Das Kapital III — Kap. 7

Kap. 7

Nachträge: Geschäftsgeschick und Größenwechsel des Kapitals

Part One has followed the rate of profit through the surplus-value behind it, the composition of capital, the speed of the turnover, the economies in what the means of production cost, and the price swings that tie capital up or set it free. Two loose ends are left over, and the Part closes on them and on what does move the rate.

Gesetzt, wie in diesem Abschnitt unterstellt, die in jeder besondren Produktionssphäre angeeignete Profitmasse sei gleich der Summe des Mehrwerts, den das in dieser Sphäre angelegte Gesamtkapital erzeugt. So wird der Bourgeois den Profit doch nicht als identisch mit dem Mehrwert, d.h. mit unbezahlter Mehrarbeit, auffassen, und zwar aus folgenden Gründen nicht:

restating the premise, then two reasons

Suppose — as we have gone on assuming all through this Part — that in each particular sphere of production the mass of profit taken there is exactly equal to the surplus-value which the whole capital invested there produces. Even so, the bourgeois will not take profit to be the same thing as surplus-value — that is, as unpaid surplus labour. And he will not, for the following reasons:

1. In dem Prozeß der Zirkulation vergißt er den Produktionsprozeß. Das Realisieren des Werts der Waren - worin das Realisieren ihres Mehrwerts eingeschlossen - gilt ihm als Machen dieses Mehrwerts. {Eine leergelassene Lücke im Manuskript deutet an, daß Marx diesen Punkt näher zu entwickeln vorhatte. - F. E.}

selling mistaken for making surplus-value

(1) In the process of circulation the bourgeois forgets about the process of production. He takes the realizing of the commodities' value — getting that value in money by selling them, their surplus-value included — for the making of that surplus-value.

2. Denselben Exploitationsgrad der Arbeit vorausgesetzt, hat sich gezeigt, daß, abgesehn von allen durch das Kreditsystem hereingebrachten Modifikationen, von aller wechselseitigen Übervorteilung und Prellerei der Kapitalisten untereinander, ferner von aller günstigen Wahl des Markts, die Profitrate sehr verschieden sein kann, je nachdem der Rohstoff wohlfeiler oder minder wohlfeil, mit mehr oder minder Sachkenntnis angekauft; je nachdem die angewandte Maschinerie produktiv, zweckmäßig und wohlfeil; je nachdem die Gesamteinrichtung der verschiednen Stufen des Produktionsprozesses mehr oder minder vollkommen, die Stoffvergeudung beseitigt, die Leitung und Aufsicht einfach und wirksam ist usw. Kurz, den Mehrwert für ein bestimmtes variables Kapital gegeben, so hängt es noch sehr von der individuellen Geschäftstüchtigkeit, sei es des Kapitalisten selbst, sei es seiner Unteraufseher und Kommis ab, ob sich dieser selbe Mehrwert in einer größern oder kleinern Profitrate ausdrückt, und daher, ob er eine größere oder kleinere Profitmasse liefert. Derselbe Mehrwert von 1.000 Pfd.St., das Produkt von 1.000 Pfd.St. Arbeitslohn, sei im Geschäft A auf 9.000 Pfd.St. und in dem andern Geschäft B auf 11.000 Pfd.St. konstantes Kapital bezogen. Im Fall A haben wir p´ = 1.000/10.000 = 10%. In dem Fall B haben wir p´ = 1.000/12.000 = 8 1/3%. Das Gesamtkapital produziert bei A verhältnismäßig mehr Profit als bei B, weil dort die Profitrate höher als hier, obgleich in beiden Fällen das vorgeschoßne variable Kapital = 1.000 und der aus demselben geschlagne Mehrwert ebenfalls = 1.000 ist, also in beiden Fällen gleich große Exploitation von gleich vielen Arbeitern stattfindet. Diese Verschiedenheit der Darstellung derselben Masse Mehrwerts oder die Verschiedenheit der Profitraten und daher der Profite selbst, bei gleicher Exploitation der Arbeit, kann auch aus andren Quellen herstammen; sie kann aber auch einzig und allein entspringen aus der Verschiedenheit in dem Geschäftsgeschick, womit beide Geschäfte geführt sind. Und dieser Umstand verleitet den Kapitalisten - überzeugt ihn -, daß sein Profit geschuldet ist, nicht der Exploitation der Arbeit, sondern wenigstens teilweise auch andern, davon unabhängigen Umständen, namentlich aber seiner individuellen Tat.

same surplus-value, two different profit rates

(2) Assume the degree of exploitation of labour is the same throughout. Set aside, too, any modifications brought in by the credit system, any mutual cheating and swindling among capitalists, and any advantage from a favourable choice of market. Even so, as we have seen, the rate of profit can vary a great deal, depending on whether raw material was bought cheaper or dearer, with more or less specialist knowledge; whether the machinery in use is productive, well suited to its purpose and cheap; whether the various stages of the production process are more or less perfectly organized, waste is avoided, and management and supervision are simple and effective, and so on.

In short: given the surplus-value produced on a certain variable capital, whether this same surplus-value is expressed in a higher or a lower rate of profit — and so whether it delivers a greater or a smaller mass of profit — still depends a great deal on the business acumen of the individual, either the capitalist himself or his managers and salespeople.

Take the same £1,000 of surplus-value, the product of £1,000 in wages, in two businesses. In business A it is set against £9,000 of constant capital; in business B, against £11,000. In case A: p' = 1,000/10,000 = 10 per cent. In case B: p' = 1,000/12,000 = 8⅓ per cent. The total capital in A produces proportionally more profit than in B, because the rate of profit is higher there, even though in both cases the variable capital advanced is £1,000 and the surplus-value drawn from it is also £1,000, so the same number of workers is exploited to the same degree in both.

This difference in how the same mass of surplus-value is expressed — that is, this difference in the rates of profit, and so in the profits themselves, with the exploitation of labour equal — can spring from other sources too. But it can also arise purely and simply from the difference in business skill with which the two businesses are run. And this is what misleads the capitalist — convinces him — that his profit is owed not to the exploitation of labour but, at least in part, to other circumstances independent of that, and above all to his own individual doing.

__________

Aus dem in diesem ersten Abschnitt Entwickelten folgt die Falschheit der Ansicht (Rodbertus), wonach (im Unterschied von der Grundrente, wo z.B. das Bodenareal dasselbe bleibe, während die Rente wachse) ein Größenwechsel des Kapitals ohne Einfluß auf das Verhältnis zwischen Profit und Kapital und daher auf die Profitrate bleibe, weil, wenn die Masse des Profits wächst, auch die Masse des Kapitals wächst, auf das er berechnet wird und umgekehrt.

Rodbertus's claim, stated to be refuted

What has been developed in this first Part proves false Rodbertus's view that a change in the size of capital has no effect on the ratio between profit and capital, and so none on the rate of profit. Ground-rent, on his account, is different: there the area of land may stay the same while the rent grows. His reason: when the mass of profit grows, the mass of capital it is reckoned against grows with it, and the other way round.

Dies ist nur wahr in zwei Fällen. Erstens wenn, alle andern Umstände, also namentlich die Rate des Mehrwerts, als gleichbleibend vorausgesetzt, ein Wertwechsel der Ware eintritt, welche die Geldware ist. (Dasselbe findet statt bei dem nur nominellen Wertwechsel, Steigen oder Fallen von Wertzeichen bei sonst gleichen Umständen.) Das Gesamtkapital sei = 100 Pfd.St. und der Profit = 20 Pfd.St., die Profitrate also = 20%. Fällt oder steigt <1. Auflage: steigt oder fällt; geändert nach dem Manuskript von Marx > das Gold nun um 100%, so wird im ersten Fall dasselbe Kapital 200 Pfd.St. wert sein, das früher 100 Pfd.St. wert war, und der Profit wird einen Wert von 40 Pfd.St. haben, d.h. sich in diesem Geldausdruck darstellen, statt früher in 20 Pfd.St. Im zweiten Fall sinkt das Kapital auf einen Wert von 50 Pfd.St., und der Profit stellt sich dar in einem Produkt zum Wert von 10 Pfd.St. Aber in beiden Fällen ist 200 : 40 = 50 : 10 = 100 : 20 = 20%. In allen diesen Fällen wäre jedoch in der Tat kein Größenwechsel im Kapitalwert, sondern nur im Geldausdruck desselben Werts und desselben Mehrwerts vorgegangen. Es könnte also auch m / C oder die Profitrate nicht affiziert werden.

money's value shifts, profit rate unchanged

This is true only in two cases. First: suppose all other circumstances, in particular the rate of surplus-value, stay the same, and a change occurs in the value of the commodity that serves as money. (The same holds for a merely nominal change in value, a rise or fall in tokens of value — paper money and the like, standing in for the money commodity — other things being equal.) Let the total capital be £100 and the profit £20, so the rate of profit is 20 per cent. Now suppose the value of gold falls, or rises, by 100 per cent. If it falls, the same capital that was previously worth £100 will now be worth £200, and the profit will have a value of £40 — that is, it will show up in this money expression instead of the earlier £20. If gold rises instead, the capital falls to a value of £50, and the profit shows up in a product worth £10. But in both cases, 200 : 40 = 50 : 10 = 100 : 20 = 20 per cent. In all these cases, though, there would in fact have been no change in the size of the capital value at all — only in the money expression of the same value and the same surplus-value. So s/C — the rate of profit — could not be affected either.

Der andre Fall ist der, wenn wirklicher Größenwechsel des Werts stattfindet, aber dieser Größenwechsel nicht begleitet ist von einem Wechsel im Verhältnis von v : c, d.h., wenn bei konstanter Rate des Mehrwerts das Verhältnis des in Arbeitskraft ausgelegten Kapitals (das variable Kapital als Index der in Bewegung gesetzten Arbeitskraft betrachtet) zu dem in Produktionsmitteln ausgelegten Kapital dasselbe bleibt. Unter diesen Umständen, ob wir C oder nC oder C / n haben, z.B. 1.000 oder 2.000 oder 500, wird der Profit, bei 20% Profitrate, im ersten Fall = 200, im zweiten = 400, im dritten = 100 sein; aber 200/1.000 = 400/2.000 = 100/500 = 20%. D.h. die Profitrate bleibt hier unverändert, weil die Zusammensetzung des Kapitals dieselbe bleibt und von seinem Größenwechsel nicht berührt wird. Zunahme oder Abnahme der Profitmasse zeigt daher hier nur an Zunahme oder Abnahme in der Größe des angewandten Kapitals.

same composition, size changes, rate holds

The other case is where a real change in value does take place, but this change is not accompanied by any change in the ratio of v to c. That is: with the rate of surplus-value constant, the ratio between the capital laid out in labour-power and the capital laid out in means of production stays the same. Variable capital is taken here as an index of the labour-power set in motion. Under these conditions, whether we have C, or nC, or C/n — say, 1,000, or 2,000, or 500 — the profit, at a 20 per cent rate of profit, will be 200 in the first case, 400 in the second, 100 in the third; but 200/1,000 = 400/2,000 = 100/500 = 20 per cent. That is, the rate of profit stays unchanged here, because the composition of the capital stays the same and is not touched by the change in its size. An increase or decrease in the mass of profit, then, shows here only an increase or decrease in the size of the capital applied.

Im ersten Fall findet also nur ein scheinbarer Größenwechsel des angewandten Kapitals statt, im zweiten Fall findet ein wirklicher Größenwechsel statt, aber kein Wechsel in der organischen Zusammensetzung des Kapitals, in dem Verhältnis seines variablen Teils zu seinem konstanten. Aber diese beiden Fälle ausgenommen, ist der Größenwechsel des angewandten Kapitals entweder Folge eines vorhergegangnen Wertwechsels in einem seiner Bestandteile und daher (sofern nicht mit dem variablen Kapital der Mehrwert selbst wechselt) eines Wechsels in der relativen Größe seiner Bestandteile; oder dieser Größenwechsel (wie bei Arbeiten auf großer Stufenleiter, Einführung neuer Maschinerie etc.) ist die Ursache eines Wechsels in der relativen Größe seiner beiden organischen Bestandteile. In allen diesen Fällen muß daher bei sonst gleichen Umständen der Größenwechsel des angewandten Kapitals begleitet sein von einem gleichzeitigen Wechsel der Profitrate.

outside two cases, the rate shifts

So in the first case, the change in the size of the capital applied is only an apparent one; in the second case, a real change in size takes place, but no change in the organic composition of the capital, that is, in the ratio of its variable part to its constant part.

But apart from these two cases, a change in the size of the capital applied is either the consequence of a prior change in the value of one of its components — and with that, of a change in the relative size of those components, unless the surplus-value itself changes along with the variable capital — or else this change in size, as with operations on a larger scale or the introduction of new machinery, is itself the cause of a change in the relative size of its two organic components. In all these cases, then, other things being equal, a change in the size of the capital applied must be accompanied by a simultaneous change in the rate of profit.

__________

Die Vermehrung der Profitrate stammt stets daher, daß der Mehrwert relativ oder absolut im Verhältnis zu seinen Produktionskosten, d.h. zum vorgeschoßnen Gesamtkapital, vermehrt wird oder die Differenz zwischen Rate des Profits und Rate des Mehrwerts vermindert wird.

what raises the rate of profit

A rise in the rate of profit always comes from surplus-value being increased, relatively or absolutely, in relation to its costs of production — that is, to the total capital advanced — or from the gap between the rate of profit and the rate of surplus-value being narrowed.

Schwankungen in der Rate des Profits, unabhängig vom Wechsel in den organischen Bestandteilen des Kapitals oder von der absoluten Größe des Kapitals, sind dadurch möglich, daß der Wert des vorgeschoßnen Kapitals, in welcher Form, fix oder zirkulierend, es existiere, steigt oder fällt infolge einer, von dem schon existierenden Kapital unabhängigen, Erhöhung oder Erniedrigung der zu seiner Reproduktion nötigen Arbeitszeit. Der Wert jeder Ware - also auch der Waren, woraus das Kapital besteht - ist bedingt nicht durch die in ihr selbst enthaltne notwendige Arbeitszeit, sondern durch die gesellschaftlich notwendige Arbeitszeit, die zu ihrer Reproduktion erheischt ist. Diese Reproduktion kann erfolgen unter erschwerenden oder unter erleichternden Umständen, verschieden von den Bedingungen der ursprünglichen Produktion. Bedarf es unter den veränderten Umständen allgemein doppelt so vieler oder umgekehrt halb so vieler Zeit, um dasselbe sachliche Kapital zu reproduzieren, so würde bei unverändertem Wert des Geldes, wenn es früher 100 Pfd.St. wert, jetzt 200 Pfd.St., bzw. 50 Pfd.St. wert sein. Träfe diese Werterhöhung oder Entwertung alle Teile des Kapitals gleichmäßig, so würde sich auch der Profit entsprechend in der doppelten oder nur in der halben Geldsumme ausdrücken. Schließt sie aber eine Änderung in der organischen Zusammensetzung des Kapitals ein, steigert oder senkt sie das Verhältnis des variablen zum konstanten Kapitalteil, so wird die Profitrate bei sonst gleichen Umständen wachsen mit relativ wachsendem, fallen bei relativ sinkendem variablem Kapital. Steigt oder fällt nur der Geldwert (infolge einer Wertänderung des Geldes) des vorgeschoßnen Kapitals, so steigt oder fällt im selben Verhältnis der Geldausdruck des Mehrwerts. Die Profitrate bleibt unverändert.

reproduction time, not original cost

Fluctuations in the rate of profit are also possible independently of any change in the organic components of the capital or in the absolute size of the capital. They come about in this way: the value of the capital advanced, whatever form it exists in, fixed or circulating, rises or falls because the labour-time needed to reproduce it has risen or fallen — a change that comes about independently of the capital already in existence.

The value of every commodity, and so also of the commodities that make up the capital, is determined not by the necessary labour-time it itself contains, but by the socially necessary labour-time required to reproduce it. This reproduction can take place under conditions that make it harder or easier than the conditions of the original production. If, under the changed conditions, it generally takes twice as much time, or conversely only half as much time, to reproduce the same material capital, then, with the value of money unchanged, a capital that was previously worth £100 would now be worth £200, or £50, as the case may be.

If this rise or fall in value affected all parts of the capital equally, the profit too would come to be expressed, correspondingly, in double or in only half the sum of money. But if it includes a change in the organic composition of the capital, if it raises or lowers the ratio of the variable to the constant part of the capital, then, other things being equal, the rate of profit will rise where the variable capital grows relatively, and fall where it shrinks relatively. If only the money value of the capital advanced rises or falls, as a result of a change in the value of money, then the money expression of the surplus-value rises or falls in the same proportion. The rate of profit stays unchanged.

Kap. 7

Supplementary Remarks: Business Skill and Changes in the Size of Capital

We continue to assume, as throughout this Part, that the mass of profit appropriated in each particular sphere of production is equal to the sum of the surplus-value produced in this sphere by the total capital applied. The bourgeois, however, will still not conceive profit as identical with surplus-value, i.e. with unpaid surplus labour, and this for the following reasons:

restating the premise, then two reasons

(1) In the process of circulation, he forgets the production process. The realization of commodity value — including the realization of surplus-value — he takes as the making of this surplus-value. (A blank in the manuscript here indicates that Marx intended to develop this point in more detail. — F.E.)

selling mistaken for making surplus-value

(2) We have shown that, even assuming the same degree of exploitation of labour, and ignoring all modifications introduced by the credit system, all mutual swindling and cheating among the capitalists themselves and all favourable selections of the market, rates of profit can be very different according to whether raw materials are purchased cheaply or less cheaply, with more or less specialist knowledge; according to whether the machinery employed is productive, suitable and cheap; according to whether the overall arrangement of the production process in its various stages is more or less satisfactory, with wastage of material avoided, management and supervision simple and effective, etc. In short, given the surplus-value that accrues to a certain variable capital, it still depends very much on the business acumen of the individual, either the capitalist himself or his managers and salespeople, whether this same surplus-value is expressed in a higher or lower rate of profit and therefore whether it delivers a greater or lesser amount of profit. The same surplus-value of £1,000, the product of £1,000 in wages, may involve £9,000 of constant capital in business A, and £11,000 in business B. In case A we have p' = 1,000/10,000 = 10 per cent; in case B, p' = 1,000/12,000 = 8⅓ per cent. In the first case the total capital produces relatively more profit than in the second, i.e. the rate of profit is higher there, even though the variable capital advanced (£1,000) and the surplus-value that is extracted from it (£1,000) are the same in both cases, and there is thus in each case an equal exploitation of the same number of workers. This variation in the way the same mass of surplus-value is expressed, or the variation in the rate of profit and therefore in the profit itself, with the same exploitation of labour, may also stem from other sources; it can even arise purely and simply from the variation in the business skill with which the two enterprises are conducted. And this circumstance misleads the capitalist by convincing him that his profit is due not to the exploitation of labour, but at least in part also to other circumstances independent of this, and in particular his own individual action.

same surplus-value, two different profit rates

The arguments developed in this first Part show the errors of that view (Rodbertus) according to which (in distinction from ground-rent, where the land area can remain the same, for example, while the rent rises), even a large variation in the capital can remain without effect on the proportion between capital and profit, i.e. on the profit rate, because if the mass of profit grows, so does the mass of the capital on which it must be calculated, and vice versa.

Rodbertus's claim, stated to be refuted

This is true in only two cases. Firstly, if, other things being equal, and in particular the rate of surplus-value, there is a change in the value of the money commodity. (This is so even with a purely nominal change in value, the rise and fall of tokens of value, as long as other factors remain the same.) Let the total capital be £100 and the profit £20, so that the rate of profit is 20 per cent. If the price of gold is now halved or doubled, in the first case the same capital that was previously worth £100 is now worth £200, and the profit has a value of £40 instead of £20 (i.e. it is expressed in this new amount of money). In the second case, the capital falls to a value of £50, and the profit is now expressed in a product valued at £10. In both cases, however, 200:40 = 50:10 = 100:20 = 20 per cent. There would be no real change in the capital value in any case such as this, but simply a change in the monetary expression of the same value and surplus-value. The rate of profit, s/C, could not be affected.

money's value shifts, profit rate unchanged

The other case is when there is a real change in capital value, but this change is not accompanied by a change in the ratio v:c, i.e. when the rate of surplus-value is constant and the ratio of the capital invested in labour-power (the variable capital, taken as an index of the labour-power set in motion) to the capital invested in means of production remains the same. Under these conditions, if we take C or nC or C/n, e.g. 1,000 or 2,000 or 500, the total profit will be in the first case 200, in the second case 400 and in the third case 100, but 200/1,000 = 400/2,000 = 100/500 = 20 per cent; i.e. the rate of profit remains unchanged here because the composition of the capital remains the same and is not affected by its change in magnitude. Hence the increase or decrease in the mass of profit simply indicates an increase or decrease in the size of the capital applied.

same composition, size changes, rate holds

In the first case, therefore, there is simply an apparent change in magnitude of the capital applied; in the second case there is a real change in magnitude, but no change in the capital’s organic composition, in the proportion between its variable and its constant parts. Leaving aside these two cases, however, a change in the magnitude of capital applied is either the result of a change in the value of one of its components, and thus a change in their relative magnitude (as long as the surplus-value does not itself change with the variable capital); or else this change in magnitude is the cause of a change in the relative magnitude of its two organic components (as with large-scale operations, the introduction of new machinery, etc.). In all these cases, therefore, a change in the magnitude of the capital applied must be accompanied by a simultaneous change in the rate of profit, as long as other things remain equal.

outside two cases, the rate shifts

An increase in the rate of profit always stems from a relative or absolute increase in the surplus-value in relation to its costs of production, i.e. to the total capital advanced, or from a reduction in the difference between the rate of profit and the rate of surplus-value.

what raises the rate of profit

Fluctuations in the rate of profit that are independent of changes in either the capital’s organic components or its absolute magnitude are possible only if the value of the capital advanced, whatever might be the form — fixed or circulating — in which it exists, rises or falls as a result of an increase or decrease in the labour-time necessary for its reproduction, an increase or decrease that is independent of the capital already in existence. The value of any commodity — and thus also of the commodities which capital consists of — is determined not by the necessary labour-time that it itself contains, but by the socially necessary labour-time required for its reproduction. This reproduction may differ from the conditions of its original production by taking place under easier or more difficult circumstances. If the changed circumstances mean that twice as much time, or alternatively only half as much, is required for the same physical capital to be reproduced, then given an unchanged value of money, this capital, if it was previously worth £100, would now be worth £200, or alternatively £50. If this increase or decrease in value affects all components of the capital equally, the profit is also expressed accordingly in twice or only half the monetary sum. But if it involves a change in the organic composition of the capital, the ratio between the variable and the constant portions of the capital, then, if other circumstances remain the same, the profit rate will rise with a relatively rising share of variable capital and fall with a relatively falling share. If it is only the money value that rises or falls (as a result of a change in the value of money), the monetary expression of the surplus-value rises or falls in the same proportion. The profit rate then remains unchanged.

reproduction time, not original cost