thebase.works · Das Kapital III Kap. 38 · semantic zoom
Z3
Kap. 38
Die Voraussetzung und der Wasserfall
The reader arrives from an argument that cleared away what passes for rent: what a landowner receives may be interest on capital sunk in the earth, a deduction from average profit, or a deduction from wages - real payments, pricing land exactly as rent proper does without being rent. A landowner who does nothing is no peculiarity of rent at all. The form itself was still missing. Here the assumption is laid down — sale at the price of production, with no monopoly price anywhere — and the difficulty it makes is posed: if commodities sell at their prices of production, how can a ground-rent arise? What the chapter supplies is a cheaper producer's surplus profit, arising from selling at the governing price and not above it; its conversion into rent is left open.
Bei Analyse der Bodenrente wollen wir zunächst von der Voraussetzung ausgehn, daß Produkte, die eine solche Rente zahlen, bei denen ein Teil des Mehrwerts, also auch ein Teil des Gesamtpreises sich in Rente auflöst - für unsern Zweck reicht es hin, Ackerbauprodukte oder auch Bergwerksprodukte zu berücksichtigen -, daß also Boden- oder Bergwerksprodukte, wie alle andren Waren, zu ihren Produktionspreisen verkauft werden. D.h. ihre Verkaufspreise sind gleich ihren Kostelementen (dem Wert des aufgezehrten konstanten und variablen Kapitals) plus einem Profit, bestimmt durch die allgemeine Profitrate, berechnet auf das vorgeschoßne Gesamtkapital, verbrauchtes und nicht verbrauchtes. Wir nehmen also an, daß die durchschnittlichen Verkaufspreise dieser Produkte gleich ihren Produktionspreisen sind. Es fragt sich dann, wie unter dieser Voraussetzung sich eine Grundrente entwickeln, d.h. ein Teil des Profits sich in Grundrente verwandeln, daher ein Teil des Warenpreises dem Grundeigentümer anheimfallen kann.
The premise and the question

When we analyse ground-rent, we start from an assumption. The products that pay a rent of this kind — the ones where a part of the surplus-value, and so a part of the total price, is resolved into rent — are sold at their prices of production, just like every other commodity. For our purpose it is enough to consider farm products, or mining products.

So their sale prices are equal to their cost elements — the value of the constant and variable capital used up — plus a profit worked out from the general rate of profit and reckoned on the total capital advanced, whether that capital was used up or not. We assume, then, that the average sale prices of these products are equal to their prices of production. And now the question: how, on this assumption, can a ground-rent develop at all — that is, how can a part of profit turn into ground-rent, so that a part of the commodity price falls to the landowner?

Um den allgemeinen Charakter dieser Form der Grundrente zu zeigen, unterstellen wir, die Fabriken in einem Lande würden in überwiegender Anzahl durch Dampfmaschinen getrieben, eine bestimmte Minderzahl jedoch durch natürliche Wasserfälle. Unterstellen wir, der Produktionspreis in jenen Industriezweigen sei 115 für eine Masse von Waren, worin ein Kapital von 100 verzehrt ist. Die 15% Profit sind berechnet nicht nur auf das konsumierte Kapital von 100, sondern auf das Gesamtkapital, das in der Produktion dieses Warenwerts angewandt ist. Dieser Produktionspreis <1. Auflage: Produktionsprozeß; geändert nach dem Manuskript von Marx>, wie früher erörtert, ist bestimmt, nicht durch den individuellen Kostpreis jedes einzelnen produzierenden Industriellen, sondern durch den Kostpreis, den die Ware durchschnittlich kostet unter den Durchschnittsbedingungen des Kapitals in der ganzen Produktionssphäre. Es ist in der Tat der Marktproduktionspreis; der durchschnittliche Marktpreis im Unterschied zu seinen Oszillationen. Es ist überhaupt in der Gestalt des Marktpreises und weiter in der Gestalt des regulierenden Marktpreises oder Marktproduktionspreises, daß sich die Natur des Werts der Waren darstellt, sein Bestimmtsein nicht durch die zur Produktion eines bestimmten Warenquantums oder einzelner Waren individuell, für einen bestimmten einzelnen Produzenten notwendige Arbeitszeit, sondern durch die gesellschaftlich notwendige Arbeitszeit; durch die Arbeitszeit, die erheischt ist, unter dem gegebnen Durchschnitt der gesellschaftlichen Produktionsbedingungen das gesellschaftlich erheischte Gesamtquantum der auf dem Markt befindlichen Warenspezies zu erzeugen.
Why the example is a factory

To bring out what is general about this form of ground-rent, we take a case from industry. Suppose that the factories in a country are driven mostly by steam-engines, and a certain minority of them by natural waterfalls instead.

Suppose the price of production in those industries is 115 for a batch of commodities in which a capital of 100 is used up. The 15 per cent profit is worked out not only on the 100 of capital consumed, but on the whole capital applied in producing this commodity value. This price of production, as discussed earlier, is fixed not by the individual cost price of each manufacturer producing on his own, but by what the commodity costs on average, under the average conditions of capital in that entire sphere of production. It is in fact the market price of production: the average market price, as distinct from its oscillations.

And it is in the form of the market price, and further in the form of the governing market price or market price of production, that the nature of commodity value presents itself — its being determined not by the labour-time that is individually necessary to produce a particular quantity of commodities, or a few individual commodities, for one particular producer, but by socially necessary labour-time: the labour-time required, under the given average of social conditions of production, to produce the socially required total quantity of that species of commodity that is on the market.

Da die bestimmten Zahlenverhältnisse hier vollständig gleichgültig sind, wollen wir ferner annehmen, daß der Kostpreis in den Fabriken, die durch Wasserkraft getrieben werden, nur 90 statt 100 betrage. Da der den Markt regulierende Produktionspreis der Masse dieser Waren = 115, mit einem Profit von 15%, so werden die Fabrikanten, die ihre Maschinen mit Wasserkraft treiben, ebenfalls zu 115 verkaufen, d.h. zu dem den Marktpreis regulierenden Durchschnittspreis. Ihr Profit betrüge daher 25 statt 15; der regulierende Produktionspreis erlaubte ihnen einen Surplusprofit von 10% zu machen, nicht weil sie ihre Ware über, sondern weil sie sie zu dem Produktionspreis verkaufen, weil ihre Waren produziert werden oder ihr Kapital fungiert unter ausnahmsweis günstigen Bedingungen, Bedingungen, die über dem Durchschnittsniveau der in dieser Sphäre herrschenden ständen.
Surplus profit, not a surcharge

The particular figures here are completely immaterial, so let us assume further that the cost price in the factories driven by water-power comes to only 90 instead of 100. Since the price of production governing the market for the mass of these goods is 115, with a profit of 15 per cent, the manufacturers who drive their machines with water-power will also sell at 115 — that is, at the average price governing the market. Their profit would therefore be 25 instead of 15. The governing price of production would allow them to make a surplus profit of 10 per cent — not because they sell their commodity above the price of production, but because they sell it at the price of production, because their commodities are produced, or their capital functions, under exceptionally favourable conditions, conditions that stand above the average level ruling in that sphere.

Zweierlei zeigt sich sofort:
Two consequences announced

Two things become clear straight away.

Kap. 38
Erstens: ein Surplusprofit wie jeder andre
Behind us is the ground-clearing: products of the earth and of the mine sell at their prices of production, exactly as other commodities do, and the general concept of differential rent is being built on factories - a country's works mostly driven by steam, a minority by natural waterfalls. What is settled here is the character of the waterfall user's gain before any rent is in question. It is not a lucky deal or an accidental swing in market price. It is the difference between one producer's own price of production and the general price that governs the sphere, and the argument fixes exactly how far that difference reaches.
Erstens: Der Surplusprofit der Produzenten, die den natürlichen Wasserfall als Triebkraft anwenden, verhält sich zunächst wie aller Surplusprofit (und wir haben diese Kategorie bereits entwickelt bei Darstellung der Produktionspreise), der nicht zufälliges Resultat von Transaktionen im Zirkulationsprozeß, von zufälligen Schwankungen der Marktpreise ist. Dieser Surplusprofit also ist ebenfalls gleich der Differenz zwischen dem individuellen Produktionspreis dieser begünstigten Produzenten und dem allgemeinen gesellschaftlichen, den Markt regulierenden Produktionspreis dieser ganzen Produktionssphäre. Diese Differenz ist gleich dem Überschuß des allgemeinen Produktionspreises der Ware über ihren individuellen Produktionspreis. Die zwei regulierenden Grenzen dieses Überschusses sind auf der einen Seite der individuelle Kostpreis und daher der individuelle Produktionspreis, auf der andern der allgemeine Produktionspreis. Der Wert der mit dem Wasserfall produzierten Ware ist kleiner, weil zu ihrer Produktion ein kleineres Gesamtquantum Arbeit erfordert ist, nämlich weniger Arbeit, die in vergegenständlichter Form, als Teil des konstanten Kapitals eingeht. Die hier angewandte Arbeit ist produktiver, ihre individuelle Produktivkraft ist größer als die in der Masse derselben Art Fabriken angewandten Arbeit. Ihre größre Produktivkraft zeigt sich darin, daß sie, um dieselbe Masse Waren zu produzieren, ein geringres Quantum konstantes Kapital braucht, ein geringres Quantum vergegenständlichter Arbeit als die andren; daneben außerdem ein geringeres Quantum lebendiger Arbeit, da das Wasserrad nicht geheizt zu werden braucht. Diese größre individuelle Produktivkraft der angewandten Arbeit vermindert den Wert, aber auch den Kostpreis und damit den Produktionspreis der Ware. Für den Industriellen stellt sich dies so dar, daß für ihn der Kostpreis der Ware geringer ist. Er hat weniger vergegenständlichte Arbeit zu zahlen und ebenso weniger Arbeitslohn für weniger angewandte lebendige Arbeitskraft. Da der Kostpreis seiner Ware geringer, ist auch sein individueller Produktionspreis geringer. Der Kostpreis für ihn ist 90 statt 100. Also wäre auch sein individueller Produktionspreis statt 115 nur 103 1/2 (100 : 115 = 90 : 103 1/2). Die Differenz zwischen seinem individuellen Produktionspreis und dem allgemeinen ist begrenzt durch die Differenz zwischen seinem individuellen Kostpreis und dem allgemeinen. Dies ist eine der Größen, die die Grenzen für seinen Surplusprofit <1. Auflage: Surplusprodukt> bilden. Die andre ist die Größe des allgemeinen Produktionspreises, worin die allgemeine Profitrate als einer der regelnden Faktoren eingeht. Würden die Kohlen wohlfeiler, so nähme die Differenz zwischen seinem individuellen und dem allgemeinen Kostpreis ab und daher sein Surplusprofit. Müßte er die Ware zu ihrem individuellen Wert oder dem durch ihren individuellen Wert bestimmten Produktionspreis verkaufen, so fiele die Differenz fort. Sie ist einerseits das Resultat davon, daß die Ware zu ihrem allgemeinen Marktpreis verkauft wird, zum Preis, wozu die Konkurrenz die Einzelpreise ausgleicht, andrerseits davon, daß die größre individuelle Produktivkraft der von ihm in Bewegung gesetzten Arbeit nicht den Arbeitern zugute kommt, sondern, wie alle Produktivkraft der Arbeit, ihrem Anwender; daß sie sich als Produktivkraft des Kapitals darstellt.
surplus profit as a price difference

First: the surplus profit made by producers who run their works on a natural waterfall behaves to begin with just like any other surplus profit — and we have already worked this category out when we dealt with the price of production. It is not the chance result of deals made in the circulation process, or of accidental swings in market price. So this surplus profit is likewise equal to the difference between the individual price of production of these favoured producers and the general social price of production of the whole sphere of production, the one that governs the market. That difference is equal to the amount by which the general price of production of the commodity exceeds its individual price of production.

Two limits govern that excess: on one side the individual cost price, and hence the individual price of production; on the other the general price of production.

The commodity produced with the waterfall is worth less, because producing it takes a smaller total quantity of labour — less labour, that is, entering in objectified form, as part of the constant capital. The labour set to work here is more productive: its individual productivity is greater than that of the labour applied in the mass of factories of the same kind. This greater productivity shows itself in the fact that, to produce the same quantity of commodities, it needs a smaller quantity of constant capital, a smaller quantity of objectified labour, than the others; and beyond that a smaller quantity of living labour as well, since a water-wheel does not have to be heated. This greater individual productivity of the labour applied lowers the value, and also the cost price, and with it the price of production of the commodity. For the industrialist it presents itself like this: the cost price of the commodity is lower for him. He has less objectified labour to pay for, and likewise less in wages for the smaller quantity of living labour-power he sets to work. Since the cost price of his commodity is lower, his individual price of production is lower too. His cost price is 90 instead of 100. So his individual price of production would be only 103 1/2 instead of 115 (100 : 115 = 90 : 103 1/2).

The difference between his individual price of production and the general one is bounded by the difference between his individual cost price and the general one. That is one of the magnitudes that set the limits on his surplus profit. The other is the size of the general price of production, and the general rate of profit enters into it as one of the governing factors.

If coal were cheaper, the difference between his individual cost price and the general one would shrink, and so would his surplus profit. And if he had to sell the commodity at its own individual value, or at the price of production determined by that individual value, the difference would fall away altogether. The difference is the result of two things at once: the commodity is sold at its general market price, the price at which competition levels out the individual prices; and the greater individual productivity of the labour he sets in motion does not go to the workers but, like the productivity of labour in general, to whoever employs them — it presents itself as the productivity of capital.

Da die eine Schranke dieses Surplusprofits die Höhe des allgemeinen Produktionspreises ist, wovon die Höhe der allgemeinen Profitrate einer der Faktoren, so kann er nur entspringen aus der Differenz zwischen dem allgemeinen und dem individuellen Produktionspreis, daher aus der Differenz zwischen der individuellen und der allgemeinen Profitrate. Ein Überschuß über diese Differenz unterstellt den Verkauf von Produkt über, nicht zu, dem durch den Markt geregelten Produktionspreis.
the limit: no sale above it

One limit on this surplus profit is the level of the general price of production, and the general rate of profit is one of the factors in that level. So the surplus profit can arise only out of the difference between the general and the individual price of production, and hence out of the difference between the individual rate of profit and the general one. Anything over and above that difference would presuppose selling the product above the price of production that the market governs, and not at it.

Kap. 38
Zweitens: die monopolisierbare Naturkraft
You arrive carrying the cheaper production: the factory on the fall spends less, sells at the production price ruling the sphere, and keeps a surplus profit it did not earn by selling dear. That much is settled — no surcharge, no monopoly price. What is not settled is what the manufacturer owes the advantage to. What follows sifts the candidates: an unpaid natural force, which the steam user also enjoys; a merely better way of working, which competition erases; and, alone surviving, a force that only the holder of a particular place can use.
Zweitens: Bisher unterscheidet sich der Surplusprofit des Fabrikanten, der den natürlichen Wasserfall statt des Dampfs als Triebkraft anwendet, in keiner Art von allem andern Surplusprofit. Aller normale, d.h. nicht durch zufällige Verkaufsgeschäfte oder durch Schwankungen des Marktpreises hervorgebrachte Surplusprofit ist bestimmt durch die Differenz zwischen dem individuellen Produktionspreis der Waren dieses besondren Kapitals und dem allgemeinen Produktionspreis, der die Marktpreise der Waren des Kapitals dieser Produktionssphäre überhaupt regelt oder die Marktpreise der Waren des in dieser Produktionssphäre angelegten Gesamtkapitals.
baseline: how surplus profit is fixed

Secondly: so far the manufacturer who drives his works with a natural waterfall instead of steam has a surplus profit that differs in no way from any other.

All normal surplus profit — that is, surplus profit that does not come about through accidental sales or through swings in the market price — is fixed by the gap between the individual production price of the goods turned out by this particular capital and the general production price that rules the market prices of the goods of the capital of this sphere of production as a whole, or the market prices of the goods of the total capital invested in this sphere.

Aber jetzt kommt der Unterschied.
the difference now announced

But now the difference comes in.

Welchem Umstand verdankt der Fabrikant im vorliegenden Fall seinen Surplusprofit, den Überschuß, den der durch die allgemeine Profitrate regulierte Produktionspreis ihm persönlich abwirft?
what he owes it to

So what is it, in this case, that the manufacturer has to thank for his surplus profit — for the excess that the production price, governed by the general rate of profit, throws off to him personally?

In erster Instanz einer Naturkraft, der Triebkraft des Wasserfalls, der von Natur sich vorfindet und der nicht wie die Kohle, welche Wasser in Dampf verwandelt, selbst Produkt der Arbeit ist, daher Wert hat, durch ein Äquivalent bezahlt werden muß, kostet. Es ist ein natürlicher Produktionsagent, in dessen Erzeugung keine Arbeit eingeht.
first answer: a free natural force

The first answer: a natural force — the motive power of the waterfall. Nature supplies it of itself, and it is not itself a product of labour the way coal is, the coal that turns water into steam: coal is a product of labour, and therefore has value, has to be paid for with an equivalent, costs something.

The waterfall is a natural agent of production, and no labour goes into making it.

Aber das ist nicht alles. Der Fabrikant, der mit der Dampfmaschine arbeitet, wendet auch Naturkräfte an, die ihm nichts kosten, die aber die Arbeit produktiver machen, und sofern sie dadurch die Herstellung der für die Arbeiter erheischten Lebensmittel verwohlfeilern, den Mehrwert und daher den Profit erhöhen; die also ganz so gut vom Kapital monopolisiert werden wie die gesellschaftlichen Naturkräfte der Arbeit, die aus Kooperation, Teilung etc. entspringen. Der Fabrikant zahlt die Kohlen, aber nicht die Fähigkeit des Wassers, seinen Aggregatzustand zu ändern, in Dampf überzugehn, nicht die Elastizität des Dampfs usw. Diese Monopolisierung der Naturkräfte, d.h. der durch sie bewirkten Steigerung der Arbeitskraft, ist allem Kapital gemeinsam, das mit Dampfmaschinen arbeitet. Sie mag den Teil des Arbeitsprodukts, der Mehrwert darstellt, erhöhen gegen den Teil, der sich in Arbeitslohn verwandelt. Soweit sie dies tut, erhöht sie die allgemeine Profitrate, aber sie schafft keinen Surplusprofit, der eben im Überschuß des individuellen Profits über den Durchschnittsprofit besteht. Daß die Anwendung einer Naturkraft, des Wasserfalls, hier Surplusprofit schafft, kann also nicht allein aus der Tatsache entspringen, daß die gesteigerte Produktivkraft der Arbeit hier der Anwendung einer Naturkraft geschuldet ist. Es müssen weitere modifizierende Umstände eintreten.
free natural forces, no surplus profit

But that is not all. The manufacturer who works with a steam-engine also uses natural forces that cost him nothing — and those forces make labour more productive, and in so far as they cheapen the production of the means of subsistence the workers need, they raise surplus-value and therefore profit. Capital monopolizes them just as much as it does the natural social forces of labour that spring from cooperation, division of labour and so on. He pays for the coal, but not for water's capacity to change its state, to pass over into steam; not for the elasticity of steam, and so on.

Every capital that works with steam-engines shares in this monopolizing of natural forces — that is, of the boost to labour-power that these forces bring about. It may raise the part of the product of labour that represents surplus-value against the part that turns into wages. In so far as it does this, it raises the general rate of profit; but it creates no surplus profit, and surplus profit is by definition the amount by which an individual profit runs above the average profit.

So the fact that the use of a natural force, the waterfall, creates surplus profit here cannot come solely from the fact that the increased productive power of labour is owed here to the use of a natural force. Further modifying circumstances have to come into play.

Umgekehrt. Die bloße Anwendung von Naturkräften in der Industrie mag auf die Höhe der allgemeinen Profitrate, weil auf die Masse der zur Produktion notwendiger Lebensmittel erheischten Arbeit einwirken. Sie schafft aber an und für sich keine Abweichung von der allgemeinen Profitrate, und gerade um eine solche handelt es sich hier. Ferner: Der Surplusprofit, den sonst ein individuelles Kapital in einer besondren Produktionssphäre realisiert - denn die Abweichungen der Profitraten zwischen den besondren Produktionssphären gleichen sich fortwährend zur Durchschnittsprofitrate aus -, entspringt, von den nur zufälligen Abweichungen abgesehn, aus einer Verminderung des Kostpreises, also der Produktionskosten, die entweder dem Umstand geschuldet ist, daß Kapital in größren als den durchschnittlichen Massen angewandt wird und sich daher die faux frais der Produktion vermindern, während die allgemeinen Ursachen der Steigerung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit (Kooperation, Teilung etc.) in höherm Grade, mit mehr Intensität, weil auf größrem Arbeitsfeld, wirken können; oder aber dem Umstand, daß, abgesehn vom Umfang des fungierenden Kapitals, beßre Arbeitsmethoden, neue Erfindungen, verbesserte Maschinen, chemische Fabrikgeheimnisse etc., kurz neue, verbesserte, über dem Durchschnittsniveau stehende Produktionsmittel und Produktionsmethoden angewandt werden. Die Verminderung des Kostpreises und der daraus entfließende Surplusprofit entspringen hier aus der Art und Weise, wie das fungierende Kapital angelegt wird. Sie entspringen entweder daraus, daß es in ausnahmsweis großen Massen in einer Hand konzentriert ist - ein Umstand, der sich aufhebt, sobald gleich große Kapitalmassen durchschnittlich angewandt werden - oder daß Kapital von bestimmter Größe in besonders produktiver Weise fungiert - ein Umstand, der wegfällt, sobald sich die exzeptionelle Produktionsweise verallgemeinert oder von noch mehr entwickelter überflügelt wird.
the ordinary surplus profit cancels itself

Conversely. The bare use of natural forces in industry may bear on the level of the general rate of profit, since it bears on the mass of labour required for the production of the necessary means of subsistence. But in and of itself it creates no departure from the general rate of profit — and it is precisely a departure that is at issue here.

Then: the surplus profit that an individual capital otherwise realizes in a particular sphere of production — for the differences in the rate of profit between particular spheres are constantly being evened out into the average rate — comes, apart from merely accidental deviations, from a reduction of the cost price, that is, of production costs. And that reduction is owed either to the fact that capital is applied in larger than average masses, so that the incidental costs of production fall, while the general causes that raise the productive power of labour (cooperation, division of labour and so on) can act to a higher degree, with more intensity, because over a larger field; or to the fact that, apart from the size of the capital at work, better working methods, new inventions, improved machines, chemical trade secrets and so on — in short, new and improved means and methods of production standing above the average level — are used.

The fall in the cost price, and the surplus profit flowing from it, come here from the way the capital at work is invested. Either the capital is concentrated in exceptionally large masses in one hand — a state of affairs that cancels itself as soon as equally large masses of capital are applied on average — or capital of a particular size functions in a particularly productive way — a state of affairs that drops away as soon as the exceptional mode of production becomes general, or is overtaken by one still more developed.

Die Ursache des Surplusprofits entspringt hier also aus dem Kapital selbst (worin die davon in Bewegung gesetzte Arbeit einbegriffen); sei es aus einem Größenunterschied des angewandten Kapitals, sei es aus zweckmäßigerer Anwendung desselben; und an und für sich steht nichts im Wege, daß alles Kapital in derselben Produktionssphäre in derselben Weise angelegt wird. Die Konkurrenz zwischen den Kapitalen strebt im Gegenteil, diese Unterschiede mehr und mehr auszugleichen; die Bestimmung des Werts durch die gesellschaftlich notwendige Arbeitszeit setzt sich durch in der Verwohlfeilerung der Waren und dem Zwang, die Waren unter denselben günstigen Verhältnissen herzustellen. Es verhält sich aber anders mit dem Surplusprofit des Fabrikanten, der den Wasserfall anwendet. Die gesteigerte Produktivkraft der von ihm angewandten Arbeit entspringt weder aus dem Kapital und der Arbeit selbst, noch aus bloßer Anwendung einer von Kapital und Arbeit unterschiednen, aber dem Kapital einverleibten Naturkraft. Sie entspringt aus der größren naturwüchsigen Produktivkraft der Arbeit, gebunden an die Benutzung einer Naturkraft, aber nicht einer Naturkraft, die allem Kapital in derselben Produktionssphäre zur Verfügung steht, wie z.B. die Elastizität des Dampfs; deren Anwendung sich also nicht von selbst versteht, sobald überhaupt Kapital in dieser Sphäre angelegt wird. Sondern einer monopolisierbaren Naturkraft, die wie der Wasserfall nur denen zur Verfügung steht, die über besondre Stücke des Erdbodens und seine Appartenentien zu verfügen haben. Es hängt durchaus nicht vom Kapital ab, diese Naturbedingung größrer Produktivkraft der Arbeit ins Leben zu rufen, in der Art, wie jedes Kapital Wasser in Dampf verwandeln kann. Sie findet sich nur lokal in der Natur vor und ist da, wo sie sich nicht vorfindet, nicht herstellbar durch bestimmte Auslage von Kapital. Sie ist nicht gebunden an durch Arbeit herstellbare Produkte wie Maschinen, Kohlen etc., sondern an bestimmte Naturverhältnisse bestimmter Teile des Bodens. Der Teil der Fabrikanten, der die Wasserfälle besitzt, schließt den Teil, der sie nicht besitzt, von der Anwendung dieser Naturkraft aus, weil der Boden und noch mehr der mit Wasserkraft begabte Boden beschränkt ist. Es schließt dies nicht aus, daß, obgleich die Masse der natürlichen Wasserfälle in einem Lande beschränkt ist, die Masse der zur Industrie vernutzbaren Wasserkraft vermehrt werden kann. Der Wasserfall kann künstlich abgeleitet werden, um seine Triebkraft vollständig auszunutzen; den Fall gegeben, kann das Wasserrad verbessert werden, um möglichst viel von der Wasserkraft zu verwenden; wo das gewöhnliche Rad für die Wasserzufuhr nicht paßt, können Turbinen angewandt werden etc. Der Besitz dieser Naturkraft bildet ein Monopol in der Hand ihres Besitzers, eine Bedingung hoher Produktivkraft des angelegten Kapitals, die nicht durch den Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals selbst hergestellt werden kann33; diese Naturkraft, die so monopolisierbar ist, haftet immer an der Erde. Eine solche Naturkraft gehört nicht zu den allgemeinen Bedingungen der fraglichen Produktionssphäre und nicht zu den Bedingungen derselben, die allgemein herstellbar sind.
the differentia: monopolizable, chained to earth

So here the cause of the surplus profit comes out of the capital itself (with the labour it sets in motion included) — whether from a difference in the size of the capital applied or from a more purposeful application of it. And in itself nothing stands in the way of all capital in the same sphere of production being invested in the same way. Competition between capitals tends on the contrary to even out these differences more and more; the determination of value by socially necessary labour-time asserts itself in the cheapening of commodities and in the compulsion to produce commodities under the same favourable conditions.

It is otherwise with the surplus profit of the manufacturer who uses the waterfall. The increased productive power of the labour he applies comes neither from the capital and the labour themselves nor from the bare use of a natural force distinct from capital and labour but incorporated into the capital. It comes from the greater natural productive power of a labour tied to the use of a natural force — but not one that stands at the disposal of all capital in the same sphere of production, the way the elasticity of steam does; so its use does not follow of itself as soon as capital is invested in this sphere at all. What is used is rather a natural force that can be monopolized, one which like the waterfall is available only to those who have particular pieces of the earth and its appurtenances at their disposal. It does not depend on the capital at all to call this natural condition of a greater productive power of labour into life, in the way that any capital can turn water into steam. It is found in nature only at particular places, and where it is not found it cannot be produced by any particular outlay of capital. It is not bound to products that labour can produce, such as machines, coal and so on, but to particular natural conditions of particular pieces of the earth.

The manufacturers who own the waterfalls shut out those who do not own them from the use of this natural force, because land is limited, and land endowed with water-power still more so. This does not rule out that, although the mass of natural waterfalls in a country is limited, the mass of water-power usable by industry can be increased: the waterfall can be artificially diverted, so as to use its motive power to the full; the fall being given, the water-wheel can be improved so as to get as much as possible out of the water-power; where the ordinary wheel does not suit the water supply, turbines can be used, and so on. Possession of this natural force forms a monopoly in its owner's hands — a condition of high productive power for the capital invested, one that cannot be produced by capital's own production process; and this natural force, which can be monopolized in this way, is always chained to the earth. A natural force of this kind belongs neither to the general conditions of the sphere of production in question nor to those of its conditions that are generally reproducible.

Kap. 38
Die Verwandlung in Grundrente und die fünf Folgerungen
The reader arrives from the distinction between natural forces that all capital commands and a force that can be monopolized, fixed to particular pieces of the earth and not producible by any outlay. Everything here follows from putting such a force in an owner's hands. What this settles is what the surplus profit then is and where it comes from: not from capital, not from nature's generosity, and not created by the ownership that intercepts it. It also fixes the price of the force itself, an irrational expression, and only then does agriculture proper arrive.
Denken wir uns nun die Wasserfälle, mit dem Boden, zu dem sie gehören, in der Hand von Subjekten, die als Inhaber dieser Teile des Erdballs gelten, als Grundeigentümer, so schließen sie die Anlage des Kapitals am Wasserfall und seine Benutzung durch das Kapital aus. Sie können die Benutzung erlauben oder versagen. Aber das Kapital aus sich kann den Wasserfall nicht schaffen. Der Surplusprofit, der aus dieser Benutzung des Wasserfalls entspringt, entspringt daher nicht aus dem Kapital, sondern aus der Anwendung einer monopolisierbaren und monopolisierten Naturkraft durch das Kapital. Unter diesen Umständen verwandelt sich der Surplusprofit in Grundrente, d.h. er fällt dem Eigentümer des Wasserfalls zu. Zahlt der Fabrikant diesem 10 Pfd.St. jährlich für seinen Wasserfall, so beträgt sein Profit 15 Pfd.St.; 15% auf die 100 Pfd.St., worauf dann seine Produktionskosten sich belaufen; und er steht sich ganz ebenso gut, möglicherweise besser, als alle andren Kapitalisten seiner Produktionssphäre, die mit Dampf arbeiten. Es würde nichts an der Sache ändern, wenn der Kapitalist selbst den Wasserfall eignete. Er würde nach wie vor den Surplusprofit von 10 Pfd.St. nicht als Kapitalist, sondern als Eigentümer des Wasserfalls beziehn, und eben weil dieser Überschuß nicht aus seinem Kapital als solchem, sondern aus der Verfügung über eine von seinem Kapital trennbare, monopolisierbare, in ihrem Umfang beschränkte Naturkraft entspringt, verwandelt er sich in Grundrente.
The fall in a landowner's hands

Picture the waterfalls, and the land they belong to, held by people who count as owners of those pieces of the globe — landowners. Then they are in a position to bar capital from the waterfall: from being invested in it and from using it. The owners can permit the use of it or refuse it. But capital on its own cannot create a waterfall.

So the surplus profit that comes from using the waterfall does not come from capital. It comes from capital's use of a force of nature that can be monopolized, and has been monopolized.

Under these circumstances the surplus profit turns into ground-rent — that is, it falls to the owner of the waterfall. If the manufacturer pays him £10 a year for the waterfall, his profit comes to £15; 15 per cent on the £100 that his production costs then amount to; and he stands just as well, possibly better, than all the other capitalists in his sphere who work with steam.

It would change nothing if the capitalist owned the waterfall himself. He would still draw the surplus profit of £10 not as a capitalist but as the owner of the waterfall; and precisely because this excess comes not from his capital as such but from command over a force of nature that is separable from his capital, can be monopolized, and is limited in scope, it turns into ground-rent.

Erstens: Es ist klar, daß diese Rente immer Differentialrente ist, denn sie geht nicht bestimmend ein in den allgemeinen Produktionspreis der Ware, sondern setzt ihn voraus. Sie entspringt stets aus der Differenz zwischen dem individuellen Produktionspreis des Einzelkapitals, dem die monopolisierte Naturkraft zur Verfügung steht, und dem allgemeinen Produktionspreis des in der fraglichen Produktionssphäre überhaupt angelegten Kapitals.
First: rent presupposes the production price

First. It is clear that this rent is always differential rent, for it does not enter into determining the general production price of the commodity — it presupposes that price. It always comes out of the difference between the individual production price of the single capital that has the monopolized force of nature available to it, and the general production price of all the capital invested in the sphere of production in question.

Zweitens: Diese Grundrente entspringt nicht aus der absoluten Erhöhung der Produktivkraft des angewandten Kapitals, resp. der von ihm angeeigneten Arbeit, die überhaupt nur den Wert der Waren vermindern kann; sondern aus der größren relativen Fruchtbarkeit bestimmter, in einer Produktionssphäre angelegter Einzelkapitale, verglichen mit den Kapitalanlagen, die von diesen ausnahmsweisen, naturgeschaffnen Gunstbedingungen der Produktivkraft ausgeschlossen sind. Wenn z.B. die Benutzung des Dampfs, obgleich die Kohlen Wert haben und die Wasserkraft nicht, überwiegende Vorteile gewährte, die bei Benutzung der Wasserkraft ausgeschlossen wären, sie mehr als kompensierten, so würde die Wasserkraft nicht angewandt und könnte keinen Surplusprofit, daher keine Rente erzeugen.
Second: relative returns, not absolute gain

Second. This ground-rent does not come from any absolute increase in the productivity of the capital applied, or of the labour that capital appropriates — a rise of that kind can only ever reduce the value of commodities. It comes from the greater relative returns of certain particular capitals invested in one sphere of production, measured against those capital investments that are excluded from these exceptional, nature-created favourable conditions of productivity.

Suppose, for instance, that the use of steam gave an overwhelming advantage that the use of water-power would rule out — an advantage that more than compensated for the fact that coal has value and water-power does not. Then water-power would not be used, and it could produce no surplus profit, and therefore no rent.

Drittens: Die Naturkraft ist nicht die Quelle des Surplusprofits, sondern nur eine Naturbasis desselben, weil die Naturbasis der ausnahmsweis erhöhten Produktivkraft der Arbeit. So ist der Gebrauchswert überhaupt Träger des Tauschwerts, aber nicht seine Ursache. Derselbe Gebrauchswert, könnte er ohne Arbeit verschafft werden, hätte keinen Tauschwert, behielte aber nach wie vor seine natürliche Nützlichkeit als Gebrauchswert. Andrerseits aber hat ein Ding keinen Tauschwert ohne Gebrauchswert, also ohne solchen natürlichen Träger der Arbeit. Glichen sich nicht die verschiednen Werte zu Produktionspreisen und die verschiednen individuellen Produktionspreise zu einem allgemeinen, den Markt regulierenden Produktionspreis aus, so würde die bloße Steigerung der Produktivkraft der Arbeit durch den Gebrauch des Wasserfalls nur den Preis der mit dem Wasserfall produzierten Waren erniedrigen, ohne den in diesen Waren steckenden Profitteil zu erhöhen, ganz wie sich andrerseits diese gesteigerte Produktivkraft der Arbeit überhaupt nicht in Mehrwert verwandeln würde, appropriierte nicht das Kapital die Produktivkraft, natürliche und gesellschaftliche, der von ihm angewandten Arbeit als seine eigne.
Third: natural basis, never the source

Third. The force of nature is not the source of the surplus profit; it is only a natural basis for it, because it is the natural basis of the exceptionally increased productivity of labour. In the same way, use-value is altogether the bearer of exchange-value, but not its cause.

The same use-value, if it could be had without any labour, would have no exchange-value — yet it would keep, as before, its natural usefulness as a use-value. On the other hand, however, a thing has no exchange-value without use-value, that is, without being such a natural bearer of labour.

And if the different values did not equalize into production prices, and the different individual production prices into one general production price that governs the market, then the mere increase in the productivity of labour through using the waterfall would only lower the price of the commodities produced with the waterfall; it would not raise the share of profit contained in those commodities — just as, conversely, this increased productivity of labour would not turn into surplus-value at all if capital did not appropriate, as its own, the productive power — natural and social — of the labour it applies.

Viertens: Das Grundeigentum am Wasserfall hat mit der Schöpfung des Teils des Mehrwerts (Profits) und daher des Preises der Ware überhaupt, die mit Hilfe des Wasserfalls produziert wird, an und für sich nichts zu schaffen. Dieser Surplusprofit existierte auch, wenn kein Grundeigentum existierte, wenn z.B. das Land, wozu der Wasserfall gehörte, vom Fabrikanten als herrenloses Land benutzt würde. Das Grundeigentum schafft also nicht den Wertteil, der sich in Surplusprofit verwandelt, sondern es befähigt nur den Grundeigentümer, den Eigentümer des Wasserfalls, diesen Surplusprofit aus der Tasche des Fabrikanten in seine eigne zu locken. Es ist die Ursache, nicht der Schöpfung dieses Surplusprofits, sondern seiner Verwandlung in die Form der Grundrente, daher der Aneignung dieses Teils des Profits, resp. des Warenpreises, durch den Grund- oder Wasserfallseigentümer.
Landed property only channels surplus profit

Fourth. The landed property attached to the waterfall has, taken by itself, no hand in bringing about the share of surplus-value (profit), nor therefore in the price of the commodity at all — the commodity that is made by using the waterfall. This surplus profit would be there all the same if landed property did not exist — suppose, for instance, that the manufacturer were to use the land to which the waterfall belonged as unclaimed land. Landed property, then, is not what creates the portion of value that turns into surplus profit. It only puts the landowner, the owner of the waterfall, in a position to transfer this surplus profit from the manufacturer's pocket to his own. What it causes is not the origin of this surplus profit, but its change into the form of ground-rent; and so it causes this part of profit — or, as the case may be, of the commodity price — to be appropriated by the landowner or the owner of the waterfall.

Fünftens: Es ist klar, daß der Preis des Wasserfalls, also der Preis, den der Grundeigentümer erhielte, verkaufte er ihn an eine dritte Person oder auch an den Fabrikanten selbst, zunächst nicht in den Produktionspreis der Waren eingeht, obgleich in den individuellen Kostpreis des Fabrikanten; denn die Rente entspringt hier aus dem, unabhängig vom Wasserfall regulierten, Produktionspreis der mit Dampfmaschinen produzierten Waren derselben Art. Ferner aber ist dieser Preis des Wasserfalls überhaupt ein irrationeller Ausdruck, hinter dem sich ein reelles ökonomisches Verhältnis versteckt. Der Wasserfall, wie die Erde überhaupt, wie alle Naturkraft, hat keinen Wert, weil er keine in ihm vergegenständlichte Arbeit darstellt und daher auch keinen Preis, der normaliter nichts ist als der in Geld ausgedrückte Wert. Wo kein Wert ist, kann eo ipso auch nichts in Geld dargestellt werden. Dieser Preis ist nichts als die kapitalisierte Rente. Das Grundeigentum befähigt den Eigentümer, die Differenz zwischen dem individuellen Profit und dem Durchschnittsprofit abzufangen; der so abgefangne Profit, der sich jährlich erneuert, kann kapitalisiert werden und erscheint dann als Preis der Naturkraft selbst. Ist der Surplusprofit, den die Benutzung des Wasserfalls dem Fabrikanten abwirft, 10 Pfd.St. jährlich und der Durchschnittszins 5%, so stellen diese 10 Pfd.St. jährlich den Zins eines Kapitals von 200 Pfd.St. dar; und diese Kapitalisation der jährlichen 10 Pfd.St., die der Wasserfall seinen Eigentümer befähigt, dem Fabrikanten abzufangen, erscheint dann als Kapitalwert des Wasserfalls selbst. Daß nicht dieser selbst Wert hat, sondern sein Preis bloßer Reflex des abgefangnen Surplusprofits ist, kapitalistisch berechnet, zeigt sich gleich darin, daß der Preis von 200 Pfd.St. nur das Produkt des Surplusprofits von 10 Pfd.St. mit 20 Jahren darstellt, während unter sonst gleichbleibenden Umständen derselbe Wasserfall für unbestimmte Zeit, 30, 100, x Jahre den Eigentümer befähigt, jährlich diese 10 Pfd.St. abzufangen, und während andrerseits, wenn eine neue, nicht auf Wasserkraft anwendbare Produktionsmethode den Kostpreis der mit der Dampfmaschine produzierten Waren von 100 auf 90 Pfd.St. erniedrigte, der Surplusprofit und damit die Rente und damit der Preis des Wasserfalls verschwände.
Fifth: the fall's price, capitalized rent

Fifth. The price of the waterfall — that is, the price the landowner would receive if he sold it to a third person, or to the manufacturer himself — does not, to begin with, enter into the production price of the commodities; though it does enter the manufacturer's own individual cost price. For the rent here comes out of the production price of the commodities of the same kind that are produced with steam-engines, a price regulated independently of the waterfall.

Beyond that, this price of the waterfall is altogether an irrational expression, with a real economic relationship hidden behind it. The waterfall, like the earth in general, like every force of nature, has no value, because it represents no labour embodied in it, and therefore no price either — a price being, in the normal case, nothing but value expressed in money. Where there is no value, there is eo ipso nothing that could be expressed in money. This price is nothing but capitalized rent.

Landed property enables the owner to intercept the difference between the individual profit and the average profit. The profit intercepted in this way, renewed every year, can be capitalized, and it then appears as the price of the force of nature itself. If the surplus profit that the use of the waterfall throws off for the manufacturer is £10 a year, and the average rate of interest is 5 per cent, then this £10 a year represents the interest on a capital of £200; and this capitalization of the annual £10 that the waterfall enables its owner to intercept from the manufacturer then appears as the capital value of the waterfall itself.

That it is not the waterfall itself that has value, but that its price is a mere reflection of the intercepted surplus profit, reckoned capitalistically, shows at once in this: the price of £200 represents only the surplus profit of £10 multiplied by twenty years — whereas, other circumstances remaining the same, the same waterfall enables its owner to intercept that £10 every year for an indefinite time, 30, 100, x years; and whereas, on the other hand, if a new method of production that cannot make use of water-power lowered the cost price of the commodities produced by steam from £100 to £90, the surplus profit would vanish, and with it the rent, and with it the price of the waterfall.

Nachdem wir so den allgemeinen Begriff der Differentialrente festgesetzt, gehn wir nun zur Betrachtung derselben in der eigentlichen Agrikultur über. Was von ihr gesagt wird, gilt im ganzen auch für Bergwerke.
On to agriculture proper

Now that the general concept of differential rent has been fixed in this way, we turn to consider it in agriculture proper. What is said of it holds on the whole for mining too.

Kap. 38
The Premise and the Waterfall
The reader arrives from an argument that cleared away what passes for rent: what a landowner receives may be interest on capital sunk in the earth, a deduction from average profit, or a deduction from wages - real payments, pricing land exactly as rent proper does without being rent. A landowner who does nothing is no peculiarity of rent at all. The form itself was still missing. Here the assumption is laid down — sale at the price of production, with no monopoly price anywhere — and the difficulty it makes is posed: if commodities sell at their prices of production, how can a ground-rent arise? What the chapter supplies is a cheaper producer's surplus profit, arising from selling at the governing price and not above it; its conversion into rent is left open.
In our analysis of ground-rent we intend to proceed first of all from the assumption that products that pay a rent of this kind — which means that a part of their surplus-value — and therefore also a part of their total price, is reducible to rent — are sold just like all other commodities at their prices of production. For our present purpose we need consider only agricultural products; we could alternatively take the products of mining. Their sale prices are equal therefore to their cost elements (the value of the constant and variable capital consumed) plus a profit determined by the general rate of profit calculated on the total capital advanced, whether used up or not. We assume, therefore, that the average sale prices of these products are equal to their prices of production. The question then arises how a ground-rent can develop on this assumption, i.e. how a portion of profit can be transformed into ground-rent, so that a part of the commodity price thus accrues to the landowner.
The premise and the question

When we analyse ground-rent, we start from an assumption. The products that pay a rent of this kind — the ones where a part of the surplus-value, and so a part of the total price, is resolved into rent — are sold at their prices of production, just like every other commodity. For our purpose it is enough to consider farm products, or mining products.

So their sale prices are equal to their cost elements — the value of the constant and variable capital used up — plus a profit worked out from the general rate of profit and reckoned on the total capital advanced, whether that capital was used up or not. We assume, then, that the average sale prices of these products are equal to their prices of production. And now the question: how, on this assumption, can a ground-rent develop at all — that is, how can a part of profit turn into ground-rent, so that a part of the commodity price falls to the landowner?

To demonstrate the general character of this form of ground-rent, we assume that the factories in a country are powered predominantly by steam-engines, but a certain minority by natural waterfalls instead. We assume the production price in the branches of industry first mentioned to be 115 for a quantity of commodities for which a capital of 100 is consumed. The 15 per cent profit is calculated not just on the consumed capital of 100 but on the total capital that is applied in the production of this commodity value. This production price, as we explained earlier, is determined not by the individual cost price of any one industrialist producing by himself, but rather by the price that the commodity costs on average under the average conditions for capital in that whole sphere of production. It is in fact the market price of production; the average market price as distinct from its oscillations. It is always in the form of the market price, and moreover in the form of the governing market price or the market price of production, that the nature of commodity value presents itself, its character being determined not by the labour-time needed by a certain individual producer to produce a certain quantity of a commodity, or a certain number of individual commodities, but by the socially necessary labour-time; by the labour-time required under the given average social conditions of production to produce the total socially required quantity of the species of commodity available on the market.
Why the example is a factory

To bring out what is general about this form of ground-rent, we take a case from industry. Suppose that the factories in a country are driven mostly by steam-engines, and a certain minority of them by natural waterfalls instead.

Suppose the price of production in those industries is 115 for a batch of commodities in which a capital of 100 is used up. The 15 per cent profit is worked out not only on the 100 of capital consumed, but on the whole capital applied in producing this commodity value. This price of production, as discussed earlier, is fixed not by the individual cost price of each manufacturer producing on his own, but by what the commodity costs on average, under the average conditions of capital in that entire sphere of production. It is in fact the market price of production: the average market price, as distinct from its oscillations.

And it is in the form of the market price, and further in the form of the governing market price or market price of production, that the nature of commodity value presents itself — its being determined not by the labour-time that is individually necessary to produce a particular quantity of commodities, or a few individual commodities, for one particular producer, but by socially necessary labour-time: the labour-time required, under the given average of social conditions of production, to produce the socially required total quantity of that species of commodity that is on the market.

Although the particular numerical figures are completely immaterial here, we shall further assume that the cost price in those factories that are driven by water-power comes to only 90, instead of 100. Since the production price of the great mass of goods that governs the market is 115, with a profit of 15 per cent, the factories that drive their machines with water-power will also sell at 115, i.e. at the market price as governed by the average price. Their profit will amount to 25 instead of 15; the governing price of production enables them to make a surplus profit of 10 per cent, not because they sell their commodities above the price of production but because they sell them at this price, because their commodities are produced, or their capital functions, under exceptionally favourable conditions, conditions that stand above the average level prevailing in this sphere.
Surplus profit, not a surcharge

The particular figures here are completely immaterial, so let us assume further that the cost price in the factories driven by water-power comes to only 90 instead of 100. Since the price of production governing the market for the mass of these goods is 115, with a profit of 15 per cent, the manufacturers who drive their machines with water-power will also sell at 115 — that is, at the average price governing the market. Their profit would therefore be 25 instead of 15. The governing price of production would allow them to make a surplus profit of 10 per cent — not because they sell their commodity above the price of production, but because they sell it at the price of production, because their commodities are produced, or their capital functions, under exceptionally favourable conditions, conditions that stand above the average level ruling in that sphere.

Two things are immediately evident here.
Two consequences announced

Two things become clear straight away.

Kap. 38
Firstly: A Surplus Profit Like Any Other
Behind us is the ground-clearing: products of the earth and of the mine sell at their prices of production, exactly as other commodities do, and the general concept of differential rent is being built on factories - a country's works mostly driven by steam, a minority by natural waterfalls. What is settled here is the character of the waterfall user's gain before any rent is in question. It is not a lucky deal or an accidental swing in market price. It is the difference between one producer's own price of production and the general price that governs the sphere, and the argument fixes exactly how far that difference reaches.
Firstly, the surplus profit of those producers who use natural water-power as their motive force behaves first of all just like any other surplus profit (this category has already been developed in our presentation of the price of production) which is not the chance result of transactions in the circulation process, of accidental fluctuations in market price. This surplus profit is thus similarly equal to the difference between the individual price of production of these favoured producers and the general social price of production in the sphere of production as a whole, which is what governs the market. This difference is equal to the excess of the general production price of the commodity over its individual production price. The two governing limits of this excess are on the one hand the individual cost price and hence the individual production price, and on the other the general production price. The value of the commodities produced by water-power is lower because a smaller amount of labour is required for their production, i.e. less labour enters in the objectified form, as a portion of the constant capital. The labour applied here is more productive, its individual productivity being greater than that of the labour employed in the majority of factories of the same type. Its greater productivity is expressed in the way that it needs a smaller quantity of constant capital to produce the same amount of commodities, a smaller quantity of objectified labour than the others; and a smaller quantity of living labour as well, since the water-wheel does not need to be heated. This greater individual productivity of the labour applied reduces the value of the commodity, and its cost price and therefore its production price as well. For the industrialist, this presents itself in the following way, that the cost price of the commodity for him is less. He has less objectified labour to pay for, and similarly less wages for less living labour-power applied. Since the cost price of his commodity is less, so too is his individual production price. His cost price is 90 instead of 100. And so his individual production price is also only 103 1/2 instead of 115 (100:115 = 90:103 1/2). The difference between his individual production price and the general one is determined by the difference between his individual cost price and the general one. This is one of the magnitudes that set limits to his surplus profit. The other is the general price of production, in which the general rate of profit is one of the governing factors. If coal becomes cheaper, the difference between his individual cost price and the general one declines, and so therefore does his surplus profit. If he had to sell the commodity at its individual value, or at the production price determined by this individual value, the difference would disappear. It is the result on the one hand of the fact that the commodity is sold at its general market price, the price at which competition balances the individual prices, and on the other hand of the fact that the greater individual productivity of the labour that he sets in motion does not benefit the workers, but, like the productivity of labour in general, their employer; i.e. it presents itself as the productivity of capital.
surplus profit as a price difference

First: the surplus profit made by producers who run their works on a natural waterfall behaves to begin with just like any other surplus profit — and we have already worked this category out when we dealt with the price of production. It is not the chance result of deals made in the circulation process, or of accidental swings in market price. So this surplus profit is likewise equal to the difference between the individual price of production of these favoured producers and the general social price of production of the whole sphere of production, the one that governs the market. That difference is equal to the amount by which the general price of production of the commodity exceeds its individual price of production.

Two limits govern that excess: on one side the individual cost price, and hence the individual price of production; on the other the general price of production.

The commodity produced with the waterfall is worth less, because producing it takes a smaller total quantity of labour — less labour, that is, entering in objectified form, as part of the constant capital. The labour set to work here is more productive: its individual productivity is greater than that of the labour applied in the mass of factories of the same kind. This greater productivity shows itself in the fact that, to produce the same quantity of commodities, it needs a smaller quantity of constant capital, a smaller quantity of objectified labour, than the others; and beyond that a smaller quantity of living labour as well, since a water-wheel does not have to be heated. This greater individual productivity of the labour applied lowers the value, and also the cost price, and with it the price of production of the commodity. For the industrialist it presents itself like this: the cost price of the commodity is lower for him. He has less objectified labour to pay for, and likewise less in wages for the smaller quantity of living labour-power he sets to work. Since the cost price of his commodity is lower, his individual price of production is lower too. His cost price is 90 instead of 100. So his individual price of production would be only 103 1/2 instead of 115 (100 : 115 = 90 : 103 1/2).

The difference between his individual price of production and the general one is bounded by the difference between his individual cost price and the general one. That is one of the magnitudes that set the limits on his surplus profit. The other is the size of the general price of production, and the general rate of profit enters into it as one of the governing factors.

If coal were cheaper, the difference between his individual cost price and the general one would shrink, and so would his surplus profit. And if he had to sell the commodity at its own individual value, or at the price of production determined by that individual value, the difference would fall away altogether. The difference is the result of two things at once: the commodity is sold at its general market price, the price at which competition levels out the individual prices; and the greater individual productivity of the labour he sets in motion does not go to the workers but, like the productivity of labour in general, to whoever employs them — it presents itself as the productivity of capital.

Since one limit to this surplus profit is the level of the general price of production, and the general rate of profit is a factor of this, the surplus profit can arise only from the difference between the general and the individual production prices, and hence from the difference between the individual and the general rate of profit. An excess over and above this difference would presuppose the sale of the product above the price of production governed by the market, and not at this price.
the limit: no sale above it

One limit on this surplus profit is the level of the general price of production, and the general rate of profit is one of the factors in that level. So the surplus profit can arise only out of the difference between the general and the individual price of production, and hence out of the difference between the individual rate of profit and the general one. Anything over and above that difference would presuppose selling the product above the price of production that the market governs, and not at it.

Kap. 38
Secondly: The Monopolizable Natural Force
You arrive carrying the cheaper production: the factory on the fall spends less, sells at the production price ruling the sphere, and keeps a surplus profit it did not earn by selling dear. That much is settled — no surcharge, no monopoly price. What is not settled is what the manufacturer owes the advantage to. What follows sifts the candidates: an unpaid natural force, which the steam user also enjoys; a merely better way of working, which competition erases; and, alone surviving, a force that only the holder of a particular place can use.
Secondly, the surplus profit of the manufacturer who uses natural water-power as his motive force instead of steam has not so far been distinguished in any way from all other surplus profit. All normal surplus profit, i.e. excluding that brought about by accidental business deals or by fluctuations in the market price, is determined by the difference between the individual production price of the commodities produced by this particular capital and the general production price which governs the market prices of commodities for capital right across this sphere of production — the market prices of commodities for the total capital invested in this sphere of production.
baseline: how surplus profit is fixed

Secondly: so far the manufacturer who drives his works with a natural waterfall instead of steam has a surplus profit that differs in no way from any other.

All normal surplus profit — that is, surplus profit that does not come about through accidental sales or through swings in the market price — is fixed by the gap between the individual production price of the goods turned out by this particular capital and the general production price that rules the market prices of the goods of the capital of this sphere of production as a whole, or the market prices of the goods of the total capital invested in this sphere.

But now comes the difference.
the difference now announced

But now the difference comes in.

To what circumstances does the manufacturer in the present case owe his surplus profit, the excess that the production price governed by the general rate of profit yields him personally?
what he owes it to

So what is it, in this case, that the manufacturer has to thank for his surplus profit — for the excess that the production price, governed by the general rate of profit, throws off to him personally?

In the first instance, to a natural force, the motive force of water-power which is provided by nature itself and is not itself the product of labour, unlike the coal that transforms water into steam, which has value and must be paid an equivalent, i.e. costs something. It is a natural agent of production, and no labour goes into creating it.
first answer: a free natural force

The first answer: a natural force — the motive power of the waterfall. Nature supplies it of itself, and it is not itself a product of labour the way coal is, the coal that turns water into steam: coal is a product of labour, and therefore has value, has to be paid for with an equivalent, costs something.

The waterfall is a natural agent of production, and no labour goes into making it.

But this is not all. The manufacturer who operates with the steam-engine also applies natural forces which cost him nothing but which make labour more productive, and, in so far as they cheapen the production of the means of subsistence the workers require, increase surplus-value and hence profit; which are therefore just as much monopolized by capital as are the natural social forces of labour that arise from cooperation, division of labour, etc. The manufacturer pays for the coal, but not for the ability of water to change its aggregate state and transform itself into steam, nor for the elasticity of steam, etc. This monopolization of natural forces, i.e. of the increase in labour-power* that they bring about, is common to all capital that operates with steam-engines. It may increase the part of the product of labour that represents surplus-value as against the part that is transformed into wages. In as much as it does this, it increases the general rate of profit but it does not create any surplus profit, for this consists precisely in the excess of individual profit over and above the average profit. If in our case the application of a natural force, water-power, does create surplus profit, this cannot arise simply from the fact that the increased productivity of labour is due here to the use of a natural force. Further modifying factors must intervene.
free natural forces, no surplus profit

But that is not all. The manufacturer who works with a steam-engine also uses natural forces that cost him nothing — and those forces make labour more productive, and in so far as they cheapen the production of the means of subsistence the workers need, they raise surplus-value and therefore profit. Capital monopolizes them just as much as it does the natural social forces of labour that spring from cooperation, division of labour and so on. He pays for the coal, but not for water's capacity to change its state, to pass over into steam; not for the elasticity of steam, and so on.

Every capital that works with steam-engines shares in this monopolizing of natural forces — that is, of the boost to labour-power that these forces bring about. It may raise the part of the product of labour that represents surplus-value against the part that turns into wages. In so far as it does this, it raises the general rate of profit; but it creates no surplus profit, and surplus profit is by definition the amount by which an individual profit runs above the average profit.

So the fact that the use of a natural force, the waterfall, creates surplus profit here cannot come solely from the fact that the increased productive power of labour is owed here to the use of a natural force. Further modifying circumstances have to come into play.

Conversely. The simple application of natural forces in industry may affect the level of the general rate of profit, through the amount of labour required to produce the necessary means of subsistence. But it does not in and of itself create any divergence from the general rate of profit, and it is precisely this that we are dealing with now. Moreover, the surplus profit that an individual capital in a particular sphere of production might otherwise realize — for divergences in the rate of profit between particular spheres of production are constantly balanced out to give the average rate — arises, apart from merely accidental divergences, from a reduction in the cost price, i.e. in production costs, which is due either to the fact that capital is applied on a greater than average scale, so that the faux frais of production are reduced, while the general causes of a rise in labour productivity (cooperation, division of labour, etc.) can operate to a greater extent and with more intensity, because over a larger field of operation; or else to the fact that, apart from the scale of the capital functioning, better methods of work, new inventions, improved machines, trade secrets in chemistry, etc. are employed — in other words it is due to the application of new, improved and above-average means and methods of production. The reduction in the cost price, and the surplus profit which flows from it, arise here from the manner and form in which the capital functioning is invested. They arise either from its concentration in exceptionally large amounts in a single hand — something that is cancelled out as soon as equally large amounts of capital are employed in the average case — or from the circumstance that capital of a particular size functions in a particularly productive way — and this ceases to operate as soon as the exceptional manner of production becomes universal, or is overtaken by one still more advanced.
the ordinary surplus profit cancels itself

Conversely. The bare use of natural forces in industry may bear on the level of the general rate of profit, since it bears on the mass of labour required for the production of the necessary means of subsistence. But in and of itself it creates no departure from the general rate of profit — and it is precisely a departure that is at issue here.

Then: the surplus profit that an individual capital otherwise realizes in a particular sphere of production — for the differences in the rate of profit between particular spheres are constantly being evened out into the average rate — comes, apart from merely accidental deviations, from a reduction of the cost price, that is, of production costs. And that reduction is owed either to the fact that capital is applied in larger than average masses, so that the incidental costs of production fall, while the general causes that raise the productive power of labour (cooperation, division of labour and so on) can act to a higher degree, with more intensity, because over a larger field; or to the fact that, apart from the size of the capital at work, better working methods, new inventions, improved machines, chemical trade secrets and so on — in short, new and improved means and methods of production standing above the average level — are used.

The fall in the cost price, and the surplus profit flowing from it, come here from the way the capital at work is invested. Either the capital is concentrated in exceptionally large masses in one hand — a state of affairs that cancels itself as soon as equally large masses of capital are applied on average — or capital of a particular size functions in a particularly productive way — a state of affairs that drops away as soon as the exceptional mode of production becomes general, or is overtaken by one still more developed.

The reason for the surplus profit in this case is thus inherent in the capital itself (including the labour that it sets in motion), whether a difference in magnitude of the capital applied or a more efficient application of it; and nothing inherently prevents all capital in the same sphere of production from being invested in the same way. Competition between capitals actually tends to the contrary, it tends to cancel out these distinctions more and more; the determination of value by socially necessary labour-time leads to the cheapening of commodities and the compulsion to produce commodities under the same favourable conditions. Things take a different form with the surplus profit of the manufacturer who makes use of the waterfall. The increased productivity of the labour he applies arises neither from the capital and labour themselves nor from the simple application of a natural force distinct from capital and labour but incorporated into the capital. It arises from the greater natural productivity of a labour linked with the use of a natural force, but a natural force that is not available to all capital in the same sphere of production, as is for example the elasticity of steam; its use therefore does not automatically occur as soon as capital is invested in this sphere. What is used is rather a monopolizable natural force which, like the waterfall, is available only to those who have at their disposal particular pieces of the earth’s surface and their appurtenances. It is in no way just up to the capital to call into being this natural condition of greater labour productivity, in the way that any capital can transform water into steam. The condition is to be found in nature only at certain places, and where it is not found it cannot be produced by a particular capital outlay. It is not bound up with products that labour can produce such as machines, coal, etc., but rather with particular natural conditions on particular pieces of land. Those manufacturers who possess waterfalls exclude those who do not possess them from employing this natural force, because land is limited, and still more so land endowed with water-power. It is not ruled out that, although the number of natural waterfalls in a country is limited, the amount of water-power that industry can use may still be increased. A waterfall can be artificially channelled to make its motive power fully usable; a water-wheel can be improved in order to use as much of this water-power as possible; where the ordinary type of wheel is not suited to the supply of water, turbines can be used, etc. Possession of this natural force forms a monopoly in the hands of its owner, a condition of higher productivity for the capital invested, which cannot be produced by capital’s own production process;33 the natural force that can be monopolized in this way is always chained to the earth. A natural force of this kind does not belong to the general conditions of the sphere of production in question nor to those of its conditions that are generally reproducible.
the differentia: monopolizable, chained to earth

So here the cause of the surplus profit comes out of the capital itself (with the labour it sets in motion included) — whether from a difference in the size of the capital applied or from a more purposeful application of it. And in itself nothing stands in the way of all capital in the same sphere of production being invested in the same way. Competition between capitals tends on the contrary to even out these differences more and more; the determination of value by socially necessary labour-time asserts itself in the cheapening of commodities and in the compulsion to produce commodities under the same favourable conditions.

It is otherwise with the surplus profit of the manufacturer who uses the waterfall. The increased productive power of the labour he applies comes neither from the capital and the labour themselves nor from the bare use of a natural force distinct from capital and labour but incorporated into the capital. It comes from the greater natural productive power of a labour tied to the use of a natural force — but not one that stands at the disposal of all capital in the same sphere of production, the way the elasticity of steam does; so its use does not follow of itself as soon as capital is invested in this sphere at all. What is used is rather a natural force that can be monopolized, one which like the waterfall is available only to those who have particular pieces of the earth and its appurtenances at their disposal. It does not depend on the capital at all to call this natural condition of a greater productive power of labour into life, in the way that any capital can turn water into steam. It is found in nature only at particular places, and where it is not found it cannot be produced by any particular outlay of capital. It is not bound to products that labour can produce, such as machines, coal and so on, but to particular natural conditions of particular pieces of the earth.

The manufacturers who own the waterfalls shut out those who do not own them from the use of this natural force, because land is limited, and land endowed with water-power still more so. This does not rule out that, although the mass of natural waterfalls in a country is limited, the mass of water-power usable by industry can be increased: the waterfall can be artificially diverted, so as to use its motive power to the full; the fall being given, the water-wheel can be improved so as to get as much as possible out of the water-power; where the ordinary wheel does not suit the water supply, turbines can be used, and so on. Possession of this natural force forms a monopoly in its owner's hands — a condition of high productive power for the capital invested, one that cannot be produced by capital's own production process; and this natural force, which can be monopolized in this way, is always chained to the earth. A natural force of this kind belongs neither to the general conditions of the sphere of production in question nor to those of its conditions that are generally reproducible.

Kap. 38
The Transformation into Ground-Rent, and the Five Conclusions
The reader arrives from the distinction between natural forces that all capital commands and a force that can be monopolized, fixed to particular pieces of the earth and not producible by any outlay. Everything here follows from putting such a force in an owner's hands. What this settles is what the surplus profit then is and where it comes from: not from capital, not from nature's generosity, and not created by the ownership that intercepts it. It also fixes the price of the force itself, an irrational expression, and only then does agriculture proper arrive.
If we now imagine that these waterfalls, together with the land on which they are located, are in the hands of subjects who are accepted as the proprietors of these portions of the globe, as landowners, then these are in a position to prevent the application of capital to the waterfall and its utilization by capital. They can either allow this use or refuse it. But capital cannot create a waterfall from its own resources. The surplus profit that arises from this use of the waterfall thus arises not from the capital but rather from the use by capital of a monopolizable and monopolized natural force. Under these conditions, the surplus profit is transformed into ground-rent, i.e. it accrues to the owner of the waterfall. If the manufacturer pays the latter £10 per year for the waterfall, his profit comes to £15, 15 per cent on the £100 which is now the amount of his production costs. And he is still in a position just as good as, if not better than, the other capitalists in his sphere of production who operate with steam. Nothing is altered if the capitalist owns the waterfall himself. He still draws the surplus profit of £10 not as a capitalist, but as the owner of the waterfall; and for the precise reason that this excess arises not from his capital as such, but rather from his disposal over a natural force that is limited in scope, separable from his capital, and monopolizable, it is transformed into ground-rent.
The fall in a landowner's hands

Picture the waterfalls, and the land they belong to, held by people who count as owners of those pieces of the globe — landowners. Then they are in a position to bar capital from the waterfall: from being invested in it and from using it. The owners can permit the use of it or refuse it. But capital on its own cannot create a waterfall.

So the surplus profit that comes from using the waterfall does not come from capital. It comes from capital's use of a force of nature that can be monopolized, and has been monopolized.

Under these circumstances the surplus profit turns into ground-rent — that is, it falls to the owner of the waterfall. If the manufacturer pays him £10 a year for the waterfall, his profit comes to £15; 15 per cent on the £100 that his production costs then amount to; and he stands just as well, possibly better, than all the other capitalists in his sphere who work with steam.

It would change nothing if the capitalist owned the waterfall himself. He would still draw the surplus profit of £10 not as a capitalist but as the owner of the waterfall; and precisely because this excess comes not from his capital as such but from command over a force of nature that is separable from his capital, can be monopolized, and is limited in scope, it turns into ground-rent.

Firstly, it is clear that this rent is always a differential rent, for it does not contribute to determining the general production price of the commodity, but takes this as given. It always arises from the difference between the individual production price of the particular capital which has the monopolized natural force available to it and the general production price for capital invested in the sphere of production in question.
First: rent presupposes the production price

First. It is clear that this rent is always differential rent, for it does not enter into determining the general production price of the commodity — it presupposes that price. It always comes out of the difference between the individual production price of the single capital that has the monopolized force of nature available to it, and the general production price of all the capital invested in the sphere of production in question.

Secondly, this ground-rent does not derive from any absolute rise in productivity of the capital applied or of the labour it appropriates, which can only ever reduce the value of commodities; it arises from the greater relative returns from certain particular capitals invested in a sphere of production, as compared with those capital investments that are excluded from these exceptional, favourable conditions of productivity which have been created by nature. If for example the use of steam gave an overwhelming advantage which would not occur if water-power was used, even though coal has value and water-power does not, and this advantage more than compensated for that fact, water-power would not be used and could not produce any surplus profit, nor therefore any rent.
Second: relative returns, not absolute gain

Second. This ground-rent does not come from any absolute increase in the productivity of the capital applied, or of the labour that capital appropriates — a rise of that kind can only ever reduce the value of commodities. It comes from the greater relative returns of certain particular capitals invested in one sphere of production, measured against those capital investments that are excluded from these exceptional, nature-created favourable conditions of productivity.

Suppose, for instance, that the use of steam gave an overwhelming advantage that the use of water-power would rule out — an advantage that more than compensated for the fact that coal has value and water-power does not. Then water-power would not be used, and it could produce no surplus profit, and therefore no rent.

Thirdly, the natural force is not the source of the surplus profit, but simply a natural basis for it, because it is the natural basis of the exceptionally increased productivity of labour. Use-value is altogether the bearer of exchange-value but not its cause. If the same use-value could be obtained without labour, it would have no exchange-value. On the other hand, however, a thing cannot have exchange-value without having use-value, i.e. without being such a natural bearer of labour. If the various different values did not balance out into production prices and the various individual production prices into a general production price that governs the market, a rise in labour productivity resulting from the use of a waterfall would simply lower the price of the commodities produced with the waterfall without raising the portion of profit contained in these commodities, just as increased labour productivity in general would not be transformed into surplus-value if capital did not appropriate as its own the productive power, natural and social, of the labour applied.
Third: natural basis, never the source

Third. The force of nature is not the source of the surplus profit; it is only a natural basis for it, because it is the natural basis of the exceptionally increased productivity of labour. In the same way, use-value is altogether the bearer of exchange-value, but not its cause.

The same use-value, if it could be had without any labour, would have no exchange-value — yet it would keep, as before, its natural usefulness as a use-value. On the other hand, however, a thing has no exchange-value without use-value, that is, without being such a natural bearer of labour.

And if the different values did not equalize into production prices, and the different individual production prices into one general production price that governs the market, then the mere increase in the productivity of labour through using the waterfall would only lower the price of the commodities produced with the waterfall; it would not raise the share of profit contained in those commodities — just as, conversely, this increased productivity of labour would not turn into surplus-value at all if capital did not appropriate, as its own, the productive power — natural and social — of the labour it applies.

Fourthly, landed property in the waterfall has in and of itself nothing to do with the creation of the portion of surplus-value (profit) and hence of the price of the commodity that is produced with the aid of the waterfall. This surplus profit exists even if there is no landed property, if for example the land on which the waterfall is located can be used by the manufacturer as unclaimed land. Thus landed property does not create the portion of value that is transformed into surplus profit; rather it simply enables the landowner, the proprietor of the waterfall, to entice this surplus profit out of the manufacturer’s pocket and into his own. It is not the cause of this surplus profit’s creation, but simply of its transformation into the form of ground-rent, hence of the appropriation of this portion of profit or commodity price by the landowner or waterfall-owner.
Landed property only channels surplus profit

Fourth. The landed property attached to the waterfall has, taken by itself, no hand in bringing about the share of surplus-value (profit), nor therefore in the price of the commodity at all — the commodity that is made by using the waterfall. This surplus profit would be there all the same if landed property did not exist — suppose, for instance, that the manufacturer were to use the land to which the waterfall belonged as unclaimed land. Landed property, then, is not what creates the portion of value that turns into surplus profit. It only puts the landowner, the owner of the waterfall, in a position to transfer this surplus profit from the manufacturer's pocket to his own. What it causes is not the origin of this surplus profit, but its change into the form of ground-rent; and so it causes this part of profit — or, as the case may be, of the commodity price — to be appropriated by the landowner or the owner of the waterfall.

Fifthly, it is evident that the price of the waterfall, i.e. the price that the landowner would receive if he sold it to a third party or to the manufacturer himself, does not at first go directly into the production price of the commodities concerned, even though it does go into the individual price for the manufacturer; for rent arises in this case from the production price of those commodities of the same kind that are produced by steam-engines, which is determined independently of the waterfall. The price of the waterfall, besides, is altogether an irrational expression concealing a real-economic relationship. The waterfall, like the earth in general and every natural force, has no value, since it represents no objectified labour and hence no price, this being in the normal case nothing but value expressed in money. Where there is no value, there is eo ipso nothing to be expressed in money. This price is nothing but capitalized rent. Landed property enables the proprietor to lay hold of the difference between the individual profit and the average profit; the profit captured in this way, which is renewed every year, can be capitalized and then appears as the price of the natural force itself. If the surplus profit that the use of the waterfall yields to the manufacturer is £10 per year and the average interest is 5 per cent, this £10 per year represents the interest on a capital of £200; and this capitalization of the annual £10 that the waterfall empowers its owner to extract from the manufacturer then appears as the capital value of the waterfall itself. The fact that the waterfall does not itself have value but that its price is simply the reflection of the surplus profit extracted, in a capitalist reckoning, is immediately evident in the way that the price of £200 simply expresses the product of the surplus profit of £10 multiplied by twenty years, whereas, if circumstances remain otherwise the same, the same waterfall actually enables its owner to extract this annual £10 for an indefinite time; thirty or a hundred years, while on the other hand, if a new method of production that cannot make use of water-power lowers the cost price of the commodities produced by steam from £100 to £90, the surplus profit would disappear, and the rent and the price of the waterfall along with it.
Fifth: the fall's price, capitalized rent

Fifth. The price of the waterfall — that is, the price the landowner would receive if he sold it to a third person, or to the manufacturer himself — does not, to begin with, enter into the production price of the commodities; though it does enter the manufacturer's own individual cost price. For the rent here comes out of the production price of the commodities of the same kind that are produced with steam-engines, a price regulated independently of the waterfall.

Beyond that, this price of the waterfall is altogether an irrational expression, with a real economic relationship hidden behind it. The waterfall, like the earth in general, like every force of nature, has no value, because it represents no labour embodied in it, and therefore no price either — a price being, in the normal case, nothing but value expressed in money. Where there is no value, there is eo ipso nothing that could be expressed in money. This price is nothing but capitalized rent.

Landed property enables the owner to intercept the difference between the individual profit and the average profit. The profit intercepted in this way, renewed every year, can be capitalized, and it then appears as the price of the force of nature itself. If the surplus profit that the use of the waterfall throws off for the manufacturer is £10 a year, and the average rate of interest is 5 per cent, then this £10 a year represents the interest on a capital of £200; and this capitalization of the annual £10 that the waterfall enables its owner to intercept from the manufacturer then appears as the capital value of the waterfall itself.

That it is not the waterfall itself that has value, but that its price is a mere reflection of the intercepted surplus profit, reckoned capitalistically, shows at once in this: the price of £200 represents only the surplus profit of £10 multiplied by twenty years — whereas, other circumstances remaining the same, the same waterfall enables its owner to intercept that £10 every year for an indefinite time, 30, 100, x years; and whereas, on the other hand, if a new method of production that cannot make use of water-power lowered the cost price of the commodities produced by steam from £100 to £90, the surplus profit would vanish, and with it the rent, and with it the price of the waterfall.

Now that we have established the general concept of differential rent in this way, we turn to consider this rent in agriculture proper. What will be said of agriculture applies on the whole also to mining.
On to agriculture proper

Now that the general concept of differential rent has been fixed in this way, we turn to consider it in agriculture proper. What is said of it holds on the whole for mining too.