thebase.works · Das Kapital II Kap. 5 · semantic zoom
Z3
Ch. 5
Die Umlaufszeit
Chapter 4 finished the account of the circuit as a unity of three figures, and closed with the capitalist's demand standing permanently below his supply. That analysis assumed the circuit's phases simply take the time they take. This chapter asks what that time IS: how it divides, why production time is not the same thing as working time, and why the stretch capital spends in circulation is a limit on valorization rather than a source of it.
Die Bewegung des Kapitals durch die Produktionssphäre und die zwei Phasen der Zirkulationssphäre vollzieht sich, wie man gesehn, in einer zeitlichen Reihenfolge. Die Dauer seines Aufenthalts in der Produktionssphäre bildet seine Produktionszeit, die in der Zirkulationssphäre seine Zirkulations- oder Umlaufszeit. Die Gesamtzeit, worin es seinen Kreislauf beschreibt, ist daher gleich der Summe von Produktionszeit und Umlaufszeit.8
production time plus circulation time

Capital moves through the production sphere and then through the two phases of the circulation sphere, one stage after another in time, as we have seen. The time it spends in the production sphere is its production time. The time it spends in the circulation sphere is its circulation time. So the total time for one full circuit is simply production time plus circulation time.

Die Produktionszeit umschließt natürlich die Periode des Arbeitsprozesses, aber sie ist nicht von ihr umschlossen. Zunächst erinnert man sich, daß ein Teil des konstanten Kapitals in Arbeitsmitteln, wie Maschinen, Baulichkeiten usw., existiert, die bis an ihr Lebensende in denselben stets neu wiederholten Arbeitsprozessen dienen. Periodische Unterbrechung des Arbeitsprozesses, nachts z.B., unterbricht zwar die Funktion dieser Arbeitsmittel, aber nicht ihren Aufenthalt in der Produktionsstätte. Ihr gehören sie an, nicht nur während sie fungieren, sondern auch während sie nicht fungieren. Andrerseits muß der Kapitalist einen bestimmten Vorrat von Rohmaterial und Hilfsstoffen bereithalten, damit der Produktionsprozeß auf vorher bestimmter Stufenleiter während kürzrer oder längrer Abschnitte vorgehe, ohne von den Zufällen täglicher Zufuhr vom Markt abzuhängen. Dieser Vorrat von Rohstoffen usw. wird nur nach und nach produktiv konsumiert. Es findet daher Differenz statt zwischen seiner Produktionszeit9 und seiner Funktionszeit. Die Produktionszeit der Produktionsmittel überhaupt umfaßt also 1. die Zeit, während deren sie als Produktionsmittel fungieren, also im Produktionsprozesse dienen, 2. die Pausen, während deren der Produktionsprozeß, also auch die Funktion der ihm einverleibten Produktionsmittel unterbrochen ist, 3. die Zeit, während deren sie zwar als Bedingungen des Prozesses bereitliegen, also schon produktives Kapital darstellen, aber noch nicht in den Produktionsprozeß eingegangen sind.
production time has three parts

Production time includes the time the work process takes, but it is bigger than that — the two are not the same thing.

Start with the part of the constant capital that exists in means of labour: things like machinery and buildings that serve the same repeated work processes right up to the end of their working life. When work stops at night, that interrupts these tools' actual functioning — but it doesn't remove them from the workplace. They belong to the production site whether they are working or standing idle.

There's also the stock of raw material and auxiliary materials the capitalist must keep on hand, so that production at a given scale can carry on for shorter or longer stretches without depending on the chance of getting fresh deliveries from the market every day. This stock is only consumed bit by bit, productively, over time. So there is a gap between its production time and the time it actually functions.

So the production time of means of production as a whole covers three things: first, the time they actually function as means of production, serving in the process; second, the pauses when the process — and so the functioning of the means of production built into it — is interrupted; third, the time they lie ready as conditions for the process, already forming part of productive capital, but not yet actually put to work in it.

Die bisher betrachtete Differenz ist jedesmal Differenz zwischen der Aufenthaltszeit des produktiven Kapitals in der Produktionssphäre und derjenigen im Produktionsprozeß. Aber der Produktionsprozeß selbst kann Unterbrechungen des Arbeitsprozesses und daher der Arbeitszeit bedingen; Zwischenräume, worin der Arbeitsgegenstand der Einwirkung physischer Prozesse ohne weitre Zutat menschlicher Arbeit anheimgegeben wird. Der Produktionsprozeß, daher die Funktion der Produktionsmittel, dauert fort in diesem Fall, obgleich der Arbeitsprozeß, und daher die Funktion der Produktionsmittel als Arbeitsmittel, unterbrochen ist. So z.B. das Korn, das gesät ist, der Wein, der im Keller gärt, Arbeitsmaterial vieler Manufakturen, wie z.B. Gerbereien, das chemischen Prozessen anheimfällt. Die Produktionszeit ist hier größer als die Arbeitszeit. Die Differenz beider besteht in einem Überschuß der Produktionszeit über die Arbeitszeit. Dieser Überschuß beruht stets darauf, daß produktives Kapital sich latent in der Produktionssphäre befindet, ohne im Produktionsprozeß selbst zu fungieren, oder daß es im Produktionsprozeß fungiert, ohne sich im Arbeitsprozeß zu befinden.
grain, wine: production outruns labour

The difference we've looked at so far was between the time productive capital spends in the production sphere and the time it spends in the actual process of production. But the process of production itself can also cause the work process — and so the working time — to be interrupted: there can be stretches where the object being worked on is left to physical processes acting on it, with no further human labour added. In these stretches the production process, and so the functioning of the means of production, keeps going, even though the work process — and so the functioning of the means of production as tools of labour — has stopped. Take grain that has been sown, or wine fermenting in the cellar, or the raw material in many manufacturing trades — tanning, for instance — undergoing chemical processes. Here production time is greater than labour time. The difference between the two is an excess of production time over labour time. This excess always rests on one of two things: either productive capital sits latent in the production sphere without functioning in the process of production itself, or it functions in the process of production without being part of the work process.

Der Teil des latenten produktiven Kapitals, der nur als Bedingung für den Produktionsprozeß bereitliegt, wie Baumwolle, Kohle usw. in der Spinnerei, wirkt weder als Produkt- noch Wertbildner. Er ist brachliegendes Kapital, obgleich seine Brache eine Bedingung für den ununterbrochnen Fluß des Produktionsprozesses bildet. Die Baulichkeiten, Apparate etc., nötig um als Behälter des produktiven Vorrats (des latenten Kapitals) zu dienen, sind Bedingungen des Produktionsprozesses und bilden daher Bestandteile des vorgeschoßnen produktiven Kapitals. Sie erfüllen ihre Funktion als Bewahrer der produktiven Bestandteile im vorläufigen Stadium. Soweit Arbeitsprozesse in diesem Stadium nötig sind, verteuern sie das Rohmaterial etc., sind aber produktive Arbeiten und bilden Mehrwert, weil ein Teil dieser Arbeit, wie aller andren Lohnarbeit, nicht bezahlt wird. Die normalen Unterbrechungen des ganzen Produktionsprozesses, also die Intervalle, worin das produktive Kapital nicht fungiert, produzieren weder Wert noch Mehrwert. Daher das Bestreben, auch nachts arbeiten zu lassen. (Buch I, Kap. VIII, 4.) - Die Intervalle in der Arbeitszeit, die der Arbeitsgegenstand während des Produktionsprozesses selbst durchmachen muß, bilden weder Wert noch Mehrwert; aber fördern das Produkt, bilden einen Teil in dessen Leben, einen Prozeß, den es durchmachen muß. Der Wert der Apparate etc. wird auf das Produkt übertragen im Verhältnis zu der ganzen Zeit, während deren sie fungieren; das Produkt ist durch die Arbeit selbst in dies Stadium gesetzt, und der Gebrauch dieser Apparate ist ebensosehr Bedingung der Produktion, wie das Zerstäuben eines Teils der Baumwolle, der nicht ins Produkt eingeht, aber doch seinen Wert auf es überträgt. Der andre Teil des latenten Kapitals, wie die Baulichkeiten, Maschinen usw., d.h. die Arbeitsmittel, deren Funktion nur durch die regelmäßigen Pausen des Produktionsprozesses unterbrochen ist - unregelmäßige Unterbrechungen infolge von Einschränkung der Produktion, Krisen usw. sind reine Verluste -, setzt Wert zu, ohne in die Produktbildung einzugehn; der Gesamtwert, den er dem Produkt zusetzt, ist durch seine Durchschnittsdauer bestimmt; er verliert Wert, weil Gebrauchswert, sowohl in der Zeit, worin er fungiert, als auch in der Zeit, worin er nicht fungiert.
idle stock forms no value, yet needed

Take the part of latent productive capital that just lies ready as a condition for the process — cotton, coal, in a spinning mill, for example. It doesn't form the product and it doesn't form value. It is capital lying idle — even though that idleness is itself a condition for the production process to flow without interruption. The buildings and equipment needed to hold this productive stock — this latent capital — are themselves conditions of the production process, and so count as part of the productive capital advanced. Their job is to preserve these productive elements while they wait in this preliminary stage. Where labour is needed at this stage, it makes the raw material more expensive, but it is still productive labour and it does create surplus value — because part of it, like all other wage-labour, goes unpaid.

The normal interruptions of the whole production process — the intervals when productive capital simply isn't functioning — create neither value nor surplus value. This is why there is a drive to keep production running at night too. But the interruptions the object of labour must go through during the production process itself are different: they too create neither value nor surplus value, but they do carry the product forward — they are part of what the product's life consists of, a stage it has to pass through. The value of the equipment is transferred to the product in proportion to the whole time it is in use; labour itself is what puts the product into this stage, and using this equipment is just as much a condition of production as the loss of some cotton that never makes it into the product but still passes its value onto it.

The other part of latent capital — buildings, machines, and the like, the means of labour whose functioning is interrupted only by the process's regular pauses (irregular interruptions from cutbacks in production, crises, and so on, are pure losses) — adds value without entering into the making of the product. The total value it adds to the product is fixed by its average lifespan: it loses value because it loses use-value, both while it is functioning and while it is not.

Endlich der Wert des konstanten Kapitalteils, der im Produktionsprozeß kontinuiert, obgleich der Arbeitsprozeß unterbrochen ist, erscheint wieder im Resultat des Produktionsprozesses. Durch die Arbeit selbst sind die Produktionsmittel hier unter Bedingungen gestellt, innerhalb deren sie von selbst gewisse Naturprozesse durchlaufen, deren Resultat ein bestimmter Nutzeffekt oder eine veränderte Form ihres Gebrauchswerts. Die Arbeit überträgt den Wert der Produktionsmittel immer auf das Produkt, soweit sie dieselben wirklich zweckgemäß als Produktionsmittel verzehrt. Hieran wird nichts geändert, ob die Arbeit, zur Hervorbringung dieses Effekts, kontinuierlich vermittelst der Arbeitsmittel auf den Arbeitsgegenstand wirken muß, oder ob sie nur den Anstoß zu geben braucht, indem sie die Produktionsmittel unter Bedingungen stellt, wodurch ohne weitre Mittat der Arbeit die Produktionsmittel von selbst, infolge von Naturprozessen, die beabsichtigte Veränderung erleiden.
value still passes to the product

Finally, the value of the part of constant capital that keeps going through the production process even while the work process is interrupted turns up again in the result of that process. Labour itself is what puts the means of production into conditions where they then run through certain natural processes on their own — processes that end in some useful effect, or in a changed form of their use-value. Labour always transfers the value of the means of production onto the product, so long as it genuinely consumes them, for their purpose, as means of production. It makes no difference here whether the labour has to keep acting on the object continuously, through the instruments of labour, to bring about this effect, or whether it only has to set things in motion — putting the means of production into conditions under which, with no further help from labour, they undergo the intended change by themselves, through natural processes.

Welches immer der Grund des Überschusses der Produktionszeit über die Arbeitszeit - sei es, daß Produktionsmittel nur latentes produktives Kapital bilden, also sich noch in einer Vorstufe zum wirklichen Produktionsprozeß befinden, oder daß innerhalb des Produktionsprozesses durch dessen Pausen ihre eigne Funktion unterbrochen wird, oder daß endlich der Produktionsprozeß selbst Unterbrechungen des Arbeitsprozesses bedingt -, in keinem dieser Fälle fungieren die Produktionsmittel als Arbeitseinsauger. Saugen sie keine Arbeit ein, so auch keine Mehrarbeit. Es findet daher keine Verwertung des produktiven Kapitals statt, solange es sich in dem Teil seiner Produktionszeit befindet, der überschüssig über die Arbeitszeit ist, so unzertrennlich auch die Vollführung des Verwertungsprozesses von diesen seinen Pausen sein mag. Es ist klar, daß je mehr Produktionszeit und Arbeitszeit sich decken, um so größer die Produktivität und Verwertung eines gegebnen produktiven Kapitals in gegebnem Zeitraum. Daher die Tendenz der kapitalistischen Produktion, den Überschuß der Produktionszeit über die Arbeitszeit möglichst zu verkürzen. Obgleich aber die Produktionszeit des Kapitals von seiner Arbeitszeit abweichen mag, so umschließt sie stets dieselbe, und ist der Überschuß selbst Bedingung des Produktionsprozesses. Die Produktionszeit ist also stets die Zeit, während deren das Kapital Gebrauchswerte produziert und sich selbst verwertet, daher als produktives Kapital fungiert, obgleich sie Zeit einschließt, worin es entweder latent ist oder auch produziert, ohne sich zu verwerten.
no labour absorbed, no value made

Whatever the reason for this excess of production time over labour time — whether the means of production are still only latent productive capital, sitting in a preliminary stage before the actual production process; or their own functioning is interrupted by pauses within the production process; or the production process itself brings about interruptions of the work process — in none of these cases do the means of production absorb any labour. And if they absorb no labour, they absorb no surplus labour either. So no valorization of productive capital happens during that part of its production time that exceeds its labour time — however inseparable completing the valorization process may be from these very pauses.

Clearly, the more production time and labour time coincide, the greater the productivity and valorization of a given productive capital over a given period. Hence capitalist production's tendency to shorten, as far as possible, the excess of production time over labour time. But even though a capital's production time may diverge from its labour time, it always contains that labour time within it, and the excess itself is a condition of the production process. Production time, then, is always the time during which capital produces use-values and valorizes itself — that is, functions as productive capital — even though it includes time in which capital is either lying latent, or is producing without valorizing itself.

Innerhalb der Zirkulationssphäre haust das Kapital als Warenkapital und Geldkapital. Seine beiden Zirkulationsprozesse bestehn darin, sich aus der Warenform in Geldform und aus Geldform in Warenform zu verwandeln. Der Umstand, daß die Verwandlung der Ware in Geld hier zugleich Realisation des der Ware einverleibten Mehrwerts, und daß die Verwandlung des Geldes in Ware zugleich Verwandlung oder Rückverwandlung des Kapitalwerts in die Gestalt seiner Produktionselemente ist, ändert durchaus nichts daran, daß diese Prozesse, als Zirkulationsprozesse, Prozesse der einfachen Warenmetamorphose sind.
still simple commodity metamorphosis

Within the circulation sphere, capital exists as commodity-capital and as money-capital. Its two circulation processes consist in turning itself from commodity form into money form, and from money form into commodity form. It makes no difference that turning the commodity into money is, at the same time, realizing the surplus-value contained in the commodity, or that turning money into commodities is, at the same time, transforming — or retransforming — the capital-value into the shape of its elements of production. These processes are still, as circulation processes, nothing but processes of simple commodity metamorphosis, the same as any other.

Umlaufszeit und Produktionszeit schließen sich wechselseitig aus. Während seiner Umlaufszeit fungiert das Kapital nicht als produktives Kapital und produziert daher weder Ware noch Mehrwert. Betrachten wir den Kreislauf in der einfachsten Form, so daß der gesamte Kapitalwert jedesmal auf einen Schlag aus der einen Phase in die andre tritt, so ist handgreiflich, daß der Produktionsprozeß unterbrochen ist, also auch die Selbstverwertung des Kapitals, solange seine Umlaufszeit dauert, und daß je nach deren Länge die Erneuerung des Produktionsprozesses rascher oder träger sein wird. Durchlaufen dagegen die verschiednen Teile des Kapitals den Kreislauf nacheinander, so daß der Kreislauf des gesamten Kapitalwerts sich sukzessive im Kreislauf seiner verschiednen Portionen vollzieht, so ist klar, daß je länger der beständige Aufenthalt seiner aliquoten Teile in der Zirkulationssphäre, um so kleiner sein beständig in der Produktionssphäre fungierender Teil sein muß. Die Expansion und Kontraktion der Umlaufszeit wirkt daher als negative Schranke auf die Kontraktion oder Expansion der Produktionszeit oder des Umfangs, worin ein Kapital von gegebner Größe als produktives Kapital fungiert. Je mehr die Zirkulationsmetamorphosen des Kapitals nur ideell sind, d.h. je mehr die Umlaufszeit = 0 wird oder sich Null nähert, um so mehr fungiert das Kapital, um so größer wird seine Produktivität und Selbstverwertung. Arbeitet ein Kapitalist z.B. auf Bestellung, so daß er bei Lieferung des Produkts Zahlung erhält, und erfolgt die Zahlung in seinen eignen Produktionsmitteln, so nähert sich die Zirkulationszeit Null.
circulation time: a negative limit only

Circulation time and production time exclude one another. While capital is in its circulation time, it is not functioning as productive capital, and so it produces neither commodities nor surplus-value.

Take the circuit in its simplest form, where the whole capital-value passes from one phase to the next all at once: it's obvious that the production process is interrupted — and so is capital's self-valorization — for as long as its circulation time lasts, and the shorter or longer that time is, the faster or slower the production process starts up again. Now take the case where different parts of the capital go round the circuit one after another, so that the circuit of the whole capital-value is completed bit by bit through the circuits of its separate portions. Here it is clear that the longer any given fraction of the capital constantly sits in the circulation sphere, the smaller the fraction that can constantly be functioning in the production sphere. So the expansion or contraction of circulation time acts as a negative limit on the contraction or expansion of production time — on the scale, that is, on which a capital of a given size can function as productive capital. The more the circulation-metamorphoses of capital are merely nominal — the closer circulation time gets to zero — the more capital is functioning, and the greater its productivity and self-valorization. If a capitalist works to order, say, and is paid on delivery of the product, and paid in his own means of production, then circulation time comes close to zero.

Die Umlaufszeit des Kapitals beschränkt also überhaupt seine Produktionszeit und daher seinen Verwertungsprozeß. Und zwar beschränkt sie denselben im Verhältnis zu ihrer Dauer. Diese kann aber sehr verschieden zu- oder abnehmen. und daher in sehr verschiednem Grad die Produktionszeit des Kapitals beschränken. Was aber die politische Ökonomie sieht, ist das, was erscheint , nämlich die Wirkung der Umlaufszeit auf den Verwertungsprozeß des Kapitals überhaupt. Sie faßt diese negative Wirkung als positive auf, weil ihre Folgen positiv sind. Sie haftet um so mehr an diesem Schein fest, als er den Beweis zu liefern scheint, daß das Kapital eine, von seinem Produktionsprozeß und daher von der Exploitation der Arbeit unabhängige mystische Quelle der Selbstverwertung besitzt, die ihm aus der Zirkulationssphäre zufließt. Wir werden später sehn, wie selbst die wissenschaftliche Ökonomie sich durch diesen Schein täuschen läßt. Er wird, wie sich ebenfalls zeigen wird, befestigt durch verschiedne Phänomene: 1. die kapitalistische Berechnungsweise des Profits, worin der negative Grund als positiver figuriert, indem für Kapitale in verschiednen Anlagesphären, wo nur die Umlaufszeit verschieden, längre Umlaufszeit als Grund der Preiserhöhung wirkt, kurz, als einer der Gründe in der Ausgleichung der Profite 2. Die Umlaufszeit bildet nur ein Moment der Umschlagszeit; letztre aber schließt die Produktionszeit resp. Reproduktionszeit ein. Was der letztren geschuldet, scheint der Umlaufszeit geschuldet. 3. Der Umsatz der Waren in variables Kapital (Arbeitslohn) ist bedingt durch ihre vorherige Verwandlung in Geld. Bei der Kapitalakkumulation geht also der Umsatz in zuschüssiges variables Kapital in der Zirkulationssphäre vor, oder während der Umlaufszeit. Die damit gegebene Akkumulation scheint daher der letztren geschuldet.
the illusion: circulation seems to create value

So capital's circulation time limits its production time generally, and with that its valorization process — and it limits it in proportion to how long it lasts. But this length can grow or shrink very differently from case to case, and so it can limit capital's production time to very different degrees.

What political economy actually sees, though, is only how this appears — the effect of circulation time on capital's valorization process in general. It mistakes this negative effect for a positive one, because its consequences look positive. It clings to this appearance all the more because that appearance seems to prove that capital has some mystical source of self-valorization, independent of its own production process and so of the exploitation of labour, flowing to it from the circulation sphere. We shall see later that even scientific economics lets itself be taken in by this appearance. And it is reinforced, as we shall also see, by several things. First, the capitalist way of reckoning profit, in which this negative cause figures as a positive one: for capitals in different lines of investment, where only the circulation time differs, a longer circulation time acts as a reason for a higher price — in short, as one of the factors in the equalization of profits. Second, circulation time is only one part of turnover time; but turnover time also includes production time, or reproduction time. What is really owed to production time then looks as if it were owed to circulation time. Third, converting commodities into variable capital, that is wages, depends on first turning them into money. So when capital accumulates, the conversion into additional variable capital happens in the circulation sphere, during circulation time — and the resulting accumulation then looks as if it were owed to circulation time.

Innerhalb der Zirkulationssphäre durchläuft das Kapital - ob in der einen oder andren Reihenfolge - die zwei entgegengesetzten Phasen W - G und G - W. Seine Umlaufszeit zerfällt also auch in zwei Teile, die Zeit, die es braucht, um sich aus Ware in Geld, und die Zeit, die es braucht, um sich aus Geld in Ware zu verwandeln. Man weiß bereits aus der Analyse der einfachen Warenzirkulation (Buch I, Kap. III), daß W - G, der Verkauf, der schwierigste Teil seiner Metamorphose ist und daher, unter gewöhnlichen Umständen, von der Umlaufszeit den größren Teil bildet. Als Geld befindet sich der Wert in seiner stets umsetzbaren Form. Als Ware muß er erst durch Verwandlung in Geld diese Gestalt unmittelbarer Austauschbarkeit und daher stets schlagfertiger Wirksamkeit erhalten. Indes handelt es sich beim Zirkulationsprozeß des Kapitals in seiner Phase G - W um seine Verwandlung in Waren, die bestimmte Elemente des produktiven Kapitals in einer gegebnen Anlage bilden. Die Produktionsmittel sind vielleicht nicht auf dem Markt vorhanden, sondern müssen erst produziert werden, oder sie sind von entlegnen Märkten zu beziehn, oder es finden Ausfälle in ihrer gewöhnlichen Zufuhr statt, Preiswechsel usw., kurz, eine Masse von Umständen, die in dem einfachen Formwechsel G - W nicht erkennbar sind, aber auch für diesen Teil der Zirkulationsphase bald mehr, bald weniger Zeit beanspruchen. Wie W - G und G - W zeitlich, können sie auch räumlich getrennt sein, Kaufmarkt und Verkaufmarkt räumlich verschiedne Märkte sein. Bei Fabriken z.B. sind Einkäufer und Verkäufer sogar häufig getrennte Personen. Die Zirkulation ist ebenso notwendig bei der Warenproduktion wie die Produktion selbst, also die Zirkulationsagenten ebenso nötig wie die Produktionsagenten. Der Reproduktionsprozeß schließt beide Funktionen des Kapitals ein, also auch die Notwendigkeit der Vertretung dieser Funktionen, sei es durch den Kapitalisten selbst, sei es durch Lohnarbeiter, Agenten desselben. Dies ist aber ebensowenig ein Grund, die Zirkulationsagenten mit den Produktionsagenten zu verwechseln, als es ein Grund ist, die Funktionen von Warenkapital und Geldkapital mit denen von produktivem Kapital zu verwechseln. Die Zirkulationsagenten müssen bezahlt werden durch die Produktionsagenten. Wenn aber Kapitalisten, die untereinander kaufen und verkaufen, durch diesen Akt weder Produkte noch Wert schaffen, so ändert sich das nicht, wenn der Umfang ihres Geschäfts sie befähigt und nötigt, diese Funktion auf andre abzuwälzen. In manchen Geschäften werden Einkäufer und Verkäufer durch Tantieme am Profit bezahlt. Die Phrase, daß sie durch die Konsumenten bezahlt werden, hilft nichts. Die Konsumenten können nur zahlen, soweit sie sich selbst als Agenten der Produktion ein Äquivalent in Waren produzieren oder sich solches von den Produktionsagenten aneignen, sei es auf Rechtstitel hin (als deren Associés usw.), sei es durch persönliche Dienste.
sale and purchase: split in time, space

Within the circulation sphere, capital passes through two opposite phases — C-M and M-C — whichever order they come in. So its circulation time also splits into two parts: the time it needs to turn itself from commodity into money, and the time it needs to turn itself from money into commodity. We already know from the analysis of simple commodity circulation that C-M, the sale, is the harder part of the metamorphosis, and so, under ordinary conditions, makes up the larger part of the circulation time. As money, value is in its form of constant convertibility. As a commodity, it first has to acquire that shape of immediate exchangeability, and so of readiness for use, by being turned into money.

But in capital's circulation process, in its phase M-C, what matters is turning money into the particular commodities that form the specific elements of productive capital for a given business. The means of production may not be sitting ready on the market at all — they may have to be produced first, or fetched from distant markets, or there may be shortfalls in the usual supply, price changes, and so on. In short, a whole mass of circumstances that don't show up in the bare change of form M-C can still, for this part of the circulation phase too, take up more or less time. And just as C-M and M-C can be separated in time, they can be separated in space too — the buying market and the selling market can be different markets altogether. In factories, for instance, the buyer and the seller are often even different people.

Circulation is just as necessary for commodity production as production itself is, so the agents of circulation are just as necessary as the agents of production. The reproduction process includes both functions of capital, and so it also includes the need for someone to carry them out — whether the capitalist himself, or wage-labourers acting as his agents. But this is no more reason to confuse the agents of circulation with the agents of production than it is reason to confuse the functions of commodity-capital and money-capital with those of productive capital. The agents of circulation have to be paid by the agents of production. When capitalists buy and sell among themselves, that act creates neither products nor value — and that stays true even when the scale of their business lets them, and forces them, to hand this function over to others. In some businesses buyers and sellers are paid a share of the profit. Saying they are paid by the consumers doesn't change anything: consumers can only pay to the extent that they themselves, as agents of production, produce an equivalent in commodities, or obtain one from the agents of production — whether by right, as their partners say, or through personal services.

Es besteht ein Unterschied zwischen W - G und G - W, der nichts mit der Formverschiedenheit von Ware und Geld zu tun hat, sondern aus dem kapitalistischen Charakter der Produktion entspringt. An und für sich sind sowohl W - G als G - W bloße Übersetzungen von gegebnem Wert aus einer Form in die andre. Aber W´- G´ ist zugleich Realisierung des in W´ enthaltnen Mehrwerts. Nicht so G - W. Daher ist der Verkauf wichtiger als der Kauf, G - W ist unter normalen Bedingungen notwendiger Akt für Verwertung des in G ausgedrückten Werts, aber es ist nicht Realisierung von Mehrwert; es ist Einleitung zu seiner Produktion, nicht Nachtrag dazu.
sale realizes surplus-value; purchase doesn't

There is a difference between C-M and M-C that has nothing to do with the difference in form between commodity and money — it comes instead from the capitalist character of production itself. Taken purely in themselves, both C-M and M-C are just translations of a given value from one form into another. But C'-M' is, at the same time, the realization of the surplus-value contained in C'. M-C is not. That is why the sale matters more than the purchase. Under normal conditions M-C is a necessary act for valorizing the value expressed in M, but it does not realize surplus-value; it is the opening move toward producing surplus-value, not something added on afterward.

Für die Zirkulation des Warenkapitals W´- G´ sind bestimmte Schranken durch die Existenzform der Waren selbst, ihr Dasein als Gebrauchswerte gezogen. Sie sind von Natur vergänglich. Gehn sie also innerhalb gewisser Frist nicht in die produktive oder individuelle Konsumtion ein, je nach ihrer Bestimmung, werden sie, in andren Worten, nicht in bestimmter Zeit verkauft, so verderben sie und verlieren mit ihrem Gebrauchswert die Eigenschaft, Träger des Tauschwerts zu sein. Der in ihnen enthaltene Kapitalwert, resp. der ihm angewachsne Mehrwert, geht verloren. Die Gebrauchswerte bleiben nur Träger des perennierenden und sich verwertenden Kapitalwerts, soweit sie beständig erneuert und reproduziert, durch neue Gebrauchswerte derselben oder andrer Art ersetzt werden. Ihr Verkauf in ihrer fertigen Warenform, also ihr durch denselben vermitteltes Eingehn in die produktive oder individuelle Konsumtion, ist aber die stets sich erneuernde Bedingung ihrer Reproduktion. Sie müssen innerhalb bestimmter Zeit ihre alte Gebrauchsform wechseln, um in einer neuen fortzuexistieren. Der Tauschwert erhält sich nur durch diese beständige Erneuerung seines Körpers. Die Gebrauchswerte verschiedner Waren verderben rascher oder langsamer; es kann also mehr oder weniger Zwischenzeit zwischen ihrer Produktion und ihrer Konsumtion verstreichen; sie können also, ohne zugrunde zu gehn, kürzer oder länger in der Zirkulationsphase W - G als Warenkapital ausharren, kürzre oder längre Umlaufszeit als Waren ertragen. Die Grenze der Umlaufszeit des Warenkapitals durch den Verderb des Warenkörpers selbst ist die absolute Grenze dieses Teils der Umlaufszeit oder der Umlaufszeit, die das Warenkapital qua Warenkapital beschreiben kann. Je vergänglicher eine Ware, je unmittelbarer nach ihrer Produktion sie daher verzehrt, also auch verkauft werden muß, desto geringrer Entfernung von ihrem Produktionsort ist sie fähig, desto enger also ihre räumliche Zirkulationssphäre, desto lokalerer Natur ihr Absatzmarkt. Je vergänglicher daher eine Ware, je größer durch ihre physische Beschaffenheit die absolute Schranke ihrer Umlaufszeit als Ware, desto weniger eignet sie sich zum Gegenstand der kapitalistischen Produktion. Letztrer kann sie nur anheimfallen an volkreichen Plätzen, oder im Maß, wie die lokalen Abstände durch Entwicklung der Transportmittel zusammenrücken. Die Konzentration der Produktion eines Artikels in wenigen Händen und an einem volkreichen Platz kann aber relativ großen Markt auch für solche Artikel schaffen, wie z.B. bei großen Bierbrauereien, Milchereien usw.
spoilage sets an absolute limit

For the circulation of commodity-capital, C'-M', definite limits are set by the very form in which commodities exist — their being use-values. Commodities are by nature perishable. So if they do not enter productive or individual consumption within a certain period — depending on what they are for — in other words, if they are not sold within a certain time, they spoil, and along with their use-value they lose the ability to carry exchange-value at all. The capital-value contained in them, and whatever surplus-value has grown onto it, is simply lost. Use-values only go on carrying a lasting, self-valorizing capital-value so long as they are constantly renewed and reproduced — replaced by new use-values of the same kind or another. Selling them in their finished commodity form, and so getting them, through that sale, into productive or individual consumption, is the ever-renewing condition for their reproduction. They must change out of their old use-form within a certain time in order to keep existing in a new one. Exchange-value only preserves itself through this constant renewal of its body.

Different commodities' use-values spoil at different speeds, so more or less time can pass between a commodity's production and its consumption; commodities can hold out for a shorter or longer time, without perishing, in the C-M phase of circulation as commodity-capital — they can bear a shorter or longer circulation time. The limit set on commodity-capital's circulation time by the spoiling of the commodity's own body is the absolute limit on this part of circulation time — the most that commodity-capital, as commodity-capital, can ever take.

The more perishable a commodity, the more immediately after its production it must be consumed, and so also sold; the shorter the distance it can travel from where it is produced, the narrower its spatial circulation sphere, the more local its market. So the more perishable a commodity, the greater the absolute limit its physical make-up puts on its circulation time as a commodity, and the less suited it is to be an object of capitalist production at all. Capitalist production can only take it up in densely populated places, or as the development of transport draws distant places closer together. But concentrating the production of an article in a few hands, in one populous place, can still create a relatively large market even for such articles — large breweries or dairies, for instance.

Ch. 5
Circulation Time
Chapter 4 finished the account of the circuit as a unity of three figures, and closed with the capitalist's demand standing permanently below his supply. That analysis assumed the circuit's phases simply take the time they take. This chapter asks what that time IS: how it divides, why production time is not the same thing as working time, and why the stretch capital spends in circulation is a limit on valorization rather than a source of it.
As we have seen, the movements of capital through the production sphere and the two phases of the circulation sphere are accomplished successively in time. The duration of its stay in the production sphere forms its production time, that in the circulation sphere its circulation time. The total amount of time it takes to describe its circuit is therefore equal to the sum of its production time and its circulation time. 1
production time plus circulation time

Capital moves through the production sphere and then through the two phases of the circulation sphere, one stage after another in time, as we have seen. The time it spends in the production sphere is its production time. The time it spends in the circulation sphere is its circulation time. So the total time for one full circuit is simply production time plus circulation time.

The production time includes, of course, the period of the labour process; but this is not all. We should first recall that a part of the constant capital exists in means of labour such as machines, buildings, etc. which serve for constant repetitions of the same labour process until they are worn out. The periodic interruption of the labour process, at night for example, may interrupt the function of these means of labour, but it does not affect their stay in the place of production. They belong to this not only when they function, but also when they do not function. What is more, the capitalist must hold in reserve a certain stock of raw and ancillary materials, so that the production process can keep going for shorter or longer intervals on the previously determined scale, without depending on the accidents of daily supply on the market. This reserve of raw materials etc. is only gradually consumed productively. There is therefore a difference between the capital's production time2 and its functioning time. The production time of the means of production generally comprises (1) the time during which they function as means of production, and thus serve in the production process; (2) the pauses during which the production process, and thus also the functioning of the means of production incorporated in it, is interrupted; (3) the time during which they are held in reserve as conditions of the process, and thus already represent productive capital, but are not yet engaged in the production process.
production time has three parts

Production time includes the time the work process takes, but it is bigger than that — the two are not the same thing.

Start with the part of the constant capital that exists in means of labour: things like machinery and buildings that serve the same repeated work processes right up to the end of their working life. When work stops at night, that interrupts these tools' actual functioning — but it doesn't remove them from the workplace. They belong to the production site whether they are working or standing idle.

There's also the stock of raw material and auxiliary materials the capitalist must keep on hand, so that production at a given scale can carry on for shorter or longer stretches without depending on the chance of getting fresh deliveries from the market every day. This stock is only consumed bit by bit, productively, over time. So there is a gap between its production time and the time it actually functions.

So the production time of means of production as a whole covers three things: first, the time they actually function as means of production, serving in the process; second, the pauses when the process — and so the functioning of the means of production built into it — is interrupted; third, the time they lie ready as conditions for the process, already forming part of productive capital, but not yet actually put to work in it.

The difference so far considered is in each case a difference between the time that the productive capital remains in the production sphere and its time in the actual production process. But the production process may itself involve interruptions of the labour process and hence of working time, intervals in which the object of labour is exposed to the action of physical processes, without further addition of human labour. The production process, and hence the function of the means of production, continues in this case, even though the labour process, and hence the function of the means of production as means of labour, is interrupted. This is the case for example with corn that is sown, wine that ferments in the cellar, or material of labour that is exposed to chemical processes, as in many industries such as tanning. Here the production time is greater than the working time. The difference between the two consists in an excess of the production time over the working time. This excess is always based on the fact that the productive capital exists in a latent state in the production sphere, without functioning in the production process itself, or that it functions in the production process without being involved in the labour process.
grain, wine: production outruns labour

The difference we've looked at so far was between the time productive capital spends in the production sphere and the time it spends in the actual process of production. But the process of production itself can also cause the work process — and so the working time — to be interrupted: there can be stretches where the object being worked on is left to physical processes acting on it, with no further human labour added. In these stretches the production process, and so the functioning of the means of production, keeps going, even though the work process — and so the functioning of the means of production as tools of labour — has stopped. Take grain that has been sown, or wine fermenting in the cellar, or the raw material in many manufacturing trades — tanning, for instance — undergoing chemical processes. Here production time is greater than labour time. The difference between the two is an excess of production time over labour time. This excess always rests on one of two things: either productive capital sits latent in the production sphere without functioning in the process of production itself, or it functions in the process of production without being part of the work process.

The part of the latent productive capital that is simply held in readiness as a condition for the production process, such as cotton, coal, etc. in the spinning mill, acts neither to form products nor values. It is idle capital, although its idleness forms a condition for the uninterrupted flow of the production process. The buildings, apparatus, etc. that are necessary for storing the productive reserve (the latent capital) are conditions of the production process and hence form components of the productive capital advanced. They fulfil their function by maintaining the productive components in the preliminary stage; they make the raw material, etc. dearer, but since a part of this labour, in the same way as a part of all other wage-labour, is not paid for, it is productive labour and creates surplus-value. The normal interruptions of the overall production process, i.e. the intervals in which the productive capital does not function, produce neither value nor surplus-value. Hence the drive towards night work (Volume 1, Chapter 10, 4). The intervals in the working time that the object of labour has itself to undergo during the production process create neither value nor surplus-value; but they further the product, form a part of its life, a process that it must pass through. The value of the apparatus, etc. is carried over to the product in proportion to the entire period during which it functions; the product is placed in this stage by labour itself, and the use of this apparatus is just as much a condition of production as the reduction to dust of a part of the cotton that does not go into the product, but still carries its value over to it. The other part of the latent capital, such as the buildings, machines, etc., i.e. the means of labour whose function is interrupted only by the regular pauses in the production process - irregular interruptions as a result of a restriction of production, crises, etc. are pure loss - adds value, without entering into the formation of the product. The total value that the means of labour add to the product is determined by the average length of their life; they lose value because they lose use-value, not only in the time during which they are functioning, but also in the time during which they are not.
idle stock forms no value, yet needed

Take the part of latent productive capital that just lies ready as a condition for the process — cotton, coal, in a spinning mill, for example. It doesn't form the product and it doesn't form value. It is capital lying idle — even though that idleness is itself a condition for the production process to flow without interruption. The buildings and equipment needed to hold this productive stock — this latent capital — are themselves conditions of the production process, and so count as part of the productive capital advanced. Their job is to preserve these productive elements while they wait in this preliminary stage. Where labour is needed at this stage, it makes the raw material more expensive, but it is still productive labour and it does create surplus value — because part of it, like all other wage-labour, goes unpaid.

The normal interruptions of the whole production process — the intervals when productive capital simply isn't functioning — create neither value nor surplus value. This is why there is a drive to keep production running at night too. But the interruptions the object of labour must go through during the production process itself are different: they too create neither value nor surplus value, but they do carry the product forward — they are part of what the product's life consists of, a stage it has to pass through. The value of the equipment is transferred to the product in proportion to the whole time it is in use; labour itself is what puts the product into this stage, and using this equipment is just as much a condition of production as the loss of some cotton that never makes it into the product but still passes its value onto it.

The other part of latent capital — buildings, machines, and the like, the means of labour whose functioning is interrupted only by the process's regular pauses (irregular interruptions from cutbacks in production, crises, and so on, are pure losses) — adds value without entering into the making of the product. The total value it adds to the product is fixed by its average lifespan: it loses value because it loses use-value, both while it is functioning and while it is not.

Finally, the value of that part of the constant capital that continues in the production process even when the labour process is interrupted appears once again in the result of the production process. The means of production are here placed by labour itself in conditions in which they undergo by themselves certain specific natural processes, the result of which is a specific useful effect or a changed form of their use-value. Labour always carries over the value of the means of production to the product, to the extent that it actually consumes these deliberately as means of production. Nothing is altered here by whether the labour must, through the means of labour, act continuously on the object of labour, in order to produce this effect, or whether it need only give the first impulse by placing the means of production in conditions in which they themselves undergo the intended alteration, without labour's further collaboration, as a result of natural processes.
value still passes to the product

Finally, the value of the part of constant capital that keeps going through the production process even while the work process is interrupted turns up again in the result of that process. Labour itself is what puts the means of production into conditions where they then run through certain natural processes on their own — processes that end in some useful effect, or in a changed form of their use-value. Labour always transfers the value of the means of production onto the product, so long as it genuinely consumes them, for their purpose, as means of production. It makes no difference here whether the labour has to keep acting on the object continuously, through the instruments of labour, to bring about this effect, or whether it only has to set things in motion — putting the means of production into conditions under which, with no further help from labour, they undergo the intended change by themselves, through natural processes.

Whatever may be the reason for the excess of production time over working time - whether it is because the means of production form only latent productive capital, i.e. still exist in a stage preliminary to the production process proper, or because their specific function is interrupted within the production process by the pauses in it, or because finally the production process itself requires interruptions in the labour process - in none of these cases do the means of production function to absorb labour. If they absorb no labour, then they absorb no surplus labour. Hence there is no valorization of the productive capital, as long as this finds itself in that part of its production time that is in excess of the working time, no matter how inseparable these pauses may be from the accomplishment of the valorization process. It is clear that the nearer production time and working time approach to equality, the greater the productivity and valorization of a given productive capital in a given space of time. The tendency of capitalist production is therefore to shorten as much as possible the excess of production time over working time. But although the production time of capital may diverge from its working time, it always includes the latter, and the excess itself is a condition of the production process. Thus the production time is always the time that the capital takes to produce use-values and valorize itself, hence to function as productive capital, although it includes time in which it is either latent or produces without being valorized.
no labour absorbed, no value made

Whatever the reason for this excess of production time over labour time — whether the means of production are still only latent productive capital, sitting in a preliminary stage before the actual production process; or their own functioning is interrupted by pauses within the production process; or the production process itself brings about interruptions of the work process — in none of these cases do the means of production absorb any labour. And if they absorb no labour, they absorb no surplus labour either. So no valorization of productive capital happens during that part of its production time that exceeds its labour time — however inseparable completing the valorization process may be from these very pauses.

Clearly, the more production time and labour time coincide, the greater the productivity and valorization of a given productive capital over a given period. Hence capitalist production's tendency to shorten, as far as possible, the excess of production time over labour time. But even though a capital's production time may diverge from its labour time, it always contains that labour time within it, and the excess itself is a condition of the production process. Production time, then, is always the time during which capital produces use-values and valorizes itself — that is, functions as productive capital — even though it includes time in which capital is either lying latent, or is producing without valorizing itself.

Within the circulation sphere, capital exists as commodity capital and money capital. Its two circulation processes consist in transforming itself from the commodity form into the money form and from the money form into the commodity form. The circumstance that the transformation of the commodity into money is here at the same time the realization of the surplus-value embodied in the commodity, and that the transformation of money into commodity is at the same time the transformation of capital value into, or back into, the form of its elements of production, in no way changes the fact that these processes, as processes of circulation, are processes of simple commodity metamorphosis.
still simple commodity metamorphosis

Within the circulation sphere, capital exists as commodity-capital and as money-capital. Its two circulation processes consist in turning itself from commodity form into money form, and from money form into commodity form. It makes no difference that turning the commodity into money is, at the same time, realizing the surplus-value contained in the commodity, or that turning money into commodities is, at the same time, transforming — or retransforming — the capital-value into the shape of its elements of production. These processes are still, as circulation processes, nothing but processes of simple commodity metamorphosis, the same as any other.

Circulation time and production time are mutually exclusive. During its circulation time, capital does not function as productive capital, and therefore produces neither commodities nor surplus-value. If we consider the circuit in its simplest form, so that the entire capital value always moves at one stroke from one phase to the other, then it is obvious that the production process is interrupted, and with it therefore the self-valorization of capital, so long as its circulation time lasts, and that according to the duration of the latter, the production process will be repeated sooner or later. If the various parts of the capital pass through the circuit in succession, so that the circuit of the total capital value is successively accomplished in the circuit of its various portions, then it is clear that the longer its aliquot parts remain in the circulation sphere, the smaller must be the part that functions at any time in the production sphere. The expansion and contraction of the circulation time hence acts as a negative limit on the contraction or expansion of the production time, or of the scale on which a capital of a given magnitude can function. The more that the circulation metamorphoses of capital are only ideal, i.e. the closer the circulation time comes to zero, the more the capital functions, and the greater is its productivity and self-valorization. If a capitalist works to order, receives payment on the delivery of his product, and is paid in his own means of production, then his time of circulation approaches zero.
circulation time: a negative limit only

Circulation time and production time exclude one another. While capital is in its circulation time, it is not functioning as productive capital, and so it produces neither commodities nor surplus-value.

Take the circuit in its simplest form, where the whole capital-value passes from one phase to the next all at once: it's obvious that the production process is interrupted — and so is capital's self-valorization — for as long as its circulation time lasts, and the shorter or longer that time is, the faster or slower the production process starts up again. Now take the case where different parts of the capital go round the circuit one after another, so that the circuit of the whole capital-value is completed bit by bit through the circuits of its separate portions. Here it is clear that the longer any given fraction of the capital constantly sits in the circulation sphere, the smaller the fraction that can constantly be functioning in the production sphere. So the expansion or contraction of circulation time acts as a negative limit on the contraction or expansion of production time — on the scale, that is, on which a capital of a given size can function as productive capital. The more the circulation-metamorphoses of capital are merely nominal — the closer circulation time gets to zero — the more capital is functioning, and the greater its productivity and self-valorization. If a capitalist works to order, say, and is paid on delivery of the product, and paid in his own means of production, then circulation time comes close to zero.

Capital's circulation time generally restricts its production time, and hence its valorization process. Moreover, it restricts this in proportion to its duration. This can increase or decrease very considerably, and hence restrict the production time of capital to a very different degree. But what political economy sees is only the appearance, i.e. the effect of the circulation time on the valorization process of capital in general. It conceives this negative effect as positive, because its results are positive. It sticks all the more firmly to this illusion, as it seems to provide it with the proof that capital possesses a mystical source of self-valorization that is independent of its production process and hence of the exploitation of labour, and derives rather from the sphere of circulation. We shall see later how even scientific economics let itself be taken in by this illusion, an illusion which, as we shall show, is confirmed by various phenomena: (1) The capitalist way of calculating profit, in which the negative reason appears as positive, in that with capitals in different spheres of investment, in which only the circulation times differ, longer circulation time is the basis for a higher price, in short, is one of the bases in the equalization of profits. (2) The circulation time forms only one moment of the turnover time; but the latter includes the production time or reproduction time. (3) The conversion of commodities into variable capital (wages) is conditioned by their previous transformation into money. In the case of capital accumulation, therefore, the conversion into additional variable capital takes place in the circulation sphere, or during the circulation time. Hence the accumulation arising therefrom appears to be due to the circulation time.
the illusion: circulation seems to create value

So capital's circulation time limits its production time generally, and with that its valorization process — and it limits it in proportion to how long it lasts. But this length can grow or shrink very differently from case to case, and so it can limit capital's production time to very different degrees.

What political economy actually sees, though, is only how this appears — the effect of circulation time on capital's valorization process in general. It mistakes this negative effect for a positive one, because its consequences look positive. It clings to this appearance all the more because that appearance seems to prove that capital has some mystical source of self-valorization, independent of its own production process and so of the exploitation of labour, flowing to it from the circulation sphere. We shall see later that even scientific economics lets itself be taken in by this appearance. And it is reinforced, as we shall also see, by several things. First, the capitalist way of reckoning profit, in which this negative cause figures as a positive one: for capitals in different lines of investment, where only the circulation time differs, a longer circulation time acts as a reason for a higher price — in short, as one of the factors in the equalization of profits. Second, circulation time is only one part of turnover time; but turnover time also includes production time, or reproduction time. What is really owed to production time then looks as if it were owed to circulation time. Third, converting commodities into variable capital, that is wages, depends on first turning them into money. So when capital accumulates, the conversion into additional variable capital happens in the circulation sphere, during circulation time — and the resulting accumulation then looks as if it were owed to circulation time.

Within the sphere of circulation, capital passes through the two opposing phases C-M and M-C, in whichever order. Thus its circulation time breaks down into two parts, the time needed for its transformation from commodity into money, and the time that it needs for its transformation from money into commodities. We already know from the analysis of simple commodity circulation (Volume 1, Chapter 3) that C-M, the sale, is the most difficult part of its metamorphosis, and thus forms the greater part of the circulation time in normal circumstances. As money, value exists in its ever convertible form. As commodity, it must first receive this form of direct exchangeability and hence constant readiness for action by being transformed into money. What is involved in the circulation process of capital in its phase M-C is its transformation into those commodities which form the specific elements of productive capital in a given sphere of investment. The means of production may not be present on the market, needing first to be produced, or they may have to be drawn from distant markets, or there may be dislocations in their normal supply, changes of price, etc., in short, a mass of circumstances that are not recognizable in the simple change of form M-C, but require for this part of the circulation phase either less time or more. Just as C-M and M-C are separated in time, so they may also be separated in space, the selling and the buying markets being in different places. In factories, for example, buyers and sellers are frequently even different persons. Circulation is just as necessary for commodity production as is production itself, and thus agents of circulation are just as necessary as agents of production. The reproduction process includes both functions of capital, and thus also the need for these functions to be represented, either by the capitalist himself, or by salaried workers, his agents. But this is just as little a reason for confusing the circulation agents with the production agents as it is a reason for confusing the functions of commodity capital and money capital with those of productive capital. The circulation agents must be paid by way of the production agents. But if capitalists who buy and sell among themselves create by this act neither products nor value, this situation is not altered when the scale of their business enables them to pass this function onto others, and indeed makes it necessary to do so. In many businesses, sellers and buyers are paid in the form of a percentage of the profit. The phrase that they are paid by the consumers is no help at all. The consumers can pay only in so far as they themselves produce, as agents of production, an equivalent in commodities, or alternatively appropriate this from the production agents, whether by a legal title (as their partners, etc.), or through personal services.
sale and purchase: split in time, space

Within the circulation sphere, capital passes through two opposite phases — C-M and M-C — whichever order they come in. So its circulation time also splits into two parts: the time it needs to turn itself from commodity into money, and the time it needs to turn itself from money into commodity. We already know from the analysis of simple commodity circulation that C-M, the sale, is the harder part of the metamorphosis, and so, under ordinary conditions, makes up the larger part of the circulation time. As money, value is in its form of constant convertibility. As a commodity, it first has to acquire that shape of immediate exchangeability, and so of readiness for use, by being turned into money.

But in capital's circulation process, in its phase M-C, what matters is turning money into the particular commodities that form the specific elements of productive capital for a given business. The means of production may not be sitting ready on the market at all — they may have to be produced first, or fetched from distant markets, or there may be shortfalls in the usual supply, price changes, and so on. In short, a whole mass of circumstances that don't show up in the bare change of form M-C can still, for this part of the circulation phase too, take up more or less time. And just as C-M and M-C can be separated in time, they can be separated in space too — the buying market and the selling market can be different markets altogether. In factories, for instance, the buyer and the seller are often even different people.

Circulation is just as necessary for commodity production as production itself is, so the agents of circulation are just as necessary as the agents of production. The reproduction process includes both functions of capital, and so it also includes the need for someone to carry them out — whether the capitalist himself, or wage-labourers acting as his agents. But this is no more reason to confuse the agents of circulation with the agents of production than it is reason to confuse the functions of commodity-capital and money-capital with those of productive capital. The agents of circulation have to be paid by the agents of production. When capitalists buy and sell among themselves, that act creates neither products nor value — and that stays true even when the scale of their business lets them, and forces them, to hand this function over to others. In some businesses buyers and sellers are paid a share of the profit. Saying they are paid by the consumers doesn't change anything: consumers can only pay to the extent that they themselves, as agents of production, produce an equivalent in commodities, or obtain one from the agents of production — whether by right, as their partners say, or through personal services.

There is a distinction between C-M and M-C that has nothing to do with the difference in form between commodities and money, but derives from the capitalist character of production. In and for themselves, both C-M and M-C are mere translations of the given value from one form into the other. But C'-M' is at the same time the realization of the surplus-value contained in C'. Not so M-C. Hence the sale is more important than the purchase. M-C is in normal conditions a necessary act for the valorization of the value expressed in M, but it is not a realization of surplus-value; it is a prelude to its production, not an appendix to it.
sale realizes surplus-value; purchase doesn't

There is a difference between C-M and M-C that has nothing to do with the difference in form between commodity and money — it comes instead from the capitalist character of production itself. Taken purely in themselves, both C-M and M-C are just translations of a given value from one form into another. But C'-M' is, at the same time, the realization of the surplus-value contained in C'. M-C is not. That is why the sale matters more than the purchase. Under normal conditions M-C is a necessary act for valorizing the value expressed in M, but it does not realize surplus-value; it is the opening move toward producing surplus-value, not something added on afterward.

The very form of existence of commodities, their existence as use-values, sets certain limits to the circulation of the commodity capital C'-M'. If they do not enter into productive or individual consumption within a certain interval of time, according to their particular characteristics, in other words if they are not sold within a definite time, then they get spoiled, and lose, together with their use-value, the property of being bearers of exchange-value. Both the capital value contained in them and the surplus-value added to it are lost. Use-values remain the bearers of perennial and self-valorizing capital value only in so far as they are constantly renewed, are replaced by new use-values of the same or another kind. Their sale in their finished commodity form, i.e. their entry, mediated through sale, into productive or individual consumption, is however the constantly repeated condition for their reproduction. They must change their old use form within a certain time, and continue their existence in a new one. It is only through this constant renewal of its body that the exchange-value maintains itself. The use-values of different commodities may decay at different speeds; thus a greater or lesser interval may elapse between their production and their consumption, and they may thus persist for a shorter or longer time in the circulation phase C-M as commodity capital, endure a shorter or longer circulation time as commodities. The limitation of the circulation time of commodity capital imposed by the spoiling of the commodity body itself is the absolute limit of this part of the circulation time, or of the time for which the commodity capital can circulate as commodity capital. The more perishable a commodity, the more directly after its production it must be consumed, and therefore sold, the smaller the distance it can move from its place of production, the narrower therefore is its sphere of spatial circulation, and the more local the character of its market. Hence the more perishable a commodity, the greater are the absolute barriers to its circulation time that its physical properties impose, and the less appropriate it is as an object of capitalist production. Capitalism can only deal in commodities of this kind in populous places, or to the extent that distances are reduced by the development of means of transport. The concentration of the production of an article in a few hands, however, and in a populous place, can create a relatively large market even for an article of this kind, as is the case with the big breweries, dairies, etc.
spoilage sets an absolute limit

For the circulation of commodity-capital, C'-M', definite limits are set by the very form in which commodities exist — their being use-values. Commodities are by nature perishable. So if they do not enter productive or individual consumption within a certain period — depending on what they are for — in other words, if they are not sold within a certain time, they spoil, and along with their use-value they lose the ability to carry exchange-value at all. The capital-value contained in them, and whatever surplus-value has grown onto it, is simply lost. Use-values only go on carrying a lasting, self-valorizing capital-value so long as they are constantly renewed and reproduced — replaced by new use-values of the same kind or another. Selling them in their finished commodity form, and so getting them, through that sale, into productive or individual consumption, is the ever-renewing condition for their reproduction. They must change out of their old use-form within a certain time in order to keep existing in a new one. Exchange-value only preserves itself through this constant renewal of its body.

Different commodities' use-values spoil at different speeds, so more or less time can pass between a commodity's production and its consumption; commodities can hold out for a shorter or longer time, without perishing, in the C-M phase of circulation as commodity-capital — they can bear a shorter or longer circulation time. The limit set on commodity-capital's circulation time by the spoiling of the commodity's own body is the absolute limit on this part of circulation time — the most that commodity-capital, as commodity-capital, can ever take.

The more perishable a commodity, the more immediately after its production it must be consumed, and so also sold; the shorter the distance it can travel from where it is produced, the narrower its spatial circulation sphere, the more local its market. So the more perishable a commodity, the greater the absolute limit its physical make-up puts on its circulation time as a commodity, and the less suited it is to be an object of capitalist production at all. Capitalist production can only take it up in densely populated places, or as the development of transport draws distant places closer together. But concentrating the production of an article in a few hands, in one populous place, can still create a relatively large market even for such articles — large breweries or dairies, for instance.