thebase.works · Das Kapital III Kap. 2 · semantic zoom
Z3
Kap. 2
Die Profitrate als Maß des Kapitalisten
Profit has been shown to be surplus-value under a new name. The next pages ask how it is measured, and find that the measure the capitalist uses is exactly the one that hides the source.
Die allgemeine Formel des Kapitals ist G - W - G´; d.h. eine Wertsumme wird in Zirkulation geworfen, um eine größre Wertsumme aus ihr herauszuziehn. Der Prozeß, der diese größre Wertsumme erzeugt, ist die kapitalistische Produktion; der Prozeß, der sie realisiert, ist die Zirkulation des Kapitals. Der Kapitalist produziert die Ware nicht ihrer selbst wegen, nicht ihres Gebrauchswerts oder seiner persönlichen Konsumtion wegen. Das Produkt, um das es sich in der Tat für den Kapitalisten handelt, ist nicht das handgreifliche Produkt selbst, sondern der Wertüberschuß des Produkts über den Wert des in ihm konsumierten Kapitals. Der Kapitalist schießt das Gesamtkapital vor ohne Rücksicht auf die verschiedne Rolle, die seine Bestandteile in der Produktion des Mehrwerts spielen. Er schießt alle diese Bestandteile gleichmäßig vor, nicht nur um das vorgeschoßne Kapital zu reproduzieren, sondern um einen Wertüberschuß über dasselbe zu produzieren. Er kann den Wert des variablen Kapitals, den er vorschießt, nur in höhern Wert verwandeln durch seinen Austausch mit lebendiger Arbeit, durch Exploitation lebendiger Arbeit. Aber er kann die Arbeit nur exploitieren, indem er gleichzeitig die Bedingungen für die Verwirklichung dieser Arbeit, Arbeitsmittel und Arbeitsgegenstand, Maschinerie und Rohstoff vorschießt, d.h. indem er eine in seinem Besitz befindliche Wertsumme in die Form von Produktionsbedingungen verwandelt; wie er überhaupt nur Kapitalist ist, den Exploitationsprozeß der Arbeit überhaupt nur vornehmen kann, weil er als Eigentümer der Arbeitsbedingungen dem Arbeiter als bloßem Besitzer der Arbeitskraft gegenübersteht. Es hat sich schon früher, im ersten Buch <Siehe Band 23, S. 183, 742/743>, gezeigt, daß es grade der Besitz dieser Produktionsmittel durch die Nichtarbeiter ist, welcher die Arbeiter in Lohnarbeiter, die Nichtarbeiter in Kapitalisten verwandelt.
the capitalist's real aim

Capital's basic formula is: money goes out, and more money comes back — money, then a commodity, then more money. Producing that extra money is what capitalist production does; realizing it in the market is what the circulation of capital does.

The capitalist does not make a commodity for its own sake, and not because he wants to use it or consume it himself. What actually interests him is not the physical product but the excess of value the product has over the value of the capital used up making it.

He advances the whole of his capital without caring what different jobs its parts play in producing surplus-value. He lays out every part equally — not just to get his capital back, but to get more value than he put in. He can only turn the value of the variable capital he advances — the part he lays out on wages — into a bigger value by exchanging it for living labour — by exploiting that labour. But he can only exploit labour by advancing, at the same time, the conditions that let that labour happen at all: the means of labour and its object, machinery and raw material. In other words, he turns a sum of value he owns into the form of the means of production. And he is only a capitalist, only able to exploit labour in the first place, because as the owner of these conditions of labour he stands facing the worker, who owns nothing but labour-power. As was shown earlier, in Volume 1, it is exactly this — the non-workers owning the means of production — that turns workers into wage-labourers and non-workers into capitalists.

Dem Kapitalisten ist es gleichgültig, die Sache so zu betrachten, daß er das konstante Kapital vorschießt, um aus dem variablen Gewinn zu schlagen, oder das variable vorschießt, um das konstante zu verwerten; daß er Geld in Arbeitslohn auslegt, um Maschinen und Rohmaterial höhern Wert zu geben, oder das Geld in Maschinerie und Rohmaterial vorschießt, um die Arbeit exploitieren zu können. Obgleich nur der variable Teil des Kapitals Mehrwert schafft, so schafft er ihn unter der Bedingung, daß auch die andren Teile vorgeschossen werden, die Produktionsbedingungen der Arbeit. Da der Kapitalist die Arbeit nur exploitieren kann durch Vorschuß des konstanten Kapitals, da er das konstante Kapital nur verwerten kann durch Vorschuß des variablen, so fallen ihm diese in der Vorstellung alle gleichmäßig zusammen, und dies um so mehr, als der wirkliche Grad seines Gewinns bestimmt ist nicht durch das Verhältnis zum variablen Kapital, sondern zum Gesamtkapital, nicht durch die Rate des Mehrwerts, sondern durch die Rate des Profits, die, wie wir sehn werden, dieselbe bleiben und doch verschiedne Raten des Mehrwerts ausdrücken kann.
why the parts blur together

It makes no difference to the capitalist how he pictures this process. He can just as well say he advances constant capital in order to squeeze a profit out of the variable part, as say he advances the variable part in order to valorize the constant part — to make it yield more value than it cost. He can say he lays out money in wages so as to raise the value of machines and raw material, or that he advances money in machinery and raw material so that he can exploit labour.

Only the variable part of capital creates surplus-value — but it only creates it on the condition that the other parts, the conditions of production for that labour, are advanced too. Because the capitalist can only exploit labour by advancing constant capital, and can only valorize constant capital by advancing variable capital, all these parts merge together equally in his mind. This is all the more so because the actual size of his profit is fixed not by its ratio to the variable capital, but by its ratio to the total capital — not by the rate of surplus-value, but by the rate of profit, which, as we shall see, can stay the same while expressing different rates of surplus-value.

Zu den Kosten des Produkts gehören alle seine Wertbestandteile, die der Kapitalist gezahlt, oder für die er ein Äquivalent in die Produktion geworfen hat. Diese Kosten müssen ersetzt werden, damit das Kapital sich einfach erhalte oder in seiner ursprünglichen Größe reproduziere.
what counts as costs

What the product costs the capitalist is every part of its value he actually paid out, or threw an equivalent into production for. Recovering that much gets him nowhere new: it only puts his capital back where it started, at the same size.

Der in der Ware enthaltne Wert ist gleich der Arbeitszeit, die ihre Herstellung kostet, und die Summe dieser Arbeit besteht aus bezahlter und unbezahlter. Die Kosten der Ware für den Kapitalisten bestehn dagegen nur aus dem Teil der in ihr vergegenständlichten Arbeit, den er gezahlt hat. Die in der Ware enthaltne Mehrarbeit kostet dem Kapitalisten nichts, obgleich sie dem Arbeiter, ganz so gut wie die bezahlte, Arbeit kostet, und obgleich sie, ganz so gut wie jene, Wert schafft und als wertbildendes Element in die Ware eingeht. Der Profit des Kapitalisten kommt daher, daß er etwas zu verkaufen hat, das er nicht bezahlt hat. Der Mehrwert resp. Profit besteht gerade in dem Überschuß des Warenwerts über ihren Kostpreis, d.h. in dem Überschuß der in der Ware enthaltnen Gesamtsumme von Arbeit über die in ihr enthaltne bezahlte Summe Arbeit. Der Mehrwert, woher er immer entspringe, ist sonach ein Überschuß über das vorgeschoßne Gesamtkapital. Dieser Überschuß steht also in einem Verhältnis zum Gesamtkapital, das sich ausdrückt in dem Bruch m / C, wo C das Gesamtkapital bedeutet. So erhalten wir die Profitrate m / C = m / c+v im Unterschiede von der Rate des Mehrwerts m / v.
profit from unpaid labour

The value contained in a commodity equals the labour-time its production costs, and that labour splits into paid and unpaid. But the commodity's costs for the capitalist consist only of the part of the labour objectified in it — the labour already worked up in the product — that he has actually paid for.

The surplus labour contained in the commodity costs the capitalist nothing — even though it costs the worker labour just as much as the paid labour does, and even though it creates value just as much as the paid labour does, going into the commodity as a value-forming element exactly like the rest. The capitalist's profit comes from the fact that he has something to sell that he has not paid for.

Surplus-value, or profit, consists precisely in the excess of the commodity's value over its cost price — that is, in the excess of the total labour contained in the commodity over the paid labour contained in it. Surplus-value, wherever it springs from, is therefore an excess over the whole capital advanced. This excess stands in a ratio to the total capital, expressed in the fraction s/C, where C means the total capital. That gives us the rate of profit, s/C = s/(c+v), as distinct from the rate of surplus-value, s/v.

Die Rate des Mehrwerts gemessen am variablen Kapital heißt Rate des Mehrwerts; die Rate des Mehrwerts gemessen am Gesamtkapital heißt Profitrate. Es sind zwei verschiedne Messungen derselben Größe, die infolge der Verschiedenheit der Maßstäbe zugleich verschiedne Verhältnisse oder Beziehungen derselben Größe ausdrücken.
two measures, one magnitude

The rate of surplus-value measured against the variable capital is called the rate of surplus-value. The same rate of surplus-value measured against the total capital is called the rate of profit. These are two different measurements of the same amount — the same amount, measured once against the variable capital and once against the total capital — and because the yardsticks differ, they express two different ratios of that one amount at the same time.

Aus der Verwandlung der Mehrwertsrate in Profitrate ist die Verwandlung des Mehrwerts in Profit abzuleiten, nicht umgekehrt. Und in der Tat ist die Profitrate das, wovon historisch ausgegangen wird. Mehrwert und Rate des Mehrwerts sind, relativ, das Unsichtbare und das zu erforschende Wesentliche, während Profitrate und daher die Form des Mehrwerts als Profit sich auf der Oberfläche der Erscheinungen zeigen.
the rate transforms first

The transformation of surplus-value into profit has to be derived from the transformation of the rate of surplus-value into the rate of profit — not the other way round. And in fact the rate of profit is the historical starting point.

Surplus-value and the rate of surplus-value are, relatively speaking, the invisible thing, the essential thing still to be worked out; the rate of profit — and so the form surplus-value takes as profit — shows itself on the surface of appearances.

Was den einzelnen Kapitalisten angeht, so ist klar, daß das einzige, was ihn interessiert, das Verhältnis des Mehrwerts oder des Wertüberschusses, wozu er seine Waren verkauft, zu dem für die Produktion der Ware vorgeschoßnen Gesamtkapital ist; während ihn das bestimmte Verhältnis dieses Überschusses zu, und sein innerer Zusammenhang mit den besondren Bestandteilen des Kapitals nicht nur nicht interessiert, sondern es sein Interesse ist, sich blauen Dunst über dies bestimmte Verhältnis und diesen innern Zusammenhang vorzublasen.
why the capitalist stays vague

For the individual capitalist, only one thing matters: the ratio between the surplus-value, the excess value he sells his commodities for, and the total capital advanced to produce them. The specific ratio of this excess to the particular parts of capital, and its inner connection with them, does not interest him at all — in fact, it suits him to keep this specific ratio and this inner connection hazy and out of view.

Kap. 2
Zirkulation und die Mystifikation des Kapitalverhältnisses
The two rates have been defined and their order fixed. The text now follows the profit form out into circulation and competition, where the source of the surplus disappears from view altogether.
Obgleich der Überschuß des Werts der Ware über ihren Kostpreis im unmittelbaren Produktionsprozeß entsteht, wird er erst realisiert im Zirkulationsprozeß, und erhält um so leichter den Schein, aus dem Zirkulationsprozeß zu entspringen, als es in der Wirklichkeit, innerhalb der Konkurrenz, auf dem wirklichen Markt, von Marktverhältnissen abhängt, ob oder nicht, und zu welchem Grad, dieser Überschuß realisiert wird. Es bedarf hier keiner Erörterung, daß, wenn eine Ware über oder unter ihrem Wert verkauft wird, nur eine andre Verteilung des Mehrwerts stattfindet, und daß diese verschiedne Verteilung, das veränderte Verhältnis, worin verschiedne Personen sich in den Mehrwert teilen, weder an der Größe noch an der Natur des Mehrwerts irgend etwas ändert. Im tatsächlichen Zirkulationsprozeß gehn nicht nur die Verwandlungen vor, die wir in Buch II betrachtet, sondern sie fallen zusammen mit der wirklichen Konkurrenz, mit Kauf und Verkauf der Waren über oder unter ihrem Wert, so daß für den einzelnen Kapitalisten der von ihm selbst realisierte Mehrwert ebensosehr von der wechselseitigen Übervorteilung, wie von der direkten Exploitation der Arbeit abhängt.
profit's look of coming from circulation

Although the excess of the commodity's value over its cost price arises in the immediate production process, it is only realized in the circulation process — and it looks all the more as if circulation were where the extra value came from, since in reality, within competition, on the actual market, it depends on market conditions whether, and to what degree, this excess gets realized at all. There is no need to spell out that when a commodity sells above or below its value, this only means a different distribution of the surplus-value; and this different distribution — the changed proportion in which different people share in the surplus-value — changes nothing at all, either in the magnitude or in the nature of the surplus-value.

In the actual circulation process, it is not only the transformations we examined in Volume 2 that take place; they also coincide with real competition, with the buying and selling of commodities above or below their value — so that for the individual capitalist, the surplus-value he himself realizes depends just as much on mutual cheating as on the direct exploitation of labour.

Im Zirkulationsprozeß tritt neben der Arbeitszeit die Zirkulationszeit in Wirksamkeit, die hiermit die Masse des in einem bestimmten Zeitraum realisierbaren Mehrwerts beschränkt. Es greifen noch andre, der Zirkulation entspringende Momente in den unmittelbaren Produktionsprozeß bestimmend ein. Beide, der unmittelbare Produktionsprozeß und der Zirkulationsprozeß, laufen beständig ineinander, durchdringen sich und verfälschen dadurch beständig ihre charakteristischen Unterscheidungsmerkmale. Die Produktion des Mehrwerts wie des Werts überhaupt erhält im Zirkulationsprozeß, wie früher gezeigt, neue Bestimmungen; das Kapital durchläuft den Kreis seiner Verwandlungen; endlich tritt es sozusagen aus seinem innern organischen Leben in auswärtige Lebensverhältnisse, in Verhältnisse, wo nicht Kapital und Arbeit, sondern einerseits Kapital und Kapital, andrerseits die Individuen auch wieder einfach als Käufer und Verkäufer sich gegenüberstehn; Zirkulationszeit und Arbeitszeit durchkreuzen sich in ihrer Bahn und scheinen so beide gleichmäßig den Mehrwert zu bestimmen; die ursprüngliche Form, worin sich Kapital und Lohnarbeit gegenüberstehn, wird verkleidet durch Einmischung scheinbar davon unabhängiger Beziehungen; der Mehrwert selbst erscheint nicht als Produkt der Aneignung von Arbeitszeit, sondern als Überschuß des Verkaufspreises der Waren über ihren Kostpreis, welcher letztre daher leicht als ihr eigentlicher Wert (valeur intrinsèque) sich darstellt, so daß der Profit als Überschuß des Verkaufspreises der Waren über ihren immanenten Wert erscheint.
circulation blurs where profit comes from

In the circulation process, alongside labour-time, circulation-time comes into play, and this limits the mass of surplus-value realizable in a given period. Other factors, arising from circulation, also reach into the immediate production process and help determine it. Both processes — immediate production and circulation — constantly run into each other, interpenetrate, and so constantly blur their distinguishing marks.

The production of surplus-value, like value generally, takes on new characteristics in the circulation process, as shown earlier; capital runs through the circuit of its transformations; finally it steps, so to speak, out of its inner organic life into external relations of life — relations in which it is no longer capital facing labour, but on one side capital facing capital, and on the other side individuals simply facing each other again as buyers and sellers. Circulation-time and labour-time cross each other, so both look equally responsible for the surplus-value. The original form in which capital and wage-labour confront each other is disguised when relations step in that look as if they had nothing to do with it. Surplus-value itself no longer appears as the product of appropriating labour-time, but as the excess of the commodities' selling price over their cost price — and this cost price then easily presents itself as their real, intrinsic value (valeur intrinsèque), so that profit appears as the excess of the selling price of commodities over their inherent value.

Allerdings tritt während des unmittelbaren Produktionsprozesses die Natur des Mehrwerts fortwährend in das Bewußtsein des Kapitalisten, wie seine Gier nach fremder Arbeitszeit etc. uns schon bei Betrachtung des Mehrwerts zeigte. Allein: 1. Es ist der unmittelbare Produktionsprozeß selbst nur ein verschwindendes Moment, das beständig in den Zirkulationsprozeß, wie dieser in jenen übergeht, so daß die im Produktionsprozeß klarer oder dunkler aufgedämmerte Ahnung von der Quelle des in ihm gemachten Gewinns, d.h. von der Natur des Mehrwerts, höchstens als ein gleichberechtigtes Moment erscheint neben der Vorstellung, der realisierte Überschuß stamme aus der vom Produktionsprozeß unabhängigen, aus der Zirkulation selbst entspringenden, also dem Kapital unabhängig von seinem Verhältnis zur Arbeit angehörigen Bewegung. Werden diese Phänomene der Zirkulation doch selbst von modernen Ökonomen, wie Ramsey, Malthus, Senior, Torrens usw., direkt als Beweise angeführt, daß das Kapital in seiner bloß dinglichen Existenz, unabhängig von dem gesellschaftlichen Verhältnis zur Arbeit, worin es eben Kapital ist, ein selbständiger Quell des Mehrwerts neben der Arbeit und unabhängig von der Arbeit sei. - 2. Unter der Rubrik der Kosten, worunter der Arbeitslohn fällt, ebensogut wie der Preis von Rohstoff, Verschleiß der Maschinerie etc., erscheint Auspressung von unbezahlter Arbeit nur als Ersparung in der Zahlung eines der Artikel, der in die Kosten eingeht, nur als geringre Zahlung für ein bestimmtes Quantum Arbeit; ganz wie ebenfalls gespart wird, wenn der Rohstoff wohlfeiler eingekauft, oder der Verschleiß der Maschinerie verringert wird. So verliert die Abpressung von Mehrarbeit ihren spezifischen Charakter; ihr spezifisches Verhältnis zum Mehrwert wird verdunkelt; und dies wird sehr befördert und erleichtert, wie Buch I, Abschn. VII <Siehe Band 23, S. 557-564> gezeigt, durch die Darstellung des Werts der Arbeitskraft in der Form des Arbeitslohns.
why the capitalist barely notices

Certainly, during the immediate production process, the nature of surplus-value keeps entering the capitalist's consciousness — his greed for other people's labour-time already showed us as much, when we looked at surplus-value earlier. But that awareness is checked by two things.

First, the immediate production process itself is only a passing phase — always tipping over into circulation, as circulation tips back into it — so that whatever inkling, clearer or dimmer, dawns in the production process about the source of the gain made there, that is, about the nature of surplus-value, appears at best as no more than one notion among equally valid others, alongside the idea that the realized excess springs from a movement independent of the production process, arising from circulation itself, and so belonging to capital independently of its relation to labour at all. Indeed, these very circulation phenomena are cited directly by modern economists such as Ramsay, Malthus, Senior, Torrens, and others as proof that capital, in its mere thing-like existence — independent of the social relation to labour that alone makes it capital — is itself an independent source of surplus-value alongside labour and independent of it.

Second, under the heading of costs — which covers wages just as much as the price of raw material, wear and tear of machinery, and so on — the extraction of unpaid labour appears only as a saving in paying for one of the items that enters into costs, only as paying less for a given quantity of labour; exactly as a saving is also made when raw material is bought cheaper, or the wear of machinery is reduced. In this way the squeezing-out of surplus labour loses its specific character; its specific relation to surplus-value is obscured; and this is greatly helped along, as was shown in Volume 1, by presenting the value of labour-power in the form of wages.

Indem alle Teile des Kapitals gleichmäßig als Quelle des überschüssigen Werts (Profits) erscheinen, wird das Kapitalverhältnis mystifiziert.
the thesis: every part looks profitable

Because all parts of capital equally come to appear as sources of the excess value — of profit — the capital relation is mystified.

Die Art, wie mittelst des Übergangs durch die Profitrate der Mehrwert in die Form des Profits verwandelt wird, ist jedoch nur die Weiterentwicklung der schon während des Produktionsprozesses vorgehenden Verkehrung von Subjekt und Objekt. Schon hier sahen wir sämtliche subjektiven Produktivkräfte der Arbeit sich als Produktivkräfte des Kapitals darstellen <Siehe Band 23, S. 352/353>. Einerseits wird der Wert, die vergangne Arbeit, die die lebendige beherrscht, im Kapitalisten personifiziert; andrerseits erscheint umgekehrt der Arbeiter als bloß gegenständliche Arbeitskraft, als Ware. Aus diesem verkehrten Verhältnis entspringt notwendig schon im einfachen Produktionsverhältnis selbst die entsprechende verkehrte Vorstellung, ein transponiertes Bewußtsein, das durch die Verwandlungen und Modifikationen des eigentlichen Zirkulationsprozesses weiterentwickelt wird.
labour's power relabelled as capital's

The way surplus-value gets transformed into the form of profit, by passing through the rate of profit, is only the further development of a reversal of subject and object that already goes on during the production process itself. We already saw there how all the subjective productive forces of labour come to present themselves as productive forces of capital. On one side, value — past labour, dominating living labour — is personified in the capitalist; on the other side, conversely, the worker appears as mere objectified labour-power, as a commodity. Out of this inverted relation there necessarily springs, already within the simple relation of production itself, a matching upside-down idea — a way of seeing that has the relation the wrong way round — one that is then further developed through the transformations and modifications of the actual circulation process.

Es ist, wie man bei der Ricardoschen Schule studieren kann, ein ganz verkehrter Versuch, die Gesetze der Profitrate unmittelbar als Gesetze der Mehrwertsrate oder umgekehrt darstellen zu wollen. In dem Kopf des Kapitalisten unterscheiden sie sich natürlich nicht. In dem Ausdruck m / C ist der Mehrwert gemessen am Wert des Gesamtkapitals, das zu seiner Produktion vorgeschossen und in dieser Produktion teilweise ganz konsumiert, teilweise nur angewandt worden ist. In der Tat drückt das Verhältnis m / C den Verwertungsgrad des ganzen vorgeschoßnen Kapitals aus, d.h. dem begrifflichen, innern Zusammenhang und der Natur des Mehrwerts entsprechend gefaßt, es zeigt an, wie sich die Größe der Variation des variablen Kapitals zur Größe des vorgeschoßnen Gesamtkapitals verhält.
two rates, not one law

As can be studied in the Ricardian school, it is a thoroughly mistaken attempt to try to present the laws of the rate of profit directly as laws of the rate of surplus-value, or the other way round. In the capitalist's own head, naturally, the two are not distinguished at all. In the expression s/C, the surplus-value is measured against the value of the total capital advanced for its production — a capital of which one part is consumed outright in that production while another part is only put to work and stays in place. In fact the ratio s/C expresses the degree to which the whole advanced capital has been valorized — how much it has grown in value — that is, taken in line with the inner, conceptual connection and the nature of surplus-value, it shows how the size of the variation in the variable capital relates to the size of the total capital advanced.

An und für sich steht die Wertgröße des Gesamtkapitals in keinem innern Verhältnis zur Größe des Mehrwerts, wenigstens nicht unmittelbar. Seinen stofflichen Elementen nach besteht das Gesamtkapital minus das variable Kapital, besteht also das konstante Kapital aus den stofflichen Bedingungen zur Verwirklichung der Arbeit, Arbeitsmitteln und Arbeitsmaterial. Damit ein bestimmtes Quantum Arbeit sich in Waren verwirklicht, und daher auch Wert bildet, ist ein bestimmtes Quantum Arbeitsmaterial und Arbeitsmittel erheischt. Es findet je nach dem besondern Charakter der zugesetzten Arbeit ein bestimmtes technisches Verhältnis statt zwischen der Masse der Arbeit und der Masse der Produktionsmittel, denen diese lebendige Arbeit zugesetzt werden soll. Es findet also insofern auch ein bestimmtes Verhältnis statt zwischen der Masse des Mehrwerts oder der Mehrarbeit und der Masse der Produktionsmittel. Wenn z.B. die notwendige Arbeit zur Produktion des Arbeitslohns 6 Stunden täglich beträgt, muß der Arbeiter 12 Stunden arbeiten, um 6 Stunden Mehrarbeit zu tun, um einen Mehrwert von 100% zu erzeugen. Er verbraucht in den 12 Stunden doppelt soviel Produktionsmittel wie in den 6. Aber deswegen steht der Mehrwert, den er in 6 Stunden zusetzt, durchaus in keinem unmittelbaren Verhältnis zu dem Wert der in den 6 oder auch in den 12 Stunden vernutzten Produktionsmittel. Dieser Wert ist hier ganz gleichgültig; es kommt nur auf die technisch nötige Masse an. Ob der Rohstoff oder das Arbeitsmittel wohlfeil oder teuer, ist ganz gleichgültig; wenn es nur den erheischten Gebrauchswert besitzt und in der technisch vorgeschriebnen Proportion zu der zu absorbierenden lebendigen Arbeit vorhanden ist. Weiß ich jedoch, daß in einer Stunde x Pfund Baumwolle versponnen werden und a Schillinge kosten, so weiß ich natürlich auch, daß in 12 Stunden 12 x Pfund Baumwolle = 12 a Schillinge versponnen werden, und ich kann dann das Verhältnis des Mehrwerts zum Wert der 12 so gut wie zum Wert der 6 berechnen. Aber das Verhältnis der lebendigen Arbeit zum Wert der Produktionsmittel kommt hier nur herein, soweit a Schillinge als Name für x Pfund Baumwolle dient; weil ein bestimmtes Quantum Baumwolle einen bestimmten Preis hat und daher auch umgekehrt ein bestimmter Preis als Index für ein bestimmtes Quantum Baumwolle dienen kann, solange der Baumwollenpreis sich nicht ändert. Wenn ich weiß, daß ich, um 6 Stunden Mehrarbeit anzueignen, 12 Stunden arbeiten lassen, also Baumwolle für 12 Stunden parat haben muß und den Preis dieses für 12 Stunden erheischten Quantums Baumwolle kenne, so existiert auf einem Umweg ein Verhältnis zwischen dem Preis der Baumwolle (als Index des notwendigen Quantums) und dem Mehrwert. Umgekehrt kann ich aber nie aus dem Preise des Rohmaterials schließen auf die Masse des Rohmaterials, die z.B. in einer Stunde und nicht in 6 versponnen werden kann. Es findet also kein inneres, notwendiges Verhältnis statt zwischen dem Wert des konstanten Kapitals, also auch nicht zwischen dem Wert des Gesamtkapitals (= c + v) und dem Mehrwert.
cotton by the pound, not by value

In itself, the value-magnitude of the total capital stands in no inner relation to the magnitude of the surplus-value — at least not directly. By its material elements, the total capital minus the variable capital — that is, the constant capital — consists of the material conditions for carrying out labour: means of labour and material to work on. For a given quantity of labour to realize itself in commodities, and so to form value at all, a given quantity of material and means of labour is required. Depending on the particular character of the labour applied, a definite technical ratio holds between the mass of labour — the sheer amount of it — and the mass of the means of production to which that living labour is to be applied. So, to that extent, a definite ratio also holds between the mass of the surplus-value or surplus labour and the mass of the means of production.

If, for example, the necessary labour needed to produce the wage comes to 6 hours a day, the worker must work 12 hours in order to do 6 hours of surplus labour and produce a surplus-value of 100 per cent. In the 12 hours he uses up twice as many means of production as in the 6. But the surplus-value he adds in those 6 hours stands in no direct relation at all to the value of the means of production used up in the 6 hours, or even in the 12. That value makes no difference here; what matters is only the physical amount the work technically needs. Whether the raw material or the means of labour is cheap or dear makes no difference either, so long as it has the use-value required and is present in the technically prescribed proportion to the living labour it has to absorb.

If, however, I know that in one hour x pounds of cotton are spun and cost y shillings, then I of course also know that in 12 hours 12x pounds of cotton = 12y shillings are spun, and I can then work out the ratio of the surplus-value to the value of the 12 just as well as to the value of the 6. But the relation of living labour to the value of the means of production only enters here because y shillings serves as a name for x pounds of cotton — because a given quantity of cotton has a given price, and so, conversely, a given price can serve as an index for a given quantity of cotton, so long as the price of cotton does not change. If I know that, to appropriate 6 hours of surplus labour, I must have someone work 12 hours — must therefore have cotton ready for 12 hours — and I know the price of the quantity of cotton needed for those 12 hours, then a relation does exist, by a roundabout route, between the price of the cotton (as an index of the necessary quantity) and the surplus-value. But conversely, I can never infer from the price of the raw material the mass of raw material that can be spun in, say, one hour rather than six. So there is no inner, necessary relation between the value of the constant capital and the surplus-value — and therefore none between the value of the total capital (= c + v) and the surplus-value either.

Wenn die Rate des Mehrwerts bekannt und seine Größe gegeben ist, drückt die Profitrate nichts andres aus als das, was sie in der Tat ist, eine andre Messung des Mehrwerts, seine Messung am Wert des Gesamtkapitals, statt an dem Wert des Kapitalteils, aus dem er durch dessen Austausch mit Arbeit direkt entspringt. Aber in der Wirklichkeit (d.h. in der Erscheinungswelt) verhält sich die Sache umgekehrt. Der Mehrwert ist gegeben, aber gegeben als Überschuß des Verkaufspreises der Ware über ihren Kostpreis; wobei es mysteriös bleibt, woher dieser Überschuß stammt, aus der Exploitation der Arbeit im Produktionsprozeß, aus der Übervorteilung der Käufer im Zirkulationsprozeß, oder aus beiden. Was ferner gegeben, ist das Verhältnis dieses Überschusses zum Wert des Gesamtkapitals, oder die Profitrate. Die Berechnung dieses Überschusses des Verkaufspreises über den Kostpreis auf den Wert des vorgeschoßnen Gesamtkapitals ist sehr wichtig und natürlich, da hierdurch in der Tat die Verhältniszahl gefunden wird, worin sich das Gesamtkapital verwertet hat, oder sein Verwertungsgrad. Wird von dieser Profitrate ausgegangen, so ist also durchaus auf kein spezifisches Verhältnis zwischen dem Überschuß und dem in Arbeitslohn ausgelegten Teil des Kapitals zu schließen. Man wird in einem spätem Kapitel <Siehe Band 26, 3. Teil, S. 25-28> sehn, welche drollige Bocksprünge Malthus macht, wenn er auf diesem Weg hinter das Geheimnis des Mehrwerts und des spezifischen Verhältnisses desselben zum variablen Teil des Kapitals durchzudringen sucht. Was die Profitrate als solche zeigt, ist vielmehr gleichmäßiges Verhalten des Überschusses zu gleich großen Teilen des Kapitals, das von diesem Gesichtspunkt aus überhaupt keine inneren Unterschiede zeigt, außer dem zwischen fixem und zirkulierendem Kapital. Und diesen Unterschied auch nur, weil der Überschuß doppelt berechnet wird. Nämlich erstens als einfache Größe: Überschuß über den Kostpreis. In dieser seiner ersten Form geht das ganze zirkulierende Kapital in den Kostpreis ein, während vom fixen Kapital nur der Verschleiß in ihn eingeht. Ferner zweitens: das Verhältnis dieses Wertüberschusses zum Gesamtwert des vorgeschoßnen Kapitals. Hier geht der Wert des ganzen fixen Kapitals so gut wie der des zirkulierenden in die Rechnung ein. Das zirkulierende Kapital geht also beidemal in derselben Weise ein, während das fixe Kapital das eine Mal in einer verschiednen, das andre Mal in derselben Weise wie das zirkulierende Kapital eingeht. So drängt sich der Unterschied zwischen zirkulierendem und fixem Kapital hier als der einzige auf.
profit shown first, source hidden

When the rate of surplus-value is known and its magnitude given, the rate of profit expresses nothing but what it actually is: another way of measuring the surplus-value — measuring it against the value of the total capital, instead of against the value of the part of capital from whose exchange with labour it directly springs. But in reality — that is, in the world of appearances — the matter stands the other way round. The surplus-value is given, but given as the excess of the commodity's selling price over its cost price; and it remains a mystery where this excess comes from — from the exploitation of labour in the production process, from overreaching the buyers in circulation, or from both.

What is further given is the ratio of this excess to the value of the total capital: the rate of profit. Working out this excess of the selling price over the cost price as a ratio to the value of the total capital advanced is very important and quite natural, since it actually yields the proportion in which the total capital has been valorized — its degree of valorization. Starting from this rate of profit, then, absolutely no specific relation can be inferred between the excess and the part of the capital laid out in wages. We shall see in a later chapter what comic contortions Malthus goes through when he tries to reach, by this route, behind the secret of surplus-value and its specific relation to the variable part of capital.

What the rate of profit as such actually shows is that the excess spreads evenly over equal portions of the capital — every equal slice looks equally productive — a capital which, from this point of view, shows no inner differences at all, except the one between fixed and circulating capital. And even this difference only because the excess gets calculated twice over. First, as a simple magnitude: excess over the cost price. In this, its first form, the whole of the circulating capital enters the cost price, while of the fixed capital only the wear and tear enters it. Second: the ratio of this value-excess to the total value of the capital advanced. Here the value of the whole fixed capital enters the calculation just as much as that of the circulating capital. So the circulating capital enters in the same way both times, while the fixed capital enters one time differently and the other time in the same way as the circulating capital. That is how the distinction between circulating and fixed capital comes to stand out here as the only one that matters.

Der Überschuß also, wenn er, hegelisch gesprochen, sich aus der Profitrate in sich zurückreflektiert, oder anders, der Überschuß, näher durch die Profitrate charakterisiert, erscheint als ein Überschuß, den das Kapital über seinen eignen Wert hinaus jährlich, oder in einer bestimmten Zirkulationsperiode, erzeugt.
capital seems to grow itself

Once the excess is measured as a rate of profit, it appears as something capital generates, year by year or over some given period of circulation, above and beyond its own value. In Hegel's idiom, the excess is reflected back into itself out of the rate of profit.

Obgleich daher die Profitrate von der Rate des Mehrwerts numerisch verschieden ist, während Mehrwert und Profit in der Tat dasselbe und auch numerisch gleich sind, so ist der Profit jedoch eine verwandelte Form des Mehrwerts, eine Form, worin sein Ursprung und das Geheimnis seines Daseins verschleiert und ausgelöscht ist. In der Tat ist der Profit die Erscheinungsform des Mehrwerts, welcher letztre erst durch Analyse aus der erstern herausgeschält werden muß. Im Mehrwert ist das Verhältnis zwischen Kapital und Arbeit bloßgelegt; im Verhältnis von Kapital und Profit, d.h. von Kapital und dem Mehrwert, wie er einerseits als im Zirkulationsprozeß realisierter Überschuß über den Kostpreis der Ware, andrerseits als ein durch sein Verhältnis zum Gesamtkapital näher bestimmter Überschuß erscheint, erscheint das Kapital als Verhältnis zu sich selbst, ein Verhältnis, worin es sich als ursprüngliche Wertsumme von einem, von ihm selbst gesetzten Neuwert unterscheidet. Daß es diesen Neuwert während seiner Bewegung durch den Produktionsprozeß und den Zirkulationsprozeß erzeugt, dies ist im Bewußtsein. Aber wie dies geschieht, das ist nun mystifiziert und scheint von ihm selbst zukommenden, verborgnen Qualitäten herzustammen.
profit: the mask surplus-value wears

So although the rate of profit is numerically different from the rate of surplus-value, while surplus-value and profit are in fact the same thing and numerically equal too, profit is nevertheless a transformed form of surplus-value — a form in which its origin and the secret of its existence are veiled and extinguished. In fact, profit is the form in which surplus-value appears, and surplus-value itself first has to be peeled out of that form by analysis.

In surplus-value, the relation between capital and labour lies exposed. In the relation between capital and profit, capital appears instead as a relation to itself — a relation in which it marks itself off, as an original sum of value, from a new value it has itself set going. Profit is the surplus-value as it appears: on one side an excess over the commodity's cost price, realized in circulation; on the other an excess sized against the total capital. That it generates this new value in the course of its movement through the production process and the circulation process is present to consciousness. But how this happens is now mystified, and seems to stem from hidden qualities belonging to capital itself.

Je weiter wir den Verwertungsprozeß des Kapitals verfolgen, um so mehr wird sich das Kapitalverhältnis mystifizieren, und um so weniger das Geheimnis seines inneren Organismus bloßlegen.
the deeper in, the more it hides

The further we follow capital's process of valorization, the more the capital relation gets mystified, and the less the secret of its inner organism gets laid bare.

In diesem Abschnitt ist die Profitrate numerisch von der Rate des Mehrwerts verschieden; dagegen sind Profit und Mehrwert behandelt als dieselbe numerische Größe, nur in verschiedner Form. Im folgenden Abschnitt werden wir sehn, wie die Veräußerlichung weitergeht und der Profit auch numerisch als eine vom Mehrwert verschiedne Größe sich darstellt.
next: profit and surplus-value diverge too

In this section, the rate of profit is numerically different from the rate of surplus-value; but profit and surplus-value are treated as the same numerical magnitude, only in a different form. In the following section we shall see how this externalization goes further still, and profit comes to present itself as numerically a different magnitude from surplus-value as well.

Kap. 2
The Rate of Profit as the Capitalist's Measure
Profit has been shown to be surplus-value under a new name. The next pages ask how it is measured, and find that the measure the capitalist uses is exactly the one that hides the source.
The general formula for capital is M - C - M', i.e. a sum of value is cast into circulation in order to extract a greater sum. The process that creates this greater sum of value is capitalist production; the process that realizes it is the circulation of capital. The capitalist does not produce commodities for their own sake, neither for their use-value nor for his own personal consumption. The product in which the capitalist is really interested is not the palpable product itself, but rather the excess in the value of the product over and above the value of the capital consumed in it. The capitalist advances the capital as a whole without considering the different roles that its components will play in the production of surplus-value. He advances all these components equally, not only so as to reproduce the capital he has advanced but also to produce an excess value over and above this. He can convert the value he advances into a higher value only by exchanging it with living labour, by the exploitation of living labour. But he can exploit labour only in so far as he advances at the same time the conditions for the realization of this labour, i.e. means and object of labour, machinery and raw materials, that is by transforming a certain sum of value that he has in his possession into the form of the conditions of production. Similarly, he is only a capitalist at all, and can only undertake the process of exploiting labour, because he confronts, as proprietor of the conditions of labour, the worker as the mere owner of labour-power. We have already shown in Volume 1 how it is precisely the possession of these means of production by the non-workers that turns the workers into wage-labourers and the non-workers into capitalists.
the capitalist's real aim

Capital's basic formula is: money goes out, and more money comes back — money, then a commodity, then more money. Producing that extra money is what capitalist production does; realizing it in the market is what the circulation of capital does.

The capitalist does not make a commodity for its own sake, and not because he wants to use it or consume it himself. What actually interests him is not the physical product but the excess of value the product has over the value of the capital used up making it.

He advances the whole of his capital without caring what different jobs its parts play in producing surplus-value. He lays out every part equally — not just to get his capital back, but to get more value than he put in. He can only turn the value of the variable capital he advances — the part he lays out on wages — into a bigger value by exchanging it for living labour — by exploiting that labour. But he can only exploit labour by advancing, at the same time, the conditions that let that labour happen at all: the means of labour and its object, machinery and raw material. In other words, he turns a sum of value he owns into the form of the means of production. And he is only a capitalist, only able to exploit labour in the first place, because as the owner of these conditions of labour he stands facing the worker, who owns nothing but labour-power. As was shown earlier, in Volume 1, it is exactly this — the non-workers owning the means of production — that turns workers into wage-labourers and non-workers into capitalists.

It makes no difference to the capitalist whether we see him as advancing the constant capital to make a profit out of his variable capital, or advancing the variable capital in order to valorize the constant; whether he lays out money on wages in order to give machines and raw material a higher value, or advances money in machinery and raw material in order to exploit labour. Even though it is only the variable part of capital that creates surplus-value, it does so only under the condition that the other parts are advanced as well, i.e. the conditions of production for labour. Since the capitalist can exploit labour only by advancing constant capital, and since he can valorize the constant capital only by advancing the variable, these are both one and the same in his eyes, and this is all the more so in that the actual degree of his profit is determined in relation not to his variable capital but to his total capital; not by the rate of surplus-value but by the rate of profit, which, as we shall see, may remain the same while expressing different rates of surplus-value.
why the parts blur together

It makes no difference to the capitalist how he pictures this process. He can just as well say he advances constant capital in order to squeeze a profit out of the variable part, as say he advances the variable part in order to valorize the constant part — to make it yield more value than it cost. He can say he lays out money in wages so as to raise the value of machines and raw material, or that he advances money in machinery and raw material so that he can exploit labour.

Only the variable part of capital creates surplus-value — but it only creates it on the condition that the other parts, the conditions of production for that labour, are advanced too. Because the capitalist can only exploit labour by advancing constant capital, and can only valorize constant capital by advancing variable capital, all these parts merge together equally in his mind. This is all the more so because the actual size of his profit is fixed not by its ratio to the variable capital, but by its ratio to the total capital — not by the rate of surplus-value, but by the rate of profit, which, as we shall see, can stay the same while expressing different rates of surplus-value.

The costs of the product include all the components of its value which the capitalist has paid for, or for which he has cast an equivalent into the production process. These costs must be replaced even if his capital is to do no more than maintain itself, reproduce its original magnitude.
what counts as costs

What the product costs the capitalist is every part of its value he actually paid out, or threw an equivalent into production for. Recovering that much gets him nowhere new: it only puts his capital back where it started, at the same size.

The value contained in a commodity is equal to the labour-time taken in making it, and this consists of both paid and unpaid labour. The costs of the commodity for the capitalist, on the other hand, include only the part of the labour objectified in it for which he has actually paid. The surplus labour contained in the commodity costs the capitalist nothing, even though it costs the worker labour, every bit as much as the paid labour does, and even though both paid and unpaid labour create value and enter the commodity as elements of value formation. The capitalist's profit, therefore, comes from the fact that he has something to sell for which he has not paid. The surplus-value or profit consists precisely in the excess of commodity value over its cost price, i.e. in the excess of the total sum of labour contained in the commodity over the sum of labour that is actually paid for. The surplus-value, from wherever it may derive, is consequently an excess over and above the total capital advanced. This excess then stands in a certain ratio to the total capital, as expressed by the fraction s/C, where C stands for the total capital. We thus obtain the rate of profit s/C = s/(c+v), as distinct from the rate of surplus-value s/v.
profit from unpaid labour

The value contained in a commodity equals the labour-time its production costs, and that labour splits into paid and unpaid. But the commodity's costs for the capitalist consist only of the part of the labour objectified in it — the labour already worked up in the product — that he has actually paid for.

The surplus labour contained in the commodity costs the capitalist nothing — even though it costs the worker labour just as much as the paid labour does, and even though it creates value just as much as the paid labour does, going into the commodity as a value-forming element exactly like the rest. The capitalist's profit comes from the fact that he has something to sell that he has not paid for.

Surplus-value, or profit, consists precisely in the excess of the commodity's value over its cost price — that is, in the excess of the total labour contained in the commodity over the paid labour contained in it. Surplus-value, wherever it springs from, is therefore an excess over the whole capital advanced. This excess stands in a ratio to the total capital, expressed in the fraction s/C, where C means the total capital. That gives us the rate of profit, s/C = s/(c+v), as distinct from the rate of surplus-value, s/v.

The rate of surplus-value, as measured against the variable capital, is known as the rate of surplus-value; the rate of surplus-value, as measured against the total capital, is known as the rate of profit. These are two different standards for measuring the same quantity, and as a result are able to express the different relations in which the same quantity may stand.
two measures, one magnitude

The rate of surplus-value measured against the variable capital is called the rate of surplus-value. The same rate of surplus-value measured against the total capital is called the rate of profit. These are two different measurements of the same amount — the same amount, measured once against the variable capital and once against the total capital — and because the yardsticks differ, they express two different ratios of that one amount at the same time.

It is the transformation of surplus-value into profit that is derived from the transformation of the rate of surplus-value into the profit rate, not the other way round. In actual fact, the rate of profit is the historical starting-point. Surplus-value and the rate of surplus-value are, relative to this, the invisible essence to be investigated, whereas the rate of profit and hence the form of surplus-value as profit are visible surface phenomena.
the rate transforms first

The transformation of surplus-value into profit has to be derived from the transformation of the rate of surplus-value into the rate of profit — not the other way round. And in fact the rate of profit is the historical starting point.

Surplus-value and the rate of surplus-value are, relatively speaking, the invisible thing, the essential thing still to be worked out; the rate of profit — and so the form surplus-value takes as profit — shows itself on the surface of appearances.

As far as the individual capitalist is concerned, it is evident enough that the only thing that interests him is the ratio of the surplus-value, the excess value which he receives from selling his commodities, to the total capital advanced for the production of these commodities, whereas not only do the specific ratios of this excess value to the particular components of his capital, and its inner connections with them, not interest him, but it is actually in his interest to disguise these particular ratios and inner connections.
why the capitalist stays vague

For the individual capitalist, only one thing matters: the ratio between the surplus-value, the excess value he sells his commodities for, and the total capital advanced to produce them. The specific ratio of this excess to the particular parts of capital, and its inner connection with them, does not interest him at all — in fact, it suits him to keep this specific ratio and this inner connection hazy and out of view.

Kap. 2
Circulation and the Mystification of the Capital Relation
The two rates have been defined and their order fixed. The text now follows the profit form out into circulation and competition, where the source of the surplus disappears from view altogether.
Even though the excess value of the commodity over its cost price arises in the immediate process of production, it is only in the circulation process that it is realized, and it appears all the more readily to derive from the circulation process in as much as in the world as it actually is, the world of competition, i.e. on the market, it depends on market conditions whether or not this excess is realized and to what extent. It needs no further elaboration here that, if a commodity is sold above or below its value, there is simply a different distribution of the surplus-value, and that this distribution, the altered ratio in which various individuals partake of the surplus-value, in no way affects either the magnitude or the character of the surplus-value itself. Not only is the circulation process, for its part, the scene of those transformations that were considered in Volume 2, but these also coincide with actual competition, the purchase and sale of commodities above or below their value, so that, as far as the individual capitalist is concerned, the surplus-value that he realizes depends just as much on this mutual cheating as on the direct exploitation of labour.
profit's look of coming from circulation

Although the excess of the commodity's value over its cost price arises in the immediate production process, it is only realized in the circulation process — and it looks all the more as if circulation were where the extra value came from, since in reality, within competition, on the actual market, it depends on market conditions whether, and to what degree, this excess gets realized at all. There is no need to spell out that when a commodity sells above or below its value, this only means a different distribution of the surplus-value; and this different distribution — the changed proportion in which different people share in the surplus-value — changes nothing at all, either in the magnitude or in the nature of the surplus-value.

In the actual circulation process, it is not only the transformations we examined in Volume 2 that take place; they also coincide with real competition, with the buying and selling of commodities above or below their value — so that for the individual capitalist, the surplus-value he himself realizes depends just as much on mutual cheating as on the direct exploitation of labour.

The circulation process is affected by the circulation time as well as by the working time, the time of circulation restricting the surplus-value that can be realized in a certain period. Other aspects deriving from circulation also react with decisive effect on the immediate process of production itself. Both these processes, the immediate process of production and the circulation process, constantly run into one another and intertwine, and in this way their distinguishing features are continuously blurred. In the circulation process, as we have already shown, the production of surplus-value, and of value in general, assumes new characteristics. Capital runs through the cycle of its transformations, and finally it steps as it were from its inner organic life into its external relations, relations where it is not capital and labour that confront one another, but on the one hand capital and capital, and on the other hand individuals as simple buyers and sellers once again. Circulation time and working time cut across each other's paths, and both appear to determine surplus-value in the same way. The original form in which capital and wage-labour confront one another is disguised by the intervention of relations that seem to be independent of this; surplus-value itself does not appear as having been produced by the appropriation of labour-time, but as the excess of the sale price of commodities over their cost price, this latter readily presenting itself therefore as their proper value (valeur intrinsèque), so that profit appears as an excess of the sale price of commodities over their immanent value.
circulation blurs where profit comes from

In the circulation process, alongside labour-time, circulation-time comes into play, and this limits the mass of surplus-value realizable in a given period. Other factors, arising from circulation, also reach into the immediate production process and help determine it. Both processes — immediate production and circulation — constantly run into each other, interpenetrate, and so constantly blur their distinguishing marks.

The production of surplus-value, like value generally, takes on new characteristics in the circulation process, as shown earlier; capital runs through the circuit of its transformations; finally it steps, so to speak, out of its inner organic life into external relations of life — relations in which it is no longer capital facing labour, but on one side capital facing capital, and on the other side individuals simply facing each other again as buyers and sellers. Circulation-time and labour-time cross each other, so both look equally responsible for the surplus-value. The original form in which capital and wage-labour confront each other is disguised when relations step in that look as if they had nothing to do with it. Surplus-value itself no longer appears as the product of appropriating labour-time, but as the excess of the commodities' selling price over their cost price — and this cost price then easily presents itself as their real, intrinsic value (valeur intrinsèque), so that profit appears as the excess of the selling price of commodities over their inherent value.

It is true that the nature of surplus-value persistently impresses itself on the capitalist's consciousness in the course of the immediate production process, as we were shown by his greed for the labour-time of others, etc., when we were simply considering surplus-value as such. However:
(1) The immediate process of production is itself simply an evanescent moment, which is constantly passing over into the process of circulation, and vice versa, so that any inkling of the source of his profit, i.e. of the nature of surplus-value, which dawns more or less clearly on the capitalist in the production process itself, appears at the most as an equally valid moment alongside the notion that the excess that is realized stems from a movement that is independent of the production process itself and derives from the sphere of circulation, a movement therefore that capital possesses independently of its relation to labour. These phenomena of circulation are even adduced by modern economists such as Ramsay, Malthus, Senior, Torrens, etc. as direct proofs that capital in its mere material existence, independently of its social relation to labour (which is precisely how it comes to be capital), is an autonomous source of surplus-value alongside labour and independent of it.
(2) Under the heading of costs, which include not only wages but also the price of raw material, the depreciation of the machinery, etc., the extortion of unpaid labour appears simply as an economy in the payment for one of the articles that comprise these costs, simply as a lesser payment for a certain quantity of labour, an economy similar to that made when raw material is bought more cheaply or the wear and tear of machinery is reduced. The extortion of surplus labour then loses its specific character. Its specific relationship to surplus-value is obscured, and this is greatly furthered and facilitated by the representation of the value of labour-power in the form of wages, as we showed in Volume 1, Part Six [Chapter 19].
why the capitalist barely notices

Certainly, during the immediate production process, the nature of surplus-value keeps entering the capitalist's consciousness — his greed for other people's labour-time already showed us as much, when we looked at surplus-value earlier. But that awareness is checked by two things.

First, the immediate production process itself is only a passing phase — always tipping over into circulation, as circulation tips back into it — so that whatever inkling, clearer or dimmer, dawns in the production process about the source of the gain made there, that is, about the nature of surplus-value, appears at best as no more than one notion among equally valid others, alongside the idea that the realized excess springs from a movement independent of the production process, arising from circulation itself, and so belonging to capital independently of its relation to labour at all. Indeed, these very circulation phenomena are cited directly by modern economists such as Ramsay, Malthus, Senior, Torrens, and others as proof that capital, in its mere thing-like existence — independent of the social relation to labour that alone makes it capital — is itself an independent source of surplus-value alongside labour and independent of it.

Second, under the heading of costs — which covers wages just as much as the price of raw material, wear and tear of machinery, and so on — the extraction of unpaid labour appears only as a saving in paying for one of the items that enters into costs, only as paying less for a given quantity of labour; exactly as a saving is also made when raw material is bought cheaper, or the wear of machinery is reduced. In this way the squeezing-out of surplus labour loses its specific character; its specific relation to surplus-value is obscured; and this is greatly helped along, as was shown in Volume 1, by presenting the value of labour-power in the form of wages.

Since all sections of capital equally appear as sources of the excess value (profit), the capital relation is mystified.
the thesis: every part looks profitable

Because all parts of capital equally come to appear as sources of the excess value — of profit — the capital relation is mystified.

Yet the way that surplus-value is transformed into the form of profit, by way of the rate of profit, is only a further extension of that inversion of subject and object which already occurs in the course of the production process itself. We saw in that case how all the subjective productive forces of labour present themselves as productive forces of capital. On the one hand, value, i.e. the past labour that dominates living labour, is personified into the capitalist; on the other hand, the worker conversely appears as mere objectified labour-power, as a commodity. This inverted relationship necessarily gives rise, even in the simple relation of production itself, to a correspondingly inverted conception of the situation, a transposed consciousness, which is further developed by the transformations and modifications of the circulation process proper.
labour's power relabelled as capital's

The way surplus-value gets transformed into the form of profit, by passing through the rate of profit, is only the further development of a reversal of subject and object that already goes on during the production process itself. We already saw there how all the subjective productive forces of labour come to present themselves as productive forces of capital. On one side, value — past labour, dominating living labour — is personified in the capitalist; on the other side, conversely, the worker appears as mere objectified labour-power, as a commodity. Out of this inverted relation there necessarily springs, already within the simple relation of production itself, a matching upside-down idea — a way of seeing that has the relation the wrong way round — one that is then further developed through the transformations and modifications of the actual circulation process.

As can be studied in the case of the Ricardian school, it is completely wrong-headed to seek directly to present the laws of the profit rate as laws of the rate of surplus-value, or vice versa. In the mind of the capitalist these things are of course not distinguished. The expression s/C measures surplus-value against the value of the total capital advanced for its production, of which one part is completely consumed in this production, while another part is simply applied. In fact, the ratio s/C expresses the degree of valorization of the whole capital advanced; i.e. viewed in accordance with the conceptual, inner connection and the actual nature of surplus-value, it shows how the variation of the variable capital is related in magnitude to the total capital advanced.
two rates, not one law

As can be studied in the Ricardian school, it is a thoroughly mistaken attempt to try to present the laws of the rate of profit directly as laws of the rate of surplus-value, or the other way round. In the capitalist's own head, naturally, the two are not distinguished at all. In the expression s/C, the surplus-value is measured against the value of the total capital advanced for its production — a capital of which one part is consumed outright in that production while another part is only put to work and stays in place. In fact the ratio s/C expresses the degree to which the whole advanced capital has been valorized — how much it has grown in value — that is, taken in line with the inner, conceptual connection and the nature of surplus-value, it shows how the size of the variation in the variable capital relates to the size of the total capital advanced.

In itself, the value of the total capital stands in no inner relationship to the amount of surplus-value, at least not directly. As far as its material elements are concerned, the total capital minus the variable capital, i.e. the constant capital, consists of the material conditions for the realization of labour - its materials and means. In order that a definite quantity of labour may be realized in commodities, and therefore form value, a definite quantity of materials and means of labour is required. There is a definite technical proportion between the amount of labour and the mass of means of production to which this living labour is to be added, a proportion that depends on the particular character of the labour. There is also therefore a definite proportion between the amount of surplus-value or surplus labour, and the mass of means of production. If the labour needed for the production of the worker's wage amounts to 6 hours per day, for example, the worker has to work for 12 hours in order to perform 6 hours of surplus labour and create a surplus-value of 100 per cent. In 12 hours he consumes twice as much in the way of means of production as he does in 6 hours. But this does not mean that the surplus-value he adds in 6 hours stands in any direct relationship to the value of the means of production that are used in these 6 or 12 hours. Their value is completely immaterial here; what matters is the amount technically needed. It is quite unimportant whether the raw material or means of labour are cheap or dear, as long as they possess the use-value required and are present in the technically prescribed proportions for the labour they are to absorb. But if I know that x lb. of cotton are spun in an hour, and they cost y shillings, I also know that in 12 hours 12x lb. of cotton, = 12y shillings, are spun, and I can then calculate the ratio of the surplus-value to the value spun in 12 hours as well as to the value spun in 6. However, the ratio of living labour to the value of these means of production comes into question here only in as much as y shillings serves as the name for x lb. of cotton; because a certain specific quantity of cotton has a definite price, and conversely, therefore, a specific price can serve as an index for a definite quantity of cotton, as long as the price of cotton does not change. If I know that in order to appropriate 6 hours' surplus labour I have to have the workers perform 12 hours' labour, I must have enough cotton ready for 12 hours, and if I know the price of this quantity of cotton, there exists in this roundabout way a certain relationship between the price of cotton (as index of the quantity needed) and the surplus-value. But I can never argue conversely from the price of the raw material to the quantity of raw material that can be spun in one hour but will not do for six. There is thus no inner and necessary relationship between the value of the constant capital and the surplus-value, nor, hence, is there one between the value of the total capital (= c + v) and the surplus-value.
cotton by the pound, not by value

In itself, the value-magnitude of the total capital stands in no inner relation to the magnitude of the surplus-value — at least not directly. By its material elements, the total capital minus the variable capital — that is, the constant capital — consists of the material conditions for carrying out labour: means of labour and material to work on. For a given quantity of labour to realize itself in commodities, and so to form value at all, a given quantity of material and means of labour is required. Depending on the particular character of the labour applied, a definite technical ratio holds between the mass of labour — the sheer amount of it — and the mass of the means of production to which that living labour is to be applied. So, to that extent, a definite ratio also holds between the mass of the surplus-value or surplus labour and the mass of the means of production.

If, for example, the necessary labour needed to produce the wage comes to 6 hours a day, the worker must work 12 hours in order to do 6 hours of surplus labour and produce a surplus-value of 100 per cent. In the 12 hours he uses up twice as many means of production as in the 6. But the surplus-value he adds in those 6 hours stands in no direct relation at all to the value of the means of production used up in the 6 hours, or even in the 12. That value makes no difference here; what matters is only the physical amount the work technically needs. Whether the raw material or the means of labour is cheap or dear makes no difference either, so long as it has the use-value required and is present in the technically prescribed proportion to the living labour it has to absorb.

If, however, I know that in one hour x pounds of cotton are spun and cost y shillings, then I of course also know that in 12 hours 12x pounds of cotton = 12y shillings are spun, and I can then work out the ratio of the surplus-value to the value of the 12 just as well as to the value of the 6. But the relation of living labour to the value of the means of production only enters here because y shillings serves as a name for x pounds of cotton — because a given quantity of cotton has a given price, and so, conversely, a given price can serve as an index for a given quantity of cotton, so long as the price of cotton does not change. If I know that, to appropriate 6 hours of surplus labour, I must have someone work 12 hours — must therefore have cotton ready for 12 hours — and I know the price of the quantity of cotton needed for those 12 hours, then a relation does exist, by a roundabout route, between the price of the cotton (as an index of the necessary quantity) and the surplus-value. But conversely, I can never infer from the price of the raw material the mass of raw material that can be spun in, say, one hour rather than six. So there is no inner, necessary relation between the value of the constant capital and the surplus-value — and therefore none between the value of the total capital (= c + v) and the surplus-value either.

If the rate of surplus-value and its absolute magnitude are both given, the rate of profit expresses no more than what it in fact is, i.e. an alternative measurement of surplus-value, its measurement in terms of the value of the total capital, instead of in terms of the value of that part of capital from which it directly derives by way of its exchange against labour. In actuality, however, i.e. in the world of phenomena, things are the other way round. Surplus-value is given, but given as an excess of the sale price of the commodity over its cost price; and it therefore remains a mystery how this excess arises - from the exploitation of labour in the production process, from the mutual cheating of the dealers in the circulation process, or from both. What is also given is the relationship of this excess to the value of the total capital, i.e. the rate of profit. The calculation of this excess of the sale price over the cost price in terms of the total capital advanced is very important, and naturally so, since this is in fact the way that we find the ratio in which the total capital has been valorized or its degree of valorization. But if we start from this rate of profit, we can never establish any specific relationship between the excess and the part of capital laid out on wages. We shall see in a later chapter the amusing capers Malthus cuts when he tries in this way to penetrate the secret of surplus-value and its specific relationship to the variable part of capital. What the rate of profit as such shows is rather a uniform relationship of the excess to equally important parts of the capital, which from this point of view exhibits no internal distinctions apart from that between fixed and circulating. Even this distinction arises only in so far as the excess is calculated in two ways. Firstly, as a simple quantity: the excess over and above the cost price. In this first form the circulating capital enters the cost price in full, while the fixed capital enters only to the extent of its depreciation. Secondly, there is the relationship of this excess value to the total value of the capital advanced. Here the value of the entire fixed capital comes into the calculation as much as the value of the circulating capital. The circulating capital thus comes into the calculation in the same way each time, while the fixed capital is involved in the first case in a different way from the circulating capital, in the second case in the same way. Thus the distinction between circulating and fixed capital suggests itself here to us as the only one.
profit shown first, source hidden

When the rate of surplus-value is known and its magnitude given, the rate of profit expresses nothing but what it actually is: another way of measuring the surplus-value — measuring it against the value of the total capital, instead of against the value of the part of capital from whose exchange with labour it directly springs. But in reality — that is, in the world of appearances — the matter stands the other way round. The surplus-value is given, but given as the excess of the commodity's selling price over its cost price; and it remains a mystery where this excess comes from — from the exploitation of labour in the production process, from overreaching the buyers in circulation, or from both.

What is further given is the ratio of this excess to the value of the total capital: the rate of profit. Working out this excess of the selling price over the cost price as a ratio to the value of the total capital advanced is very important and quite natural, since it actually yields the proportion in which the total capital has been valorized — its degree of valorization. Starting from this rate of profit, then, absolutely no specific relation can be inferred between the excess and the part of the capital laid out in wages. We shall see in a later chapter what comic contortions Malthus goes through when he tries to reach, by this route, behind the secret of surplus-value and its specific relation to the variable part of capital.

What the rate of profit as such actually shows is that the excess spreads evenly over equal portions of the capital — every equal slice looks equally productive — a capital which, from this point of view, shows no inner differences at all, except the one between fixed and circulating capital. And even this difference only because the excess gets calculated twice over. First, as a simple magnitude: excess over the cost price. In this, its first form, the whole of the circulating capital enters the cost price, while of the fixed capital only the wear and tear enters it. Second: the ratio of this value-excess to the total value of the capital advanced. Here the value of the whole fixed capital enters the calculation just as much as that of the circulating capital. So the circulating capital enters in the same way both times, while the fixed capital enters one time differently and the other time in the same way as the circulating capital. That is how the distinction between circulating and fixed capital comes to stand out here as the only one that matters.

We might say in the Hegelian fashion that the excess is reflected back into itself from the rate of profit, or else that the excess, which is characterized more specifically by the rate of profit, appears as an excess which the capital produces over and above its own value, either annually or in some definite period of circulation.
capital seems to grow itself

Once the excess is measured as a rate of profit, it appears as something capital generates, year by year or over some given period of circulation, above and beyond its own value. In Hegel's idiom, the excess is reflected back into itself out of the rate of profit.

Thus even if the rate of profit is numerically different from the rate of surplus-value, while surplus-value and profit are in fact the same and even numerically identical, profit is still for all that a transformed form of surplus-value, a form in which its origin and the secret of its existence are veiled and obliterated. In point of fact, profit is the form of appearance of surplus-value, and the latter can be sifted out from the former only by analysis. In surplus-value, the relationship between capital and labour is laid bare. In the relationship between capital and profit, i.e. between capital and surplus-value as it appears on the one hand as an excess over the cost price of the commodity realized in the circulation process and on the other hand as an excess determined more precisely by its relationship to the total capital, capital appears as a relationship to itself, a relationship in which it is distinguished, as an original sum of value, from another new value that it posits. It appears to consciousness as if capital creates this new value in the course of its movement through the production and circulation processes. But how this happens is now mystified, and appears to derive from hidden qualities that are inherent in capital itself.
profit: the mask surplus-value wears

So although the rate of profit is numerically different from the rate of surplus-value, while surplus-value and profit are in fact the same thing and numerically equal too, profit is nevertheless a transformed form of surplus-value — a form in which its origin and the secret of its existence are veiled and extinguished. In fact, profit is the form in which surplus-value appears, and surplus-value itself first has to be peeled out of that form by analysis.

In surplus-value, the relation between capital and labour lies exposed. In the relation between capital and profit, capital appears instead as a relation to itself — a relation in which it marks itself off, as an original sum of value, from a new value it has itself set going. Profit is the surplus-value as it appears: on one side an excess over the commodity's cost price, realized in circulation; on the other an excess sized against the total capital. That it generates this new value in the course of its movement through the production process and the circulation process is present to consciousness. But how this happens is now mystified, and seems to stem from hidden qualities belonging to capital itself.

The further we trace out the valorization process of capital, the more is the capital relationship mystified and the less are the secrets of its internal organization laid bare.
the deeper in, the more it hides

The further we follow capital's process of valorization, the more the capital relation gets mystified, and the less the secret of its inner organism gets laid bare.

In this Part, the rate of profit is taken as numerically different from the rate of surplus-value; profit and surplus-value on the other hand are treated as numerically identical magnitudes, different only in form. In the following Part we shall observe the further development of the externalization by which profit presents itself as a magnitude distinct from surplus-value in a numerical respect as well.
next: profit and surplus-value diverge too

In this section, the rate of profit is numerically different from the rate of surplus-value; but profit and surplus-value are treated as the same numerical magnitude, only in a different form. In the following section we shall see how this externalization goes further still, and profit comes to present itself as numerically a different magnitude from surplus-value as well.