value, and out of one shilling
makes two. The day-laborer, on the contrary, receives in the
place of his productive force, whose results he has just
surrendered to the farmer, one shilling, which he exchanges for
means of subsistence, which he consumes more or less quickly.
The one shilling has therefore been consumed in a double manner
-- reproductively for the capitalist, for it has been exchanged for
labor-power, which brought forth two shillings; unproductively
for the worker, for it has been exchanged for means of
subsistence which are lost for ever, and whose value he can
obtain again only by repeating the same exchange with the
farmer. Capital therefore presupposes wage-labor; wage-labor
presupposes capital. They condition each other; each brings the
other into existence.
Does a worker in a cotton factory produce only cotton? No. He
produces capital. He produces values which serve anew to
command his work and to create by means of it new values.
Capital can multiply itself only by exchanging itself for
labor-power, by calling wage-labor into life. The labor-power of
the wage-laborer can exchange itself for capital only by
increasing capital, by strengthening that very power whose slave
it is. Increase of capital, therefore, is increase of the proletariat,
i.e., of the working class.
And so, the bourgeoisie and its economists maintain that the
interest of the capitalist and of the laborer is the same. And in
fact, so they are! The worker perishes if capital does not keep
him busy. Capital perishes if it does not exploit labor-power,
which, in order to exploit, it must buy. The more quickly the
capital destined for production -- the productive capital --
increases, the more prosperous industry is, the more the
bourgeoisie enriches itself, the better business gets, so many
more workers does the capitalist need, so much the dearer does
the worker sell himself. The fastest possible growth of productive
capital is, therefore, the indispensable condition for a tolerable
life to the laborer.
But what is growth of productive capital? Growth of the power
of accumulated labor over living labor; growth of the rule of the
bourgeoisie over the working class. When wage-labor produces
the alien wealth dominating it, the power hostile to it, capital,
there flow back to it its means of employment -- i.e., its means of
subsistence, under the condition that it again become a part of
capital, that is become again the lever whereby capital is to be
forced into an accelerated expansive movement.
To say that the interests of capital and the interests of the
workers are identical, signifies only this: that capital and
wage-labor are two sides of one and the same relation. The one
conditions the other in the same way that the usurer and the
borrower condition each other.
As long as the wage-laborer remains a wage-laborer, his lost is
dependent upon capital. That is what the boasted community of
interests between worker and capitalists amounts to.
If capital grows, the mass of wage-labor grows, the number of
wage-workers increases; in a word, the sway of capital extends
over a greater mass of individuals.
Let us suppose the most favorable case: if productive capital
grows, the demand for labor grows. It therefore increases the
price of labor-power, wages.
A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring
houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a
residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and
the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it
clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or
but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in
the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal
of even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little
house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more
dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.
An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of
productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth
just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and
social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the laborer
have increased, the social gratification which they afford has
fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist,
which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the
stage of development of society in general. Our wants and
pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them
in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the
objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a
social nature, they are of a relative nature.
But wages are not at all determined merely by the sum of
commodities for which they may be exchanged. Other factors
enter into the problem. What the workers directly receive for
their labor-power is a certain sum of money. Are wages
determined merely by this money price?
In the 16th century, the gold and silver circulation in Europe
increased in consequence of the discovery of richer and more
easily worked mines in America. The value of gold and silver,
therefore, fell in relation to other commodities. The workers
received the same amount of coined silver for their labor-power
as before. The money price of their work remained the same,
and yet their wages had fallen, for in exchange for the same
amount of silver they obtained a smaller amount of other
commodities. This was one of the circumstances which furthered
the growth of capital, the rise of the bourgeoisie, in the 18th
century.
Let us take another case. In the winter of 1847, in consequence
of bad harvest, the most indispensable means of subsistence --
grains, meat, butter, cheese, etc. -- rose greatly in price. Let us
suppose that the workers still received the same sum of money
for their labor-power as before. Did not their wages fall? To be
sure. For the same money they received in exchange less bread,
meat, etc. Their wages fell, not because the value of silver was
less, but because the value of the means of subsistence had
increased.
Finally, let us suppose that the money price of labor-power
remained the same, while all agricultural and manufactured
commodities had fallen in price because of the employment of
new machines, of favorable seasons, etc. For the same money
the workers could now buy more commodities of all kinds. Their
wages have therefore risen, just because their money value has
not changed.
The money price of labor-power, the nominal wages, do not
therefore coincide with the actual or real wages -- i.e., with the
amount of commodities which are actually given in exchange for
the wages. If then we speak of a rise or fall of wages, we have to
keep in mind not only the money price of labor-power, the
nominal wages, but also the real wages.
But neither the nominal wages -- i.e., the amount of money for
which the laborer sells himself to the capitalist -- nor the real
wages -- i.e., the amount of commodities which he can buy for
this money -- exhausts the relations which are comprehended in
the term wages.
Wages are determined above all by their relations to the gain,
the profit, of the capitalist. In other words, wages are a
proportionate, relative quantity.
Real wages express the price of labor-power in relation to the
price of commodities; relative wages, on the other hand, express
the share of immediate labor in the value newly created by it, in
relation to the share of it which falls to accumulated labor, to
capital.
marxists.org
Neither is superior. They both need each other. |
