2004 article, originally published in The constitution of capital: essays on volume I of Marxâs âCapitalâ, edited by Riccardo Bellofiore and Nicola Taylor, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117â45.
(For its abstract see the Abstracts of all chapters, p. 4.)
Contents
Introduction
1 The production of capital
1.1 A comment on dimensions: monetary value and labour-time
1.2 The terrain of the middle part of âCapital Iâ
2 Determinants of (the rate of) surplus-value
2.1 The rate of surplus-value
2.2 The âproductive forceâ of labour
2.3 A formal and immanent-reconstructive intermezzo on capitalist revolutions in the productive force of labour
2.4 Degree of intensity of labour
2.5 Once again, the value of labour-power and the wage rate
Summary and conclusions
References
Introduction1
The first volume of Marxâs Capital (18671; 18904) is subtitled âThe production process of capitalâ. This reveals the twofold object of the book of, first, an outline of the capitalist form of production â i.e., in contradistinction to other modes of production â and, second, the production of capital itself â i.e., its continuity. There are again two aspects to this object. The one is highlighted in the âmiddle partâ of the book â Parts Three to Six â on the production of surplus-value. It sets out how the production of surplus-value (profit) is the motive force of capital, how surplus-value is actually produced and so how capital grows. The second aspect is the resulting process of accumulation of capital â treated in the âend partâ of the book.
In this essay I survey the middle part of Capital I, therein especially focusing on Marxâs formalisations. As will be seen, he formalises explanatory results rather than either âexplanatory processesâ or âmechanismsâ. Absent from the formalisations are Marxâs key concepts such as: productive forces, labour productivity, extensity and intensity of labour, and the value of labour-power (or the wage rate). Therefore, also, these formulas are deprived of heuristic inspiration.2
In §2 I follow the text of this middle part and make some elementary beginnings for an immanent reconstruction of Marxâs formalism. As to the content of this reconstruction I restrict myself to the key concepts mentioned in the previous paragraph. By âimmanentâ reconstruction I mean that I base myself on Marxâs concepts â that is qua intention: even an immanent reconstruction cannot be but interpretative. The idea of an immanent reconstruction is not to further develop the theory at hand, but to understand it better â thus my intentions are historiographic.3
The general conceptual terrain of the middle part of Capital I will briefly be surveyed in §1 (only the first subsection goes beyond an immanent reconstruction).
Apart from ânormalâ historiographic accounts of Marxâs texts, the reader will find quite a bit of comparison between Marxâs German text and its English translation by Ben Fowkes. Some of this comparison is critical of the translation. However, I should like to voice my high esteem for the translator. I know by experience how difficult it is to write in a foreign language. Translation, however, is a far more difficult task. It is just inevitable â especially with authors such as Marx â that the translator interprets the text. This may not be a problem so long as we have fairly standard interpretations on which the translator can rely. However, as soon as interpretations shift then the particular translation of key terms may no longer be obvious.
All page references to Capital I in the Fowkes translation of its fourth edition are denoted by an F followed by a page number. Those to the fourth German edition of Das Kapital I are denoted by a G and page number (MEW edition). Sometimes I also refer to the earlier English Moore and Aveling translation (of the third edition), as indicated by MA and page number. Throughout this essay I insert quite a few footnotes. Of these, notes 4â5, 8, 14, 20, 38, 40 and 43 are introductory; the others are for the specialist.
1 The production of capital
1.1 A comment on dimensions: monetary value and labour-time
I begin with a brief comment on the âdimensionsâ in which Marx casts his analysis of the process of production of capital. Note first his particular level of abstraction here: his analysis deals with an average production process â in regard to the quantity and quality of both the means of production used and the labour used, and in regard to their organisation.4 [2023 remark: Most of the time Marx indeed treats averages. However, not so in Chapter 12 (ch. 10 of the German edition). I regret that the current article neglected this. The non-average account here is treated in Chapter 2 (2019) and Chapter 15 (2017) of the current book.]
One of Marxâs greatest insights, in my view, is that he comprehends the capitalist production process as a unity of labour process and of {ideal} valorisation process.5 In the opening Chapter 7 of the middle part Marx writes:
Just as the commodity itself is a *unity of* use-value and value, so the process of production must be a *unity of labour process and process of creating value*. (â¦)
The production process *as a unity of labour process and process of creating value*, is a process of production of commodities; *as a unity of labour process and process of valorisation*, it is a capitalist process of production, or the capitalist form of the production of commodities. (F, 293 and 304Â â amended;6 G, 201 and 211)
Thus Marx is pointing out here the specific capitalist value-form of production. Expressed otherwise, we have a unity of a process of physical production (labour process) and a process of {ideal} value augmentation (valorisation process). We have two things coinciding, as unity. As simple as this may appear in practice (it is happening all the time in capitalist enterprises), its analysis is complex especially dimensionally: we have value categories (homogenous); time (homogenous); heterogenous physical inputs and outputs; and labour that can be conceived of in terms of homogenous time, but that is itself heterogenous.
Throughout this middle part Marx, as we will see, uses two dimensions for his analysis in general and his representations/equations in particular: a value dimension and a labour-time dimension. Without exception the value entities are expressed in monetary terms (£); the same applies to all numerical examples.7 It is necessary to emphasise this since in some accounts of Marxâs theory, âvalueâ is itself taken to have a labour-time dimension. This is a wrong account of Marxâs Capital (those same accounts often adopt the term âlabour valuesâ â one that is never used in Capital). As we will see, Marx, at the level of abstraction of Capital I, aims to explain value (monetary dimension) in terms of labour-time â therewith, of course, value is not discarded of its monetary dimension. (Value is the abstract counterpart of price, at the level of abstraction â Capital I â where the distinction between surplus-value and profit is still implicit; the distinction is also not yet relevant â Marx reaches this by presenting the average capital.)
Besides the two dimensions mentioned, Marx adopts an intuitive notion of physical labour productivity increase: increases in the number of use-values (goods) produced by a unit of labour (but he always ends up by expressing these use-values in terms of price multiplied by quantity).8
The main problem in understanding Marxâs texts (beginning with Part One of Capital I) is that he proceeds, step-wise, to find an endogenous dimensional reference point (or reference points), one that is (or are) internal to his object of enquiry, one that is (are) key to the functioning of his object of enquiry.9 Its core terms, in Marxâs view, are the monetary dimension and the time dimension. The early parts of each of the three volumes of Capital theorise the interconnection of these dimensions in increasing complexity and concretion (Volume I, Parts One and Two; Volume II, Part One; Volume III, Part One) ending up with the measure of capital, the rate of profit over time. Thus we end up with the connection of the monetary dimension with the time dimension in general, not the particular labour-time (of Capital I). However, that does not mean that labour-time becomes irrelevant at the Capital III level of analysis, just that we reach an overarching category.
The labour and labour-time category retains relevance at any level of abstraction in three respects. First, for the grand organisation of the production process (the technique adopted) and, related, the planned organisation of the intensity of labour (say âspeedâ). Second, for the common day to day organisation of production on the production floor, the management of output per labourer, i.e., per unit of labour-time. Third, the renumeration of labour-time, i.e., the wage rate. With the first and third fixed for any time being, the second determines the level of output and so profits. Earlier I wrote that Marx adopts in his analysis an âintuitiveâ notion of physical labour productivity increase. At the point of production there is nothing intuitive about it.
In Marxâs choice of categories and dimensions, and especially in the particular way he phrases his theory, there are undoubtedly also other issues at stake. For one, Marx (18671;18904) intervenes in the discourse of the Ricardian economics of his day (with its âlabour-embodiedâ theory of value), at times radically breaking away from it (his value-form theory), at others operating within it or at least at its margins. An additional problem here is that Marx sometimes, misleadingly, speaks about values (the explanandum) as âexpressionsâ of labour (the explanans). (In the same vein a neoclassical economist might, also misleadingly, speak about prices as âexpressionsâ of utility or preferences.) Apart from the few remarks in the next paragraph, I will not comment on these aspects in the remainder of this essay (for more see my 1993, Murrayâs 2000a comment on it, my 2000 reply, and Murrayâs 2002 rejoinder).
I take the circuit of capital {M â C ⦠P ⦠C´ â M´}, i.e., its growth via the stages of investment (MâC), production (CâPâC´) and sales (C´âM´), to be an interconnected process. From the perspective of the valorisation (i.e., augmentation) of capital, the âmomentsâ of the circuit (MâC; CâPâC´; and C´âM´) can be distinguished but not separated. Thus valorisation of capital, the âproductionâ of capital, is the unity of this process. To stress this is in part a value-form theoretical development from Marx (i.e., with Marx beyond Marx â see e.g. Reuten and Williams 1989 and much of the work of Christopher Arthur, Tony Smith and Patrick Murray; see also Nicola Taylor 2004).10 This development builds on one of the theoretical lines in Capital. On the other hand, Marx often tends, so it seems, to attribute a predominance to the âmomentâ of production, especially when he is discussing production. His terminology of âproductionâ of surplus-value and âproductionâ of capital (apparently in abstraction from the other moments) seems to reflect this attributed predominance. In face of the unity of this process, I consider Marxâs terminology misleading. For the value-form theoretical view, more specifically, there is properly speaking no production of âvalueâ; we have value inputs (MâC) and the valorisation result in C´âM´, i.e., when commodities are validated and commensurated in the market in terms of money. In between (CâPâC´) this result is anticipated upon, hence in production we merely have an âidealâ pre-commensuration, or an anticipated imputation of value.11 Hence we have no production of value, but physical production in terms of value. Having said this, I will for the purposes of this essay â and apart from a few reminders in footnotes â just report Marxâs own terminology in this respect.
1.2 The terrain of the middle part of âCapital Iâ
In this subsection I briefly survey the general terrain of the middle part of Capital I (Parts Three to Six, over 400 pages), against the background of Part Two.12|13
Capital, writes Marx in Part Two of Capital I, is âthe unceasing movement of profit-makingâ (F, 254). We have a movement from money (M) into more money: M ⦠M+
the subject of a process in which, while constantly assuming the form in turn of money and commodities, it changes its own magnitude, throws off surplus-value from itself considered as original value, and thus valorises itself independently. For the movement in the course of which it adds surplus-value is its own movement, its valorisation is therefore self-valorisation. (F, 255)
So capital is a movement of self-valorising value, of throwing off surplus-value.14 Part Two is closed off with the introduction of a particular commodity and commodity market, that of labour-power. The existence of this market is predicated on the workersâ lack of means of production. We also have a brief introduction of the value of labour-power, i.e., the wage, which in principle should be sufficient to reproduce labour-power. How much is âsufficientâ depends on physical, historical and moral elements (F, 272â5).
In the middle part of Capital I (Parts Three to Six) we see ânot only how capital produces, but how capital is itself producedâ (F, 280). That is, how surplus-value (
In the exchange MâC, capital in money-form is turned into capital in commodity-form: means of production and labour-power. Means of production bought are static elements; they have on average a fixed technical lifetime and have their value transferred to the product, whence Marx terms the part of capital laid out on it constant capital (F, 311â17).15 Labour-power, or labour capacity, is exchanged against the wage; so the labourer sells its capacity to labour (for the time agreed by contract). A change in C can only be engendered by this active living element, labour. And since this capacity is in principle variable, both in time (length of the working day) and in intensity â as we will see in more detail later on â Marx terms the part of capital laid out on it variable capital. During production, labour is âsubordinatedâ to capital: âthe worker works under the control of the capitalist ⦠the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the workerâ (F, 291â2). In labour resides the potential to produce a surplus-product, or, in value-terms: surplus-value. Thus labour potentially generates a surplus-value beyond the wage â or, from the point of view of the capitalist, a surplus-value beyond the capital advanced. Marx calls the ratio between the amount of surplus-value and the capital laid out in wages the ârate of surplus-valueâ or the âdegree of exploitation of labour-power by capitalâ (F, 320â7).
Part Three is on âThe production of absolute surplus-valueâ (Chapters 7â11, about 150 pages). Central to it is the increase in the rate of surplus-value through extension of the working day. In my view this part serves didactic purposes, similarly to Marxâs recurrent procedure of starting with âsimple reproductionâ (stationary state) before setting out âexpanding reproductionâ. In this case it allows Marx to introduce systematically both the concept of âthe value of labour-powerâ and the drive for increase in the rate of surplus-value. This didactic procedure of Marx also has a surprise effect. How could we still have â as happened in Marxâs day â an increase in the rate of surplus-value, or perhaps a constant rate, when we have a decrease of the working day?
This question is the core issue treated in Part Four on âThe production of relative surplus-valueâ (Chapters 12â15, some 215 pages). Both regular ârevolutions in the productive forcesâ and increases in the intensity of labour (each with very different effects as we will see in §2) allow for a constant or even an increasing rate of surplus-value along with a decreasing length of the working day. Both of these are core to the capitalist mode of production.
The synthetic Part Five bears the dull but appropriate title of âThe production of absolute and relative surplus-valueâ (Chapters 16â18; it is a relatively short part, extending to 30 pages).
In sum, for the explanation of surplus-value (and the rate of surplus-value), Marx posits four factors:
-
The magnitude of the value of labour-power;
-
The length of the working day;
-
The productive force of labour;
-
The intensity of labour.
He deals with the first two in Part Three (see §2.1 below) and the next two in Part Four (see §2.2 and §2.4). Sections 2.3 and 2.5 provide reconstructions of Marxâs formal explanatory treatment.
2 Determinants of (the rate of) surplus-value
2.1 The rate of surplus-value
Part Three, âThe production of absolute surplus-valueâ, begins with two chapters setting out the distinctions between the âLabour process and the valorisation processâ (Chapter 7) and between âConstant capital and variable capitalâ (Chapter 8) â briefly discussed in §1.2 above.16 In Chapter 9 Marx formalises these distinctions, decomposing capital advanced (Z) into constant capital (c) laid out on means of production, and variable capital (v) expended on labour-power (F, 320â1).17 The starting point for his formalisation (equations Mâ1 to Mâ5 below) is a (stylised) empirical reference:
The surplus-value generated in the production process by Z, the capital advanced, i.e., the valorisation of the value of the capital Z, presents itself to us first as the amount by which the value of the product exceeds the value of its constituent elements. (F, 320Â â C amended into Z, cf. the previous note)
Capturing this, Marx formally starts with a number of identities and definitions.
Z = c + v [accounting identity] (Mâ1)
As valorised Z is âtransformedâ into:
Z´ = (c + v) + s [accounting identity] (Mâ2)
where s is surplus-value. Thus in Z-Z´ we have the abbreviated formula of the production by and of capital.
Henceforth all of Marxâs equations/representations are indicated with Mâ. Unless made explicit otherwise, the dimension of all equations is monetary (as indeed Marx has it explicitly in terms of pounds, £; cf. also pp. F 327â29 where Marx, using empirical cases, derives s from business accounts.). All equations apply to a definite time period (a production period); I have refrained from adding on time subscripts as these would be uniform for all equations (up to equation 14). For each equation I indicate their analytical status in square brackets; the particular terms are mine (Mâ2, for example, is named âa tautologyâ by Marx â F, 320).
Marx calls âthe new value createdâ (y) âthe value-productâ and the output (x) âthe value of the productâ.18
y â¡ v + s [definition] (Mâ3)
x â¡ (c + v) + s [definition] (Mâ4)
The s over v proportion is called âthe rate of surplus-valueâ (e).
e â¡ s/v [definition] (Mâ5)
As a ratio of equal dimensions e â¡ s/v is, of course, a dimensionless number. Crucially from a theoretical point of view Marx (F, 324â6) casts the âsameâ ratio (F, 326) in terms of âsurplus labourâ (SL) and ânecessary labourâ (NL).19
e* â¡ SL/NLÂ [definition] (Mâ6)
e = e*Â [explanatory device] (Mâ7)
Thus he posits e* as an explanation for e. There is a difficulty here. So far, there is nothing in itself wrong with positing the one ratio as an explanation for the other, or with positing surplus labour(-time) as an explanation for surplus-value. There is a problem, however, if the explanans (e*, or SL) cannot be measured independently of the explanandum (e, or s). This is not uncommon in science, but it is nevertheless a problem and far from a perfect situation.20
So far we have entities (c, v, s) that are, in principle, observable and measurable. However, by themselves (in isolation from the already known s/v ratio, one that can be measured) SL and NL cannot be measured. Another observable and measurable entity might be the labour-time of workers, e.g. 10 hours a day. Given a particular length of the working day we could, analytically, divide that up into one part in which an amount of value is produced equivalent to wages (equivalent to variable capital, v) and call this ânecessary labour(-time)â (NL), and another part in which an amount of value is produced equivalent to the surplus-value (s) and call this âsurplus labour(-time)â (SL). This is in fact what Marx does (F, 329â31).21
Another way to think about this is that (Mâ6) together with (Mâ7) simply makes explicit the idea that at a given wage per day, an extension of the working day results, in general, in an increased value-product. On this account (Mâ6) with (Mâ7) have elementary explanatory meaning.22
Early on in the last chapter of Part Three, Chapter 11, Marx provides a decomposition of the surplus-value in his earlier representations.23
s = (s/v)v [definition] (Mâ8)
s = w(a´/a)n [explanatory device] (Mâ9)
where:
| s |
= the mass of surplus-value; |
| v |
= variable capital; |
| s |
= surplus-value per worker per average day; |
| v |
= variable capital advanced per worker per day (hence in fact the equivalent of the wage rate per day); |
| w |
= the wage rate per day (âthe value of one individual labour-powerâ); |
| a´ |
= surplus labour (surplus labour-time); |
| a |
= necessary labour (necessary labour-time); |
| a´/a |
= the average âdegree of exploitationâ; |
| n |
= the number of workers employed (i.e., measured in days); |
| s/v |
= the average rate of exploitation per worker per day (but as this is a dimensionless ratio it may as well be applied to any other time unit). |
(Hence the underlined symbols in Mâ8 and Mâ9 are in value per time dimension; a´ and a in time dimension. This way we end up with the monetary value dimension for s â at least if we interpret Marxâs âthe number of workers employedâ for n (F, 418) as workers days, which can readily be inferred from the context.)
Note that as ratios we have the equalities of
e ⡠s/v = s/v = a´/a [recapitulation of explanatory device] (10)
The s in the s/v of (Mâ8) cannot be measured independently of s and v. Similarly the a´/a of (Mâ9) cannot be measured independently of s and v. (See the comment on (Mâ6) and (Mâ7) above.)
Anticipating Marxâs discussion of absolute and relative surplus-value in Part Five, I add on a definition here (equations 11 or 12 are not Marxâs):
wL ⡠v [definition] (11)
where w is the wage rate per hour and L the amount of labour hours hired. Hence we may rewrite (Mâ9) as
s = e*(wL)Â [explanatory device] (12)
Marx writes: âthe mass of surplus-value {s} is determined [bestimmt] by the product of the number of labour-powers {L} and the degree of exploitation of each individual labour-power {e*} ⦠We assume throughout, not only that the value of an average labour-power {w ?} is constant, but that the workers employed by a capitalist are reduced to average workersâ (F, 418; G, 322; symbols in curled brackets added).
The advantage of this notation (12) is that the number of hours hired (L) â as well as their remuneration (w) â has been made explicit. It seems that in his representation (Mâ9) Marx tried to bring this in â unsuccessfully though, since the working day itself is a variable (cf. Marxâs w and n). On the other hand, in equation (12) we seem to have lost Marxâs distinction between labour-power (L) and labour (L).24 Or at least, this is now merely implicit.25 In that respect, representation (12) â to be found in much of contemporary Marxian theory â is defective.26 Later on we will retrieve Marxâs labourâlabour-power distinction (§2.3 and §2.5).
2.2 The âproductive forceâ of labour
Part Four of Capital I presents âThe production of relative surplus-valueâ. In its first Chapter 12 Marx introduces a key factor into his presentation: âchange in the productive force of labourâ.27 Before going into this, a note on translation is required. In the context of production we will generally need to differentiate between changes that have to do with the exertion of labour only, or mainly, and changes that have to do with the interconnection of changes in the means of production, technology and the exertion of labour. It seems to me that in the German text Marx makes important differentiations in this respect. Fowkes translates the German Produktivkraft by âproductivityâ.28 This is unfortunate, as Marx sometimes also uses the term Arbeitsproduktivität (labour productivity) â this will be seen to be especially important in the context of his presentation of âintensityâ of labour, discussed in the next subsection. In all of the following texts I will amend the translation for Produktivkraft into âproductive forceâ (marked *â¦* â I use the same mark for any other amendments, as specified in footnotes).29
In Chapter 12 Marx writes:
Hitherto, in dealing with the production of surplus-value ⦠we have assumed that the mode of production is given and invariable. ⦠The technical and social conditions of the process and consequently the mode of production itself must be revolutionized *so as to increase the productive force of labour* â¦. (F, 431â2 amended;30 G, 333â4).
Introducing this by way of an example Marx wrote:
increase in the *productive force* of labour ⦠cannot be done except by an alteration in his [the labourerâs] tools or in his mode of working [Arbeitsmethode], or both. Hence the conditions of production of his labour, i.e., his mode of production, and the labour process itself, must be revolutionized. By an increase in the *productive force* of labour, we mean an alteration in the labour process of such a kind as to shorten the labour-time socially necessary for the production of a commodity, *hence a smaller quantity of labour acquires the force* of producing a greater quantity of use-value. (F, 431 amended;31 G, 333)
Productivity (it seems to me) has an imprecise meaning.32 I am pretty sure that Marx always reserves his term Produktivkraft (productive force) for â as he says in this quotation â the production of a greater quantity of use-value by a smaller (or by the same) quantity of labour (and it usually goes along with price decrease). My hypothesis is that the notion of âsocially necessary labour-timeâ â see the quotation â is associated with this notion of productive force and that, in this context, âproductive forceâ must be taken as average.
In the subsequent chapters of Part Four (13â15) Marx further conceptualises the development of productive force by way of a historical description of the development of âtoolsâ, via manufacture, into (Chapter 15, section 1) âmachinery and large-scale industryâ. Generally Marx associates an increase in productive force with changes in the organisation of the labour process (e.g. related to scale and division of labour and to changes in the composition of capital).33
2.3 A formal and immanent-reconstructive intermezzo on capitalist revolutions in the productive force of labour
It is not until Chapter 18 (i.e., the last chapter of Part Five) that Marx returns to his formulas for the rate of surplus-value, however, without improving on the previous ones â i.e., those discussed in §2.1 above. Nevertheless, in view of the conceptual progress made by Marx so far (Chapter 11 to Chapter 15, section 2), there is reason to do so. (Marx does not do it here and does not return to it in similar contexts later on.)
We saw that the potential of labour for producing use-values (the potential use-value productivity) is affected by the productive force; today economists would say: the state of technology and its implementation. Thus given that state, any labour is potentially exerted at a particular productive force.
A revolution in the productive force of labour can be envisaged as a change in technological trajectory (T)Â â think of grand technologies such as that of steam engine, electricity, petrol motor, computer. They get started in particular branches and then are gradually diffused throughout all or most of the branches in the economy. Let us simplify a trajectory (i) into a certain value c of specific means of production that could potentially be worked up by an amount of average labour (measured in time).
Ti â «c/L» [definition of approximation] (13)
Thus c/L stands for a certain value (£) of means of production that could be worked up by a particular amount of labour in a definite period of time. (Analytically we might put L to unity, e.g. an hour, whence we have, e.g., £10 per labour hour.) The guillemets here, indicate the specificity of means of production and labour; â is the sign for âcontains or equalsâ. Within a trajectory we have bounded variations in c/L ratioâs coming about in tranches (blocks) of diffusion (variations say of a range of 40% â in the analytical example ranging from £10/hr to £14/hr, coming about in e.g. 5 tranches). We call any one such tranche a state of the technological trajectory (ST), or a state of the development of the productive forces:34
STi(t) â «c/L»(t) [definition] (14)
The subscript (t) stands for that particular state of trajectory (i)Â â it also stands for a definite period in time (e.g. 1850â1860) in a region (e.g. Great Britain and France).
Let us now consider production (recall that the accounting dimension of the production process is a monetary one).35
x = «c/L»(t) L
β [β >1]36 [determination; step of heuristic approximation] (15)
Hence, as before, x is the gross output in value terms (e.g. £). «c/L» is the quantity of means of production in value terms that could, potentially, be worked up by a quantity of labour (hours). The c is some value of means of production at the point when workers enter the business gate (at the point where they enter âthe hidden abode of productionâ â F, 280). Thus «c/L» is for example (£40mln)/(4mln potential labour hours).37 The outer right-hand L in representation (15) is the actual labour employed (measured in hours), i.e., actual labour-time. The factor
I make a strict distinction between, first, the productive force of labour («c/L»t), second, labour-power in the conventional sense (the L in «c/L»), i.e., a potential, and third, the âactual exerting power of labourâ (L
Before further commenting on
s = x â (c + wL)
s = £50m â [£40m + (£1.50)(4m)] = £50m â [£40m +£6m] = £4m
x = c + wL + s = £60m + £6m + £4m
So this gets us back to Marxâs type of example. In fact my statement âlet
Indeed all of Marxâs formulas are results. The advantage of a representation such as (15) is that we see some more of the explanatory dynamic behind those results; an explanatory dynamic that Marx sets out in his text.
As indicated, in Parts Three to Six of Capital I all of Marxâs focus is on the rate of surplus-value. In terms of the formalisation of the current subsection we have for that rate:40
|
s |
{«c/L»(t)} {L |
|||
|
e = |
â |
= |
â â 1 |
    [explanatory device] (16) |
|
v |
   w |
Thus at the prevailing productive force of labour «c/L»(t), the rate of surplus-value depends positively on the âactual exerting power of labourâ
According to Marx the main concomitant of revolutions in the productive forces is a decrease in the value of commodities. To the extent that these are wage goods, such revolutions allow for nominal wage decrease at any level of real wages. Thus between states of technological trajectories we have, ceteris paribus (specifically the factors affecting the subsumption of labour), the rate of surplus-value pushed up. Indeed this, for Marx, is the heart of the production of relative surplus-value. Thus we have
w = w* + f(
ΠST(t))   [f´ < 0] (17)
where w* summarises the labour market aspects of the general state of subsumption of labour.42
2.4 Degree of intensity of labour
We now proceed from the point where we left Marxâs text prior to the reconstructive intermezzo of the previous subsection. Note first that Marx up to this point â as he reminds us early on in the section now under discussion â conceptualised increase in the production of relative surplus-value as being engendered by increase in the use-value productivity of labour. âThe same amount of labour-time adds the same value as before to the total product, but ⦠is spread over more use-values. Hence the value of each single commodity fallsâ (F, 534 â italics added).43
In section 3(c) of Chapter 15, Marx presents the concept of âintensity of labourâ.44
⦠something we have already met with, namely the intensity of labour, develops into a phenomenon of decisive importance. Our analysis of absolute surplus-value dealt primarily with the extensive magnitude of labour, its duration, while *the degree of its intensity* was treated as a given factor. We now have to consider the inversion [Umschlag] of extensive magnitude into intensive magnitude, or magnitude of degree. (F, 533 amended;45 G, 431)
Marx directs our attention here both by the terms âdecisive importanceâ and âinversion/breakâ [Umschlag]. Thus next to the magnitude of labour (L), Marx introduces its degree of intensity. In fact part of my reason for introducing the formalisation of §2.3 is to be able to put sharp focus on this. In terms of my representation (15) or (16) a change in the âactual exerting power of labourâ, the
⦠the development of *the productive force and the economisation of the conditions of production* imposes on the worker an increased expenditure of labour within a time ⦠This compression of a greater mass of labour into a given period now counts for what it really is, namely an increase of the quantity of labour. In addition to the measure of its âextensive magnitudeâ, labour-time now acquires a measure of its *degree of density*. ⦠The same mass of value is now produced for the capitalist by, say, 3â hours of surplus labour and 6â hours of necessary labour, as was previously produced by 4 hours of surplus labour and 8 hours of necessary labour. (F, 534 amended and italics added;47 G, 432â3)
Thus we see a crucial conceptual progress (concretisation) in comparison with the earlier simpler (more abstract) conception summarised at the opening of this subsection: no longer do we have the simple parallel between value and labour-time.48
Marx indicates as main factors bringing about this intensity increase, an increase in the speed of the machines, and the same worker having to supervise or operate a greater quantity of machinery (F, 536). In the remainder of the section he cites reports as evidence for this process.
The issue is taken up further in the synthetic Part Five â apart from a brief passage in Chapter 16 (F, 646) mainly in its Chapter 17. Note that all along Marxâs primary problematic is not so much the determination of the magnitude of value, but rather the relative magnitudes of surplus-value and the price of labour-power.49 At a given average real wage rate per ânormal working dayâ, the latter relative magnitudes depend on:
(1) the length of the working day, or the extensive magnitude of labour, (2) the normal intensity of labour, or its intensive magnitude, whereby a given quantity of labour is expended in a given time and (3) the *productive force* of labour, whereby the same quantity of labour yields, in a given time, a greater or a smaller quantity of the product, depending on the degree of development attained by the conditions of production. (F, 655 amended;50 G, 542)
All these three are variable, and next Marx analyses their variation in turn. I focus on the intensity of labour (section 2 of Chapter 17).
⦠if the length of the working day remains constant, a dayâs labour of increased intensity will be incorporated in an increased amount of value, and, assuming no change in the value of money, in an increased amount of money. ⦠A given working day, therefore, no longer creates a constant value, but a variable one â¦. (F, 661 â italics added;51 G, 547)
So far this repeats â though in a very clear formulation â the inversion/break indicated above. However, in two subsequent statements Marx (I think) muddles the issue for the inattentive (preoccupied?) reader. Here is the first one.
Whether the magnitude of the labour changes in extent or in intensity, there is always a corresponding change in the magnitude of the value created, independently of the nature of the article in which that value is *exhibited*. (F, 661 amended;52 G, 548)
Although to the letter of the text there is nothing to complain about, it might (carelessly) be read as a repetition of the conceptualisation cited at the very opening of this subsection. In fact the âmagnitude of labourâ has now been cut loose from labour-time; labour-time no longer âcorrespondsâ to value (at least not diachronically).
Such a (careless) reading and its implication might be reinforced by the next, and final, text of this section in Chapter 17:
If the intensity of labour were to increase simultaneously and equally in every branch of industry, then the new and higher degree of intensity would become the normal social degree of intensity, and would therefore cease to count as an extensive magnitude. (F, 661â2; G, 548)
Again, to the letter this is fair enough â as well as consistent with Marxâs general approach. However, it seems to de-emphasise the conceptual progress âof decisive importanceâ.53 To the extent that over time (diachronically) we have recurrent increases in the ânormal social degree of intensityâ, the value-producing potential of labour cannot be measured diachronically by labour-time independently of the value produced.54 (By itself this does not make the explanatory power of the theory useless; it makes it more problematical.)
As indicated, Marx returns to his formula for the rate of surplus-value in the final Chapter, 18, of Part Five. It is a mystery why he, after making subtle distinctions in the previous chapters, relapses into the simple s/v result and its âsurplus-labourâ over ânecessary labourâ counterpart.
The intensity matter is returned to in Chapter 25 of Part Seven, âThe general law of capitalist accumulationâ, however, without much further development (F, 788â9 and 793).55
It is obvious that in terms of the reconstructive formalisation of the previous subsection Marxâs new ânormal social degree of intensityâ of labour would be posited in terms of changes in the degree
2.5 Once again, the value of labour-power and the wage rate
From all of the middle part of Capital I â indeed all of the book â it is obvious that Marx always conceives of wages, and the value of labour-power, in terms of days or weeks. Indeed this directs all his theorising about absolute and relative surplus-value. Theoretically this seems as poignant as an engraved Gestalt (in the sense of Kuhn). On the one hand this is understandable historically, that is from the perspective of the practice of the second half of the nineteenth century (including struggles over the length of the working day and the working week); the perspective of if, and how well, one can live off a dayâs or a weekâs wage. On the other hand, however, this is difficult to understand given that it is Marxâs aim to set out âcapitalâ and its development from its perspective, i.e., immanently.
Whereas Marxâs conceptualisation of labour-power is fine as and when he introduces it in Part Three (absolute surplus-value), there is a problem when he moves to Part Four (relative surplus-value) and introduces shortening of the working day. The daily value of labour-power is by itself not of interest to capital, but rather the value of labour-power per hour of labour-time (that is the value of labour-power relative to the actual time of employment).
Reconsider Marxâs equations (cf. §2.1)
s = (s/v)v (Mâ8)
s = w(aâ/a)n (Mâ9)
and the added
wL ⡠v (11)
s = e*(wL)Â (12)
Recall that the underlined symbols are in per day terms, and w and L in per hour terms. If s would be measured over a year (for example), n would have to be the ânumber of workers times the number of labour days in a yearâ. (If s would be measured over one turn-over time of capital, n would have to be the ânumber of workers times the number of days of turn-over timeâ.)56
Let the value of labour-power per day, VLP-d = w; the length of the working day = WD (i.e., a number of hours). Recall that w = the wage per hour, and L the number of hours worked. Thus we have:
w â¡ w/WDÂ [definition] (18)
L â¡ n(WD)Â [definition] (19)
hence
wL = wn [implication] (20)
Thus there is no problem to translate wL into Marxâs terminology of âthe value of labour-powerâ. But what is labour-power in these âdifferentâ frames? Labour-power is the potential to perform labour (for a day says Marx) at some definite extensity (i.e., a number of clock hours) and intensity. What do we lose if we reduce this to intensity per hour? Nothing (note that for Marx a substitution between extensity and intensity is possible). Then we can interpret L as a number of labour-power per hour (labour potential) and LB as labour actually exerted at some degree of intensity.
Here is the rephrase. Workers sell their labour-potential L (= labour-power) by the hour.57 In production it is exerted at a prevailing productive force (Produktivkraft) with a certain degree of intensity L
All this merely makes more explicit what is in Marxâs text. It also makes more explicit that the only directly measurable entities are all value entities, as well as total labour-time (extensity). All other âlabourâ entities, including the intensity of labour (L
Summary and conclusions
Key to the production process of capital â the subject of Capital I â is the production of surplus-value. The middle part of the book explains how it is produced. Marx comprehends the capitalist production process as a unity of labour process and of valorisation process â this sets the frame for his analysis, including its dimensions. He starts from value entities, always in monetary dimension, and aims to explain these in terms of: (1) productive forces (âtechniques of productionâ â this term is anachronistic); (2) extensity of labour; (3) intensity of labour; (4) the value of labour-power. The point of the âunityâ view is the interaction, the melding, of the two processes â the valorisation process affects the content of the labour process and this works back again on valorisation.
In line with his general method, Marx starts this middle part with an abstract and simple account â the production of absolute surplus-value. In effect this means that he treats all but factor (2), the extensity of labour, as constant. Next â under the head of the production of relative surplus-value â he brings in variations in the other three factors mentioned.
Unfortunately, when it comes to Marxâs formalisation of his analysis â the main subject of this essay â he sticks in effect to the simple account (e = e*, i.e., s/v = SL/NL â §2.1). It is not obvious that he sticks to the simple account, because once we accept e = e* as a useful explanation it remains in force after the complications have been brought in â now other variables have an effect on the e* ratio. This is why I have complained that Marx formalises results instead of explanatory processes (or mechanisms).
I have shown that it is not too difficult to âimmanently reconstructâ Marxâs formalisation such that all four factors are captured (see equation 16 in §2.3). Its upshot is a reconceptualisation of Marxâs âvalue of labour-powerâ into a value per unit of time, a wage rate (§2.5). The corollary advantage of the latter concept is that it matches the perspective of capital â which fits Marxâs general approach in Capital of presenting an immanent analysis of capital.
Comments on the secondary literature have been beyond the confines of this essay. Some of that literature misconceives Marx in making âhimâ identify value with a labour(-time) dimension (hence the collapse of any explanatory force of his theory in this respect). Perhaps Marx misled the superficial reader with his, in effect, dimensionless ratios. However, he always casts value in monetary terms.
As to the explanatory force of e = e* (in either its simple or its complex representation) I indicated that the explanans (e*, or surplus labour in relation to total labour) cannot be measured independently of the explanandum (e, or surplus-value in relation to the value-product). Marx was well aware of this measurement problem â highlighted in the variability of labour intensity â as well as, of course, the main further inversions/breaks to come in the later volumes of Capital (much of which had been drafted before 1867).
I am grateful for the stimulating comments by Chris Arthur, Riccardo Bellofiore, Martha Campbell, Fred Moseley, Patrick Murray, Tony Smith, and Nicola Taylor. I also thank my University of Amsterdam colleague Mark Blaug for his comments.
Other formalisations of Marx, such as his reproduction schemes, have been heuristically inspiring (see Reuten 1998) [Chapter 11 of the current book]. In effect, within the Marxian tradition the Capital I formulas have mostly been replicated instead of enriched. I make no plea for any formalism to dominate the enquiry or its presentation. Opting myself for a systematic-dialectical methodology, I believe nevertheless that, in many instances and at one and the same conceptual level (especially for the analysis of a dialectical âmomentâ), formal treatments may provide helpful tools.
Of course, a better understanding might, next, play a role in the further development of a theory, or even a reconstruction in the sense of a new construction.
In effect, he abstracts from intra-branch and inter-branch differences [except in ch. 12], including differing production periods and compositions of capital (dealt with in Volume III, Parts One and Two). He also assumes that the output produced will be sold â or at least that any discrepancy in this respect is the average one (the complications, especially in the context of accumulation of capital are dealt with in Volume II, Part Three). He assumes that there is no difference between production time and labour-time â or, he assumes that this difference indeed is the average one (further dealt with in Volume II, Part Two). Finally, he abstracts from finance and banking â or he assumes that its functions are integrated into the average capital that he treats (explicitly dealt with in Volume III, Parts Four and Five).
At the current level of abstraction Marx achieves, in effect, similarities to a macroeconomic treatment (the concept of macroeconomics dates only from the 1930s), without however losing the connection to microeconomic processes. I say âsimilaritiesâ â it is not macroeconomic; if that term were applicable it would be for Part Three of Capital II when Marx explicitly considers âthe functioning of the social capital â that is of the total capitalâ (Marx 1885, p. 468). (For the latter interpretation as the construction of a macroeconomics, see Reuten 1998, esp. pp. 190â5.)
One implication of dealing with the average production process is that âlabourâ always means âsocially necessary labourâ, that is, (1) it is of average skill and dexterity; (2) it produces at the prevailing productive forces; (3) any supply/demand discrepancies are either abstracted from or considered to be the average ones.
âValorisationâ, i.e., value augmentation. The interpolation of âidealâ will be explained later on.
For the first starred text Fowkes has âunity formed ofâ for âEinheit vonâ (âformed ofâ has some connotation of separate elements); for the second starred text he has âunity composed of the labour process and the process of creating valueâ for âEinheit von Arbeitsprozeà und WertbildungsprozeÃâ. Fowkes makes better English, but it seems especially important here not to add âtheâ before âlabour processâ as this may suggest (as for my first amendment) that it is pre-given; Marxâs view is that the character of the labour process itself is affected by it being a valorisation process â thus the latter is not just added on to the first.
Similarly, for the first starred text after the ellipsis, Fowkes has âconsidered as the unity of the labour process and the process of creating valueâ for âAls Einheit von Arbeitsprozeà und WertbildungsprozeÃâ; the last amendment is alike.
Elson (1979) pointed this out.
Without value imputation (i.e., prices), the notion of physical productivity must, of course, be intuitive, because different use-values cannot be added up.
In contradistinction to external constructs, such as â later on in history â Fisherâs index numbers, or Sraffaâs standard commodity (both analytical commodity baskets). These are measures or devices of the analyst; they do not actually play a role in the functioning of the object of enquiry. (Though for index numbers we have a case of reflexivity, in that after their âinventionâ they may be adopted in practice â e.g. some consumer price index in wage bargaining.)
This does not imply that these authors agree with the particular way I briefly phrase this here.
Usually capitalist firms, their management and their shareholders and other financiers do not worry about this. It is especially in times of crises that balance sheets are shown to be âanticipationsâ. The notion of âanticipationâ and âideal pre-commensurationâ is amplified upon in Reuten 1988, pp. 53â5 and Reuten and Williams 1989, pp. 66â8. See also Taylor 2004.
However, for the purposes of this essay I abstain from a specific treatment of the relatively short Part Six on âWagesâ (chapters 19â22, together about 35 pages). See Bellofiore 2004.
The next three paragraphs of this subsection are adapted from Reuten (2003a).
Note that the concept of âprofitâ has been âbracketedâ â until Capital III â and replaced by the both simpler and more abstract notion of âsurplus-valueâ.
Means of production derive their value â we might add â not from the process of production in which they figure as means of production, but from the process of production in which they were produced; labour-power is not produced for sale in a capitalist process of production (Reuten 1988 and Reuten and Williams 1989, ch. 1, §9; see also Taylor 2004).
All chapter indications refer to the English editions of Capital I. The English editions break up the German 4th chapter into three (Chapters 4â6). Hence from Chapter 7 onwards, the equivalent German chapter should be counted two back.
Fowkes uses the symbol C for capital advanced (instead of my Z). This is confusing because the German MâCâM´ formula is GâWâG´. In the chapter at hand Marx uses for âcapital advancedâ the symbol C in German (i.e., not âWâ, see G, 226â¯ff.) â which, if it were related to the formula, would seem nearer to the (English) M than to C. This makes a difference which actually gets lost in both the translations (cf. MA, 204â¯ff.).
The right-hand sides of (Mâ3) to (Mâ6) are Marxâs (the symbols y, x, e, and e* are mine). Although it is not important in the context of the problematic of the current essay, it should be noted that soon in this Chapter 9 Marx abstracts from fixed capital, thus interprets both Z and c as circulating capital (F, 321). Next, and until the second section of Chapter 15, Marx also sets c=0 (F, 324). However, the context here and in the Chapters 10â14 rather points at moving âconstant capitalâ to the background: âIn order that variable capital may perform its function, constant capital must be advanced ⦠appropriate to the special technical conditions of each labour processâ (F, 323).
âSurplus labourâ and ânecessary labourâ are âthe labour expendedâ during âsurplus labour-timeâ and ânecessary labour-timeâ (F, 325). Thus we see Marx making the distinction of âlabourâ and âlabour-timeâ, anticipating his discussion of âintensity of labourâ in later chapters (see §2.4 below). It seems, though, that for the time being we can treat the concepts as similar, especially for a discussion of the average capital.
The term ânecessary labourâ should be distinguished from the term âsocially necessary labourâ as referred to in note 4; the similarities of these terms is âinconvenientâ, as Marx remarks in a footnote (F, 325, n. 5).
Incidentally it may be noted that for the present-day mainstream in economics, a paradigm emerging soon after 1867, and aiming to explain prices or demand in terms of utility â and later on in terms of preferences â a similar problem applies: the explanans cannot be measured independently of the explanandum (of course this does not make Marxâs problem more comforting).
Possibly one could argue that in this respect Marx is near to an abductive (Peirce) or a retroductive (Lawson) proceeding. An uncompromising empiricist would consider it doubtful if (Mâ6) adds anything explanatory to (Mâ5). What it achieves, in effect, is to breach the idea that the wage is the equivalent of the labour delivered. In whatever way this may be appraised â and in reference back to the misconceived notion of âlabour valuesâ (see section 1.1, just after note 7) â Marx endeavours to provide an explanation of surplus-value in terms of labour(-time). To conceive of value itself in terms of labour(-time) is to collapse the explanation â and Marx definitely does not do this.
Though it is either analytical or largely intuitive. Let TL be total labour-time. Then we can rewrite (Mâ6) into: e* â¡ (TLÂ â NL)/NL, with TL in principle observable and NL unobservable. Now we could posit: s varies with TL, ceteris paribus. This may make analytical sense if the theory makes sense. However, Marx has yet to unpack a host of other factors affecting s (in all the rest of Capital at least), so that the âceteris paribusâ makes no empirical sense.
Marx in a change of notation has S = (s/v)V and S = P(aâ/a)n where P is the wage rate per day (= w in my notation).
In fact Marxâs s = w(aâ/a)n also does not bring out the distinction between labour and labour-power (the same applies to all of Marxâs equations in Capital) although this one does make explicit the value of (a dayâs) labour-power.
The reader may observe that the same happens in Sraffian types of approach.
As including some of my own earlier work.
Earlier on it was sometimes briefly anticipated.
Most of the time at least â e.g. on page F, 453 2nd paragraph, Fowkes translates Produktivkraft into âproductive powerâ and on page F, 508 it is translated into âproductive forcesâ (cf. G, 407). Not only do we lose terminological connections, the English text also makes connections that are absent from the German (esp. with the German term Produktivität der Arbeit and when Fowkes translates this into âproductivity of labourâ, âproductivityâ being his most frequent translation for âProduktivkraftâ). We have the same problem in the Results (translated by Livingstone). Moore & Aveling (Capital I) translate Produktivkraft into âproductivenessâ (at least those instances I have checked). [Continued on next page.]
Generally there are two translation options for the term Kraft as in Produktivkraft: power and force. The former is adopted in the Grundrisse translation (productive power) and the latter in The German Ideology and the 1859 Critique Introduction (productive force).
Note that I do not claim to make better English than Fowkes.
For the starred text Fowkes has âbefore the productivity of labour can be increasedâ for âum die Produktivkraft der Arbeit zu erhöhnâ.
For the first and second starred text Fowkes has âproductivityâ for âProduktivkraftâ. For the third he has âand to endow a given quantity of labour with the power â¦â for âein kleinres Quantum Arbeit also die Kraft erwirbtâ. My point for this amendment is not only the reference to shortening of the labour day, but foremost the reversion of the apparently active element â with Fowkesâs âendowâ, labour seems to be put is the passive position.
In both mainstream and in much of Marxian economics it loosely refers to a combination of effects of technological change and effectiveness of labour. (I will come back to this in §2.4.)
The concept of the âcomposition of capitalâ, the c/v ratio, is mostly only implicit in Part Four (it is alluded to in Chapter 15 â F, 571 and 577â8). It makes proper appearance in Part Seven. See Reuten 2004b. [Chapter 9 of the current book.]
The 40% range is one in the absence of inflation or deflation of prices. Remember that c is in value terms. States of the trajectory are associated with a dissemination of the technology over a new tranche of branches in the economy.
In this accounting the management of firms anticipates sales and so carries out a commensuration of heterogeneous entities (means of production, labour in process) before the deed so to speak, and thus carries out âan ideal pre-commensurationâ. Cf. the last paragraph of §1.1 above.
Obviously for
It may be misleading to add: (£40mln)/(4mln potential labour hours) = £10 per potential labour hour, as we did in the analytical example. «c/L» is fixed plant-wise, hence the average or modal «c/L» is fixed. Underlying L is a technical matrix with, in its column, the number of workers simultaneously required to operate the means of production at a point in time, and with, in the rows of the matrix, the duration of the production process (in hours). (Of course, «c/L» is only relatively âfixedâ. We may have major restructuring/reorganisations of capital â i.e., of plants or clusters of plants â which in effect introduce new states of the trajectory.)
I have been following so far (and will below) Marxâs Capital I simplification (generally) of abstracting from means of production that last beyond the production period. (Including those we would simply have «K/L»(t)L
c are specific means of production (measured in monetary terms: prices times quantities);
the concept of c/L is that of a plant (or plants), and thus is incompatible with marginalist notions as including marginal productivity (see also the previous footnote);
c/L is taken to be âalmostâ fixed in the short run: «c/L» (the guillemets should be warning for that); thus we are within a particular state of a technological trajectory â in which only moderate variations in c/L (say within a 8% bound) can be profitably applied (that is macroeconomically; micro variations may be larger).
there is no blue book of techniques that can profitably be used â no substitution in the orthodox sense â we are on a one-way trajectory. [Continued on next page.]
(For some other differences in this respect between the neoclassical and the Marxian approach see Smith 1997. See also Smith 2004 for contrasts with Neo-Schumpeterian views.)
E.g. F, 433. Instead of âexhibitedâ Fowkes has âembodiedâ for âstellt sich darâ (G, 335). âEmbodiedâ rings, of course, Ricardian bells (perhaps it should, perhaps not; in some contexts Marx uses the term verkörpert, i.e., embodied).
Representation (16) is derived as follows:
x = | «c/L»(t) L | ||
s = | x â (c + v) | ||
s = | {«c/L»(t) L | ||
s | {«c/L»(t) L | ||
e = | â | = | â = â â 1 |
v | Â Â Â wLÂ Â Â w | ||
Though one might devise experiments (âslow downâ), or adopt indirect measures for changes in
The further determination of the state of subsumption is beyond the confines of this paper (see Murray 2000b and 2004). The prevailing rate of unemployment is merely one obvious factor affecting w*.
This is based on a number of assumptions that Marx repeats over and again. Next to the three assumptions associated with the concept of âsocially necessary labourâ (see note 4) it is assumed that competition results in the pushing down of prices when productivity rises spread over branches of production.
Here he introduces it systematically â the term was used five times before in passing: in Chapter 1 (F, 129; G, 153), Chapter 7 (F, 303; G, 210), Chapter 11 (F, 424; G, 328) and Chapter 14 (F, 460; G, 361 and F, 465; G, 365). In two other instances Marx uses in German the term âpotenzierte Arbeitâ which both Moore/Aveling and Fowkes render into âintensified labourâ (F, 135; MA, 51; G, 59; and F, 435; MA, 302; G, 337). [This last rendering is wrong, as it does not regard âintensity of labourâ â see Chapters 2 and 15 of the current book.]
For the starred text Fowkes has âits intensityâ for âder Grad ihrer Intensitätâ. The insertion of the German for âinversionâ is by Fowkes. It seems to me that Umschlag is rather a heavy term, pointing to a new moment. Other candidates for the translation would be âbreakâ (as in âbreak in the weatherâ) or âturnâ (as in âturn in the relationshipâ).
I challenge the reader who is not convinced by my L
For the first starred text Fowkes has âthe development of productivity and the more economical use of the conditions of productionâ for âder Entwicklung der Produktivkraft und der Ãkonomisierung der Produktionsbedingungenâ. For the second he has âintensity, or degree of densityâ for âdas maà ihres Verdichtungsgradsâ.
Concerning the term âmeasureâ a general warning â for all of Capital â is appropriate. The meaning of the German term âmaÃâ is complicated. The relevant meaning here seems near to âgradeâ or âdegreeâ â or âmeasureâ as in the phrase âto considerable measureâ. (For at least some explication of the term see Inwood 1992, p. 240.)
Or âsocially necessary labour-timeâ (see note 4). For the purposes of the current essay I will not quarrel with historiographers who argue that Capital is based on a linear logic (instead of a systematic-dialectical) and that already in the first section of Chapter 1 Marx writes: âSocially necessary labour-time is the labour-time required to produce any use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labour prevalent in that societyâ (F, 129; G, 53). At that point we cannot know what he means by âdegree of intensityâ; he subsequently âblends outâ the intensity issue and returns to it systematically in Chapter 15.
I just wrote âno longer do we have the simple parallel between value and labour-timeâ. In fact we see breaks in this parallel (conceptual progress) here in Capital I and in all the volumes of Capital (particularly also in Parts Two and Three of Capital II). There is no particular dichotomy in this respect between Volumes I and III (and even less so two algorithms). Nevertheless, as indicated in §1.1, labour-time for Marx remains all along an important reference point for the analysis of (changes in) the capitalist production process.
The upshot of this is, in my view, that when we have reached the introduction of the concept of profit (in Volume III), profit/wage ratios are affected by the factors mentioned in the next quote.
For the starred text Fowkes has âproductivityâ for âProduktivkraftâ.
The italicised text reads in German: âin höherem Wertproduktâ â literally: in an increased value-product (y in equation Mâ3). The same for âvalueâ in the next sentence. The same for the first term âvalueâ in the next citation.
For the starred text Fowkes has âembodiedâ for âsich darstellenâ.
Marx continues immediately after the text just quoted: âBut even so, the intensity of labour would still be different in different countries, and would modify the application of the law of value to the working days of different nations. The more intensive working day of one nation would be represented by a greater sum of money than the less intensive day of another nationâ (F, 662). Systematically this international context is irrelevant here. Relevant would be to say that âthe law of valueâ does not apply, generally, over time (i.e., not diachronically).
Thus 1 hour of SNLT(t) â SNLT(t+1) (where SNLT is socially necessary labour-time).
There are also a couple of related passages in the Results (included in Marx 1867|1890 F: 987, 991â2, 1021, 1024â6; cf. 1034â5).
Of course, relevant for capital is the investment of (variable) capital including Sundays so to speak.
Irrespective of the fact that depending on labour contracts this may go in packages (e.g. 40 hours a week).
References
Superscripts indicate first and other relevant editions; the last mentioned year in the bibliography is the edition cited.
Arthur, Christopher, and Geert Reuten (eds) 1998, The circulation of capital: essays on volume II of Marxâs âCapitalâ, London: Macmillan.
Bellofiore, Riccardo 2004, âMarx and the macro-monetary foundation of microeconomicsâ, in Bellofiore and Taylor (eds) 2004, pp. 170â210.
Bellofiore, Riccardo, and Nicola Taylor (eds) 2004, The constitution of capital: essays on volume I of Marxâs âCapitalâ, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Elson, Diane 1979, âThe value theory of labourâ, in Value: the representation of labour in capitalism, London: CSE Books.
Inwood, Michael 1992, A Hegel dictionary, Oxford: Blackwell.
Marx, Karl 18671, 18904 G, Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ãkonomie, Band I, Der Produktionsprozeà des Kapitals, MEW 23, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1973.
Marx, Karl 18671, 18833 MA, Capital, a critical analysis of capitalist production, volume I, trans. of the 3rd German ed. by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (18861), London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1974.
Marx, Karl 18671, 18904 F, Capital, a critique of political economy, volume I, trans. of the 4th German ed. by Ben Fowkes, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976.
Marx, Karl 18851, 18932, ed. F. Engels, Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ãkonomie, Band II, Der Zirkulationsprozeà des Kapitals, MEW 24, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1972, (first Engl. trans. by Ernest Untermann, 1907), second Engl. trans. by David Fernbach, Capital, a critique of political economy, volume II, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1978.
Marx, Karl 1894, ed. F. Engels, Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ãkonomie, Band III, Der Gesamtprozeà der kapitalistischen Produktion, MEW 25, Berlin: Dietz Verlag 1972, (first Engl. trans. by Ernest Untermann, 1909), second Engl. trans. by David Fernbach, Capital, a critique of political economy, volume III, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981.
Marx, Karl 1933, Results of the immediate process of production, Engl. trans. by Rodney Livingstone, Appendix in Capital, volume I, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976.
Moseley, Fred (ed.) 1993, Marxâs method in âCapitalâ: a re-examination, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Murray, Patrick 2000a, âMarxâs âtruly socialâ labour theory of value: part I, abstract labour in Marxian value theoryâ, Historical Materialism 6: 27â66.
Murray, Patrick 2000b, âMarxâs âtruly socialâ labour theory of value: part II, how is labour that is under the sway of capital actually abstract?â, Historical Materialism 7: 99â136.
Murray, Patrick 2002, âReply to Geert Reutenâ, Historical Materialism 10.1: 155â76.
Murray, Patrick 2004, âThe social and material transformation of production by capital: formal and real subsumption in Capital volume Iâ, in Bellofiore and Taylor (eds) 2004, pp. 243â73.
Reuten, Geert 1988, âValue as social formâ, in Value, social form and the state, edited by Michael Williams, London: Macmillan, pp. 42â61.
Reuten, Geert 1993, âThe difficult labour of a theory of social value: metaphors and systematic dialectics at the beginning of Marxâs Capitalâ, in Moseley (ed.) 1993, pp. 89â113.
Reuten, Geert 1998, âThe status of Marxâs reproduction schemes: conventional or dialectical logic?â, in Arthur and Reuten (eds) 1998, pp. 187â229.
Reuten, Geert 2000, âThe interconnection of systematic dialectics and historical materialismâ, Historical Materialism 7: 137â66.
Reuten, Geert 2002, âMarxian macroeconomics: some key relationshipsâ, in Encyclopedia of macroeconomics, edited by Brian Snowdon and Howard Vane, Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 469â80.
Reuten, Geert 2003a, âKarl Marx: his work and the major changes in its interpretationâ, in A companion to the history of economic thought, edited by Warren Samuels, Jeff Biddle and John Davis, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 148â66.
Reuten, Geert 2004b, âThe inner mechanism of the accumulation of capital: the acceleration tripleâ, in Bellofiore and Taylor (eds) 2004, pp. 274â98.
Reuten, Geert, and Michael Williams 1989, Value-form and the state; the tendencies of accumulation and the determinatiÂon of economic policy in capitalist society, London: Routledge.
Smith, Tony 1997, âThe neoclassical and Marxian theories of technology: a comparison and critical assessmentâ, Historical Materialism 1: 113â33.
Smith, Tony 2004, âTechnology and history in capitalism: Marxian and neo-Schumpeterian perspectivesâ, in Bellofiore and Taylor (eds) 2004, pp. 217â42.
Taylor, Nicola 2004, âReconstructing Marx on money, and the measurement of valueâ, in Bellofiore and Taylor (eds) 2004, pp. 88â116.