Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. II. The Process of Circulation of Capital

This process of reproduction, now, must be considered for the purposes of our study both from the point of view of the reproduction of the value and of the substance of the individual component parts of C’. We cannot rest satisfied any longer, as we did in the analysis of the value of the product of the individual capital, with the assumption that the individual capitalist must first convert the component parts of his capital into money by the sale of his commodities, before he is able to reconvert it into productive capital by renewed purchase of the elements of production in the commodity market. Those elements of production, so far as they consist of things, constitute as much a portion of the social capital as the individual finished product, which is exchanged for them and reproduced by them. On the other hand, the movement of that portion of the social product in commodities, which is consumed by the laborer in the expenditure of his labor-power, and by the capitalist in spending his surplus-value, does not only form an integral part of the movement of the total product, but also intermingles with the movements of the individual capitals, and this process cannot be explained by merely assuming it.

The portion c of the value, representing the constant capital
consumed in production, is not identical with the value of the constant capital
invested in production. It is true that the materials of production are entirely consumed and their values completely transferred to the product. But of the invested
fixed capital, only a portion is consumed and its value transferred to the product. Another portion of the fixed capital, such as machines, buildings, etc., continues to exist and serve the same as before, merely depreciating to the extent of the annual wear and tear. This persistent portion of the fixed capital does not exist for us, when we consider the value of the product. It is a portion of the value of capital existing independently beside the new value in commodities produced by this capital. This was shown previously in the analysis of the value of the product of some individual capital (volume I, chapter VI). However, for the present we must leave aside the method of analysis employed there. We saw in the study of the value of the product of individual capital that the value withdrawn from the fixed capital by wear and tear was transferred to the product in commodities created during the time of wear, no matter whether any portion of this fixed capital is reproduced in its natural form out of the value thus transferred or not. At this point, however, in the study of the social product as a whole and of its value, we must for the present leave out of consideration that portion of value which is transferred from the fixed capital to the annual product by wear and tear, unless this fixed capital is reproduced
in natura during the year. In one of the following sections of this chapter we shall return to this point.

I. Production of Means of Production.

Capital…4000 c+1000 v=5000.

Product in Commodities…4000 c+1000 v+1000 s=6000.

These exist in the form of means of production.

II. Production of Means of Consumption.

Capital…2000 c+500 v=2500.

Product in Commodities…2000 c+500 v+500 s=3000.

These exist in articles of consumption.

Recapitulation: Total annual product in commodities:

I. 4000 c+1000 v+1000 s=6000 means of production.

II. 2000 c+ 500 v+ 500 s=3000 articles of consumption.

Total value 9000, exclusive of the fixed capital persisting in its natural form, according to our assumption.

Now, if we examine the transactions required on the basis of simple reproduction, where the entire surplus-value is unproductively consumed, leaving aside for the present the mediation of the money circulation, we obtain at the outset three great points of vantage.

(1) The 500 v, representing wages of the laborers, and 500 s, representing surplus-value of the capitalists, in department II, must be spent for articles of consumption. But their value exists in the articles of consumption to the amount of 1000, held by the capitalists of department II, which reproduce the 500 v and represent the 500 s. The wages and surplus-value of department II, then, are exchanged within this department for products of this same department. By this means, a quantity of articles of consumption equal to 1000 (500 v plus 500 s) disappear out of the total product of department II.

(3) Nothing remains now but 4000 c of I. These consist of means of production which can be used up only in department I. They serve for the reproduction of its consumed constant capital, and are disposed of by the mutual exchange between the individual capitalists of I, just as are the (500 v + 500 s) in II by an exchange between the capitalists and laborers, or between the individual capitalists, of II.

This may serve for the present to render easier the understanding of the following statements.

It follows that, on the basis of simple reproduction, the sum of the values of v plus s of the commodity-capital of I (and therefore a corresponding proportional part of the total product in commodities of I) must be equal to the constant capital c of department II, which is likewise disposed of as a proportional part of the entire product in commodities of department II; or I (v + s) = II c.

Since II (v + s) exists in the natural form of articles of consumption; since, furthermore, the variable capital advanced in the payment of the labor-power of the laborers is mostly spent by them for articles of consumption; and since, finally, the s-portion of the value of commodities, on the basis of simple reproduction, is practically spent as revenue for articles of consumption, it is evident at the first glance that the laborers of II buy back, with the money received as wages from the capitalists of II, a portion of their own product, corresponding in value to the money-value represented by these wages. The capitalist class of II thereby reconvert the money-capital advanced by them in the payment of labor-power into the form of money. It is as though they had paid the laborers in mere checks on commodities. As soon as the laborers realize on these checks by the purchase of a portion of the commodities produced by them, but belonging to the capitalists, these checks return into the hands of the capitalists. Only, these checks do not merely represent value, but they are actually embodied in gold or silver. We shall analyze later on this sort of reflux of variable capital by means of a process in which the laborer appears as a purchaser and the capitalist as a seller. Here, however, it is a question of a different point, which must be discussed on the occasion of the return of this variable capital to its point of departure.

Department II of the annual production of commodities consists of a great variety of lines of production, which may, however, be divided into two great subdivisions according to their products.

(b) Articles of luxury, which are consumed only by the capitalist class, being purchased only with the surplus-value, which never falls to the share of the laborer.

It is obvious that the variable capital advanced in the production of the commodities of the class (a) must flow back directly to that portion of the capitalist class of II (in other words the capitalists of IIa) who have produced these material requirements of life. They sell them to their own laborers to the amount of the variable capital paid to them in wages. This reflux takes place in a direct way, so far as this entire subdivision (a) of the capitalist class of department II is concerned, no matter how numerous may be the transactions between the capitalists of the various lines of industry interested in this department, by means of which the returning variable capital is distributed pro rata. These transactions are processes of circulation, whose means of circulation are supplied directly by the money expended by the laborers. It is different with subdivision IIb. The entire portion of the values produced in this subdivision, IIb (v + s), exists in the natural form of articles of luxury; that is to say, articles which the laborer can buy no more than the value of the commodities Iv existing in the form of means of production, notwithstanding the fact that both articles of luxury and means of production are the products of the working class. Hence the reflux by which the variable capital advanced in this subdivision restores to the capitalist producers its value in the form of money cannot take place directly, but must be promoted indirectly, similarly as in the case of Iv.

Let us assume, for instance, that v stands for 500 and s also for 500, as they did in the case of the entire class II; but let the division of the variable capital and of the corresponding surplus-value be as follows:

The laborers of IIb have received 100 in money as payment of their labor-power, or say 100 pounds sterling. They buy with this money articles of consumption from the capitalists of IIa to the same amount. This class of capitalists buys with the same money 100 p. st. worth of the commodities of IIb, thereby returning to the capitalists of IIb their variable capital in the form of money.

In IIa there are available once more 400 v in money, in the hands of the capitalists, obtained by exchange with their laborers. Furthermore, the fourth part of the product representing surplus-value has been transferred to the laborers of IIb, and IIb (100v) have been purchased in the form of articles of luxury.

Now, assuming that the capitalists of IIa and IIb divide the expenditure of their revenue in the same proportion between necessities of life and luxuries—for instance, three-fifths for necessities and two-fifths for luxuries—the capitalists of IIa will spend their revenue from surplus-value, amounting to 400 s, three-fifths, or 240, for their own product of necessities of life, and two-fifths, or 160, for articles of luxury. The capitalists of subdivision IIb will divide their surplus-value of 100 s in the same way: three-fifths, or 60, for necessities, and two-fifths, or 40, for articles of luxury, these being produced and exchanged in their own sub-division.

IIa: 400 v plus 400 s; IIb: 100 v plus 100 s.

(1) 400 v of (a) are consumed by the laborers of IIa, a part of whose product is represented by that amount in necessities of life; the laborers buy these necessities from the capitalist producers of their own subdivision. These capitalists thereby recover 400 p. st., in money, which is the value of the variable capital paid by them to these same laborers. They can now buy more labor-power with it.

(2) One portion of the 400 s of (a), equal to the 100 v of (b); in other words, one-quarter of the surplus-value of (a) is exchanged for luxuries in the following way: The laborers of (b) received from the capitalists of their subdivision 100 p. st. in wages. With this amount these laborers bought one-quarter of the surplus-value of (a), in other words, commodities consisting of necessities of life. The capitalists of (a) buy with this same money articles of luxury to the same amount, which equals 100 v of (b), or one-half of the entire product in luxuries of (b). In this way the capitalists of (b) recover their variable capital in the form of money and are enabled to resume reproduction after having invested this amount once more in labor-power, since the entire constant capital of the whole department II has been reproduced by the exchange between I (v+s) and IIc. The labor-power of the laborers of IIb, the producers of articles of luxury, is under these circumstances, only saleable because the product created by them as an equivalent for their own wages is consumed by the capitalists of IIa. (The same applies to the sale of the labor-power of I, since the IIc for which I (v + s) is exchanged, consists of both articles of luxury and necessities of life, and that which is reproduced by means of I (v + s) consists of the means of production of both luxuries and necessities.)

(IIa) is then divided into 240 for necessities and 160 for luxuries, or 240 + 160=400 s (IIa).

(IIb) s is divided into 60 for necessities and 40 for luxuries; 60 + 40 = 100s (IIb). The last 40 are consumed by this class out of its own product (two-fifths of its surplus-value); the 60 for necessities are obtained by this class through the exchange of 60 of its surplus-value for 60 s of a.

We have, then, for the entire capitalist class of II, the following situation (v plus s in subdivision (a) consisting of necessities, in subdivision (b) of luxuries):

IIa (400 v + 400 s) +IIb (100 v + 100 s) = 1000; by this transaction there is realized 500 v (a + b) + 500 s (a + b) = 1000; the first member in this equation being realized in 400 v of (a) and 100 s of (b), the second in 300 s of (a) plus 100 v of (b) plus 100 s of (b).

Considering a and b, each by itself, we have the transaction:

The 2000 I (v + s), then, would be divided into (800 v + 800 s) I, for the 1600 means of production of necessities of life in section a, and (200 v + 200 s) I, for the 400 means of production of luxuries in b.

A considerable part of the instruments of labor, strictly so called, as well as of the raw and auxiliary materials, etc., is homogeneous for both departments. But so far as the transaction of the exchanges of the various portions of value of the total product I (v + s) are concerned, such a division would be immaterial. Both the above named 800 v of I and 200 v of I are realized by the spending of wages for articles of consumption 1000 c of II, and the money-capital advanced for this purpose is uniformly distributed, on its return, among the capitalist producers of I, reproducing their variable capital in money at the rate advanced by them. On the other hand, so far as the realization of the 1000 s of I is concerned, the capitalists will likewise draw uniformly, in proportion to the magnitude of their surplus-value, 600 IIa and 400 IIb out of the entire second half of IIc, equal to 1000; in other words, those who make up for the constant capital of IIa will draw 480, or three-fifths, out of 600 c of IIa, and 320, or two-fifths, out of 400 c of IIb, a total of 800; while those who make up for the constant capital of IIb will draw 120, or three-fifths out of 600 c of IIa and 80, or two-fifths out of 400 c of IIb, a total of 200. Grand total, 1000.

(1) That the new product in values created by the labor of one year in the natural form of means of production, divisible into v plus s, must be equal to the value of the constant capital c of the product in values created by the other part of annual labor, reproduced in the form of articles of consumption. If it were smaller than IIc, it would be impossible for II to reproduce its entire constant capital; if it were greater, a surplus would remain unused. In either case, the assumption of simple reproduction would be violated.

In mentioning the fact that the conversion of the v of IIb into a portion of the s of IIa of the same value, and the further transactions between the s of IIa and the s of IIb, it is by no means assumed that either the individual capitalists of IIa and IIb or their respective totalities divide their surplus-value in the same proportion between necessities of life and articles of luxury. The one may spend more in this consumption, the other more in that. On the basis of simple reproduction we have merely assumed that a sum of values equal to the entire surplus-value is realized in a fund for consumption. The limits are thus given. Within each department, the one may do more in a, the other in b. But this may compensate itself mutually, so that the capitalist classes of a and b, each taken as a whole, each participate in the same proportion in both of them. The proportions of value—the proportional share of the two classes of producers, a and b, in the total value of the product of II—and with them a definite quantitative proportion between the departments of production supplying those products, are necessarily given in any concrete case; only a proportion chosen as an illustration is a hypothetical one. It does not alter the qualitative elements of the proposition, if we select another illustration; only the quantitative determinations would be altered. But if any circumstances cause an actual change in the proportional magnitude of a and b, then the conditions of simple reproduction would likewise be changed correspondingly.

Every crisis momentarily lessens the consumption of luxuries. It retards and checks the reconversion of the v of IIb into money-capital, permitting it only partially and thus throwing a certain number of the laborers employed in the production of luxuries out of employment, while it on the other hand clogs by this means the sale of the necessary articles of consumption and reduces it. And there are, besides, the unproductive laborers who are dismissed at the same time, laborers who receive for their services a portion of the funds spent by the capitalists for luxuries (these laborers are themselves luxuries), and who take part to a very considerable extent in the consumption of necessities of life, etc. The reverse takes place in periods of prosperity, particularly during the times of bogus prosperity, in which the relative value of money, expressed in commodities, decreases primarily for other reasons (without any other actual revolution in values), so that the price of commodities rises independently of their own value. It is not alone the consumption of necessities of life which increases at such times. The working class, actively re-inforced by its entire reserve army, also enjoys momentarily articles of luxury ordinarily out of its reach, articles which at other times constitute for the greater part “necessities” only for the capitalist class. This contributes to a rise in prices from this quarter.

So far as we have analyzed circulation up to the present, it proceeded between the various classes of producers as indicated in the following diagrams:

(1) Between class I and class II:

I. 4000 c + 1000 v + 1000 s.

II….2000 c…+ 500 v + 500 s.

This disposes of the circulation of IIc (2000), which is exchanged for I (1000 v + 1000 s).

Leaving aside for the present the 4000 c of I, there still remains the circulation of v + s within class II. Now II (v + s) is subdivided between the subclasses IIa and IIb in the following manner:

(2) II. 500 v + 500 s=a (400 v + 400 s) + b (100 v + 100 s).

The 400 v of a circulate within their own subclass; the laborers paid with these wages buy with them articles of consumption, produced by themselves, from their employers, the capitalists of IIa.

Since the capitalists of both subclasses spend three-fifths of their surplus-value in products of IIa (necessities) and two-fifths in products of IIb (luxuries), the three-fifths of the surplus-value of a, or 240, are consumed within the subclass IIa itself; likewise two-fifths of the surplus-value of b (produced in the form of articles of luxury and existing as such) within the subclass IIb.

the brackets indicating the amounts circulated and consumed within their own subclass.

The direct reflux of the money-capital advanced in variable capital, which takes place only in the case of the capitalist class of IIa who produce necessities of life, is but an expression, modified by special conditions, of the previously mentioned general law, that money advanced to the circulation by producers of commodities returns to them in the normal circulation of commodities. Consequently, if a money capitalist stands behind the producer of commodities and advances to the industrial capitalist money-capital (using this term in its strictest meaning, that is to say, capital-value in the form of money), the final point of reflux for this money is the pocket of this money-capitalist. In this way the mass of the circulating money belongs to that department of money-capital which is concentrated and organized in the form of banks, etc., although the money circulates more or less through all hands. The way in which this department advances its capital necessitates continually the final reflux to it in the form of money, although this takes place by way of the reconversion of the industrial capital into money-capital.

The circulation of commodities always requires two things: Commodities which are thrown into circulation, and money which is likewise thrown into it. “The process of circulation…does not, like direct barter of products, become extinguished upon the use-values changing places and hands. The money does not vanish on dropping out of the circuit of the metamorphosis of a given commodity. It is constantly being precipitated into new places in the arena of circulation vacated by other commodities,” etc. (Volume I, chapter III, page 126.)

Now, the money-capital converted into variable capital, the money advanced for wages, plays a prominent role in the circulation of money itself. For the laborer must live from hand to mouth and cannot give the industrial capitalists any credit for long periods. Hence variable capital in the form of money must be advanced simultaneously at innumerable localities in the social production in certain short intervals, such as weeks, etc., whatever may be the various periods of turn-over of the capitals in the different lines of industry. These intervals succeed one another with relative rapidity, and the shorter they are, the smaller is relatively the total amount of money thrown into circulation through this channel. In every country with a capitalist production the money-capital so advanced constitutes a proportionately influential share of the total circulation, so much more so as the same money, before its return to its point of departure, roams through many channels and serves as a medium of circulation for innumerable other businesses.

On the other hand, the natural form in which variable capital existing in the form of money must be incorporated in order to be preserved, in other words, labor-power, has been maintained by consumption, and having been reproduced exists once more as the sole commodity which its owners have for sale in order to make a living. The relation of wage workers and capitalists, then, has likewise been reproduced.

(2) The constant capital of II is reproduced in its natural form, and the 500 p. st. advanced by the same department to the circulation have likewise returned to its hands.

So far as the laborers of I are concerned, the circulation takes place according to the simple schedule C—M—C. Labor-power
¹ C—1000 p. st. as the money-form of the variable capital of I; M
²—necessities of life to the amount of 1000 p. st.; C
³—these 1000 p. st. monetize to the same amount the constant capital of II existing in the form of commodities, of necessities of life.

From the point of view of the capitalists of II, the process is C—M, the transformation of a portion of their product into money, from which it is reconverted into the elements of productive capital, namely into a portion of the means of production required by them.

In the case of the advance of money of 500 p. st., made by the capitalists of II in the purchase of an additional portion of means of production, the money-form of that portion of IIc which exists as yet in the form of commodities, of articles of consumption, is anticipated, in the transaction M—C, in which II buys with M, and C is sold by I, the money (II) is converted into a portion of productive capital, while C (I) passes through the transaction C—M, changes itself into money, which, however, does not represent any component part of productive capital for I, but merely monetized surplus-value expended solely for articles of consumption.

If the turn-overs had been assumed to be shorter—or, from the point of view of the simple circulation of commodities, the number of turn-overs of the circulating money more rapid—even less money would be required for the circulation of the exchanged values of commodities; the amount is always determined—if the number of successive transactions is given—by the sum of the prices, or the sum of values, of the circulating commodities. It is immaterial for this question what proportion of this sum of values consists of surplus-value or of capital-value.

If the wages of I, in our illustration, were paid four times per year, we should have 4 times 250, or 1000. In other words, 250 p. st. would suffice for the circulation between Iv and ½ of IIc, and for that between the variable capital of I and the labor-power of the same department. Furthermore, if the circulation between Is and IIc were to take place in four turn-overs, it would require only 250 p. st. in money, or in the aggregate a sum of money, or a money-capital, or 500 p. st. for the circulation of commodities worth 5000 p. st. In that case, the surplus-value would be converted into money by four successive transactions, monetizing one-fourth each time, instead of two transactions of one-half each time.

Department I buys with an additional amount of 500 p. st. in money articles of consumption from II; after spending this money, I holds its equivalent in commodities of II; the money returns for the first time by the purchase, on the part of II, of commodities to the amount of 500 p. st. from I; in other words, it returns as the equivalent of the commodities sold by I, but these commodities do not cost I anything, they constitute surplus-value for I, and
thus the money thrown into circulation by this very department monetizes its own surplus-value. On buying for the second time, in transaction No. 6, I has likewise obtained its equivalent in commodities of II. Take it, now, that II would not buy means of production from I. In that case, I would have actually paid 1000 p. st. for articles of consumption, it would have consumed its entire surplus-value as revenue, namely 500 in its own commodities (means of production) and 500 in money; on the other hand, it would still have 500 p. st. in commodities (means of production) in stock, and would have gotten rid of 500 p. st. in money.

However, the 500 in means of production, which I has on its hands, are not surplus-value existing in the form of commodities; they occupy the place of the 500 p. st. advanced in money, which I possessed aside from its 1000 p. st. in commodities. In the form of money, they would be always convertible, as commodities they are momentarily unsalable. So much is evident, that simple reproduction—in which every element of productive capital must be reproduced in both II and I—remains possible in this case only, if the 500 golden birds, which I first sent flying, return to it.

If a capitalist (we have only industrial capitalists to deal with here, who are the representatives of all others) spends money for articles of consumption, it passes out of his life, it goes the way of the flesh. If it returns to him, it can do so only to the extent that he draws it out of circulation by means of his commodity-capital. The value of his entire annual product in commodities (which represents his commodity-capital) the same as that of every one of its elements, that is to say, of every individual commodity, resolves itself, from his point of view, into constant capital, variable capital, and surplus-value. The monetization of every individual commodity (each constituting an element of the product in commodities) is at the same time a monetization of a certain portion of the surplus-value contained in the entire product. In the cited case, then, it is literally true that the capitalist himself threw the very money into circulation by which his surplus-value is monetized, and he did so in the purchase of articles of consumption. Of course, it is not a question of the identical pieces of money, but rather of a certain amount of genuine money equal to the one (or an equal portion of the one) which he had previously thrown into circulation to satisfy his own individual wants.

The actual transaction is obscured by two circumstances:

(1) The fact that merchant’s capital (the first form of which is always money, since the merchant as such does not create any “product” or “commodity”) and money-capital are manipulated by a special class of capitalists in the process of circulation of industrial capital.

(2) The division of surplus-value—which must always be first in the hands of the industrial capitalist—into various categories, represented, aside from industrial capitalists, by the land owner (for ground rent), the usurer (for interest), etc., furthermore by the government and its officials, by people living on their income, etc. This gentry appear as buyers as compared to the industrial capitalist, and to that extent as monetizers of his commodities; they likewise throw “money” into circulation on their part and the industrial gets it from them. But in that case, it is always forgotten from what source they derived it originally, and continue deriving it ever anew.

In these 4000c of the commodity-product of I, the constant capital-value consumed in this category re-appears in its natural form in which it can immediately resume its services as a productive constant capital. In department II, that portion of the commodity-product of 3000 whose value is equal to the wages plus the surplus-value of 1000, passes directly into the individual consumption of the capitalists and laborers of II, while, on the other hand, the constant value of this commodity-product, equal to 2000, cannot re-enter into the productive consumption of the capitalists of II, but must be reproduced by exchange with I.

But in department I, that portion of its commodity-product of 6000, whose value is equal to the wages plus the surplus-value, or 2000, does not pass into the individual consumption of its producers, and could not on account of its natural form. It must first be exchanged with department II. On the other hand, the constant portion of the value of this product, or 4000, exists in a natural form, in which it can immediately resume its services as the constant capital of the capitalist class of I, taking this class as an aggregate. In other words, the entire product of department I consists of use-values which, on account of their natural form, can serve only as elements of constant capital, in a capitalist system of production. One third of this product of 6000, then, reproduces the constant capital of department II, or 2000, and the other two thirds the constant capital of department I.

As for the value of the constant capital re-appearing in the form of the commodity-product of I, it re-enters in part as means of production into the particular sphere whose product it is (or even into the individual business), for instance, corn into the production of corn, coal into the production of coal, iron in the form of machines into the production of iron, etc.

The total value of the articles of consumption annually produced is equal to the value of the variable capital of II produced during the year plus the newly created surplus-value of II (in other words, equal to the value newly produced by II during the year) plus the value of the variable capital of I reproduced during the year and the newly produced surplus-value of I (in other words, plus the value created by I during the year).

On the assumption of simple reproduction, then, the total value of the annually produced articles of consumption is equal to the annual product in values, in other words, equal to the total value produced during that year by social labor. And it must be so, for the reason that this entire value is consumed, on the basis of simple reproduction.

But we know that the total value of the commodities of II, the articles of consumption, is not produced in this department of social production, although these two classes of value are identical. They are identical, because the value of the constant capital re-appearing in department II is equal to the value newly produced by I (value of variable capital plus surplus value); so that I (v+s) can buy that portion of the product of II which represents the value of the constant capital of the producers in department II. This shows why the value of the product of the capitalists of II, from the point of view of society, may be resolved into v + s, although from their standpoint it is divided into c + v + s. It is because IIc is equal to I (v + s), and because these two elements of the social product are mutually exchanged in their natural forms, so that after this exchange IIc exists once more in means of production, and I (v + s) in articles of consumption.

And it is this circumstance which induced Adam Smith to claim that the value of the annual product resolves itself into v + s. But this is not true, in the first place, except for that part of the annual product which consists of articles of consumption; and in the second place, it does not apply in the sense that this total value is entirely produced by department II, so that its value in products would be equal to the variable capital advanced by II plus the surplus-value produced by II. It is true only in the sense that II (c + v + s) is equal to II (v + s) +I (v + s), or because IIc is equal to I (v + s).

It follows, furthermore:

The entire product of II, the articles of consumption, viewed concretely as a use-value, in its natural form, is a creation of the one third of the social working day contributed by II. It is the product of labor in its concrete form, such as the labor of weaving, baking, etc., performed in this department as the subjective element of the labor process. But the constant portion of the value of this product of II re-appears only in a new use-value, in a new natural form, namely that of articles of consumption, while it existed previously in the form of means of production. Its value has been transferred by the labor-process from its old natural form to its new natural form. But this value of these two thirds of the product, or 2000, has not been produced in this year’s productive process of II.

The analysis of the total value of the product of 9000, and of the categories into which it is divided, does not present any greater difficulties than that of the value produced by some individual capital. It is rather identical with it.

In the present instance, the entire social product of this year contains three social working days, each of one year. The value represented by each one of these working days is 3000, so that the value of the total product is 3 × 3000, or 9000.

Furthermore, the following portions of this working time belong to a period previous to that of the process of production which we now analyze: In department I, four thirds of a working day (with a product valued at 4000), and in department II, two thirds of a working day (with a product valued at 2000), making a total of two social working days with a product valued at 6000. For this reason, 4000 Ic + 2000 IIc = 6000 c figure as the value of the means of production, or value of the constant capital, re-appearing in the total product of society.

Furthermore, one third of the social working day of one year newly added by department I is necessary labor, or labor reproducing the value of the variable capital of 1000 Iv and paying the price of the labor employed by I. In the same way, one sixth of the social working day of II is necessary labor valued at 500. Hence we have 1000 I v + 500 II v = 1500 v, expressing the value of one half of the social working day, the value of the first half of the working day added this year and consisting of necessary labor.

This, then, is the situation:

Constant portion of capital in terms of the value of the social product (c): Two working days expended previously to the present process of production, worth 6000 in value.

Necessary labor (v) expended during the present year: One half of one working day expended during the present year, worth 1500 in value.

Surplus-labor (s) expended during the present year: One-half of one working day expended during the present year, worth 1500 in value.

Product in values of annual labor (v + s), 3000.

Total value of product (c + v + s), 9000.

The difficulty, then, does not consist in the analysis of the social product in values. It arises in the comparison of the component parts of the
value of the social product with its
material elements.

The constant, merely re-appearing, portion of value is equal to the value of that part of this product which consists of means of production, and it is incorporated in that part.

The product in values of the current year, equal to v + s, is equal to the value of that part of this product, which consists of articles of consumption, and is incorporated in it.

On the other hand, the total value of the means of production of I is equal to the sum of the constant capital-values re-appearing in the form of means of production of I and in that of articles of consumption of II, in other words, equal to the sum of the constant capital-values reappearing in the total product of society. This total value is equal in terms of value to four thirds of a working day preceding the process of production of I and two thirds of a working day preceding the process of production of II, in all equal to two annual working days.

The product of an individual capital, that is to say, of every aliquot part of the social capital endowed with a life of its own and acting independently, has some natural form. The only condition is that this product must have a certain use-value, which endows it with the character of a member of the world of commodities fit for circulation. It is immaterial and a matter of hazard, whether or not it can go back as a means of production into the same process of production from which it came as a product, in other words, whether that portion of its value as a product, in which the constant capital is incorporated, has a natural form, in which it can actually serve again as constant capital. If it has not, then this portion of the value of the product is reconverted into the form of its material elements by means of sale and purchase, and thus the constant capital is reproduced in the natural form adapted to its function.

It is different with the product of the total social capital. All the material elements of reproduction in their natural form must be a part of this product. The consumed constant portion of capital can be reproduced by the production as a whole only to the extent that the entire reappearing constant capital is represented in the product by the natural form of new means of production, which can actually serve as constant capital. Simple reproduction being assumed, the value of that portion of the product which consists of means of production must be equal to the constant portion of the value of social capital.

Socially considered, that portion of the social working day which produces means of production, adding new value to them and transferring to them at the same time the value of the means of production consumed in their manufacture, creates nothing but new
constant capital, which is intended to replace that consumed in the shape of the old means of production, that is to say of the constant capital consumed in department I and II. It creates only product intended for productive consumption. The entire value of this product, then, is a value which can serve only as a new constant capital, which can buy back only constant capital in its natural form, and which, for this reason, resolves itself neither into variable capital nor surplus-value, looking at it from the social point of view. On the other hand, if that portion of the social working day which produces articles of consumption does not create any portion of the social capital intended for reproduction, it creates only products intended, in their natural form, to realize the value of the variable capital and surplus-value of departments I and II.

The total value of the social product amounts to 9000 equal to 6000 c+1500 v+1500 c, in other words, 6000 represent the value of the means of production, and 3000 that of the articles of consumption. The value of the social revenue (v + s), then, amounts to only one third of the value of the total product, and the totality of the consumers, laborers as well as capitalists, can draw on the total social product for commodities only to the amount of this third, for the purpose of individual consumption. On the other hand, 6000, or two thirds, of the value of the product, are the value of the constant capital which must be reproduced in its natural form. Means of production to this amount must again be incorporated in the productive fund. Storch recognizes this without being able to prove it: “It is clear that the value of the annual product is distributed partly to capital and partly to profits, and that each one of these portions of the value of the annual product is regularly employed in buying the products which the nation needs both for the maintenance of its capital and for stocking its fund for consumption. * * * * The products which constitute the capital of a nation are not consumable.” (Storch,
Considérations sur la nature du revenu national. Paris, 1824, page 150.)

On the other hand, if we divide the total value of the entire product, equal to 9000, into 6000 c+1500 v+1500 s, and look upon the 3000 (v + s) in the light of a revenue, then the variable capital seems to disappear and capital, socially speaking, seems to consist only of constant capital. For that which appeared originally as 1500 v has resolved itself into a portion of the social revenue, into wages, the revenue of the working class, and has thus lost its character of capital. This conclusion is actually drawn by Ramsay. According to him, capital, socially considered, consists only of fixed capital, but he means by fixed capital the constant capital, that quantity of values which consists of means of production, whether these are instruments or materials of labor, such as raw materials, partly finished products, auxiliary materials, etc. He calls the variable capital a circulating capital: “Circulating capital consists only of subsistence and other necessaries advanced to the workmen previously to the completion of the produce of their labor. * * * * Fixed capital alone, not circulating, is properly speaking a source of national wealth. * * * * Circulating capital is not an immediate agent in production, nor essential to it at all, but merely a convenience rendered necessary by the deplorable poverty of the mass of the people. * * * * Fixed capital alone constitutes an element of cost of production in a national point of view.” (Ramsay, 1, c., pages 23 to 26, selected.) Ramsay defines fixed capital, by which he means constant capital, more closely in the following words: “The length of time during which any portion of the product of that labor” (namely labor bestowed on any commodity) “has existed as fixed capital i.e., in a form in which, though assisting to raise the future commodity, it does not maintain laborers.” (Page 59.)

Sum of values 9000.

Value newly produced during the year is incorporated only in v and s. The sum of the product in values of this year is therefore equal to the sum of v + s, that is to say, 2000 I(v + s) + 1000 II (v + s) = 3000. All other portions of value in the products of this year are merely transferred values, derived from the value of means of production. previously produced and consumed in the annual production. Aside from the value of 3000, the current annual labor has not produced anything in the way of values. That 3000 represents its entire annual product in values.

The money which first served in the function of the money-form of the variable capital for the capitalist, now serves in the hands of the laborer as the money-form of his revenue, which he derives from the ever repeated sale of his labor-power.

We have here but the simple fact that the money in the hands of the buyer, in this case the capitalist, passes from these hands into those of the seller, in this case a seller of labor-power, the wage-worker. It is not the variable capital which serves twice, first as capital for the capitalist and then as revenue for the laborer. It is merely the same money, which exists first in the hands of the capitalist as the money-form of his variable capital representing a potential variable capital, and which serves in the hands of the laborer as an equivalent for sold labor-power, as soon as the capitalist has converted it into labor-power. But the fact that the same money serves another useful purpose in the hands of the buyer than in those of the seller is a peculiarity of the sale and purchase of all commodities.

(2) In the exchange of 1000 Iv + 1000 Is for 2000 II c, we see that what is constant capital for one (2000 II c) is variable capital and surplus-value, or in short, revenue for others; and what is variable capital and surplus-value (2000 I (v + s), or in short, revenue for one, becomes constant capital for another.

Let us first look at the exchange of I v for II c, beginning with the point of view of the laborer.

But C—M—C represents here the movement of capital. C, when sold to the laborers, is converted into M, and this M is converted into means of production. It is the reconversion of commodities into the material elements of which this commodity is made. On the other hand, just as the capitalist of II plays only the role of a buyer of commodities with regard to I, so the capitalist of I acts only as a seller of commodities with regard to II. Department I bought originally labor-power valued at 1000 with that amount of money intended for service as variable capital. It has therefore received an equivalent for the 1000 v which it expended in money. This money now belongs to the laborers, who spend it in purchases from II. Department I cannot recover this money from II unless it secures the amount by the sale of commodities of the same value to II.

The result is that department I possesses once more the variable part of the value of its capital in the form of money, from which alone it is immediately convertible into labor-power, in other words, department I once more holds its variable capital value in the only form in which it can again be advanced as an actual variable element of its productive capital. On the other hand, the laborer must again act as a seller of commodities, of his labor-power, before he can act as a buyer of commodities.

So far as the variable capital of department II (500 II v) is concerned, the circulation between the capitalists and laborers of the same department takes place without any intermediate transactions, since we look upon it as taking place between the aggregate capitalist and the aggregate laborer of II.

The capitalist does not increase his wealth by recovering the money paid by him to the laborer in the purchase of labor-power through the sale of an equivalent quantity of commodities to the laborer. He would really pay the laborer twice, if he were to pay him first 500 in the purchase of labor-power, and then give him in addition thereto a quantity of commodities valued at 500, after the laborer had produced them. On the other hand, if the laborer were to produce nothing but an equivalent in commodities valued at 500 for the price of his labor-power of 500, the capitalist would be no better off after the transaction than before it. But the laborer has actually reproduced a product of 3000. He has preserved the constant portion of the value of the product, that is to say, the value of the means of production incorporated in the product, to the amount of 2000, by converting it into a new product. He has furthermore added to this existing value a value of 1000 (v + s). (The idea that the capitalist grows richer by the return of 500 in money is advanced by Destutt de Tracy, as shown in detail in section XIII of this chapter.)

But the 500 in money, which have returned to the capitalist of II, represent at the same time a renewed potential variable capital. Why is this so? Money, and money-capital, is a potential variable capital only to the extent that it is convertible into labor-power. The return of 500 p. st. in money to the capitalist of II is accompanied by the return of the labor-power of II to the market. The return of both of these at opposite poles—and to this extent the reappearance of 500 in money not merely in the capacity of money, but of variable capital in the form of money—is conditioned on one and the same process. The money of 500 returns to the capitalist of II, because he sold to the laborers of II articles of consumption valued at 500, for which the laborer spent his wages, in order to maintain himself and his family and thus his labor-power. In order to be able to live on and act again as a buyer of commodities he must again sell his labor-power. The return of 500 in money to the capitalist of II is therefore at the same time a return, or a staying, of labor-power in the capacity of a commodity purchasable with 500 in money, and thereby a return of 500 in money to its capacity of potential variable capital.

On the other hand, the expenditure of the wages of the laborers of I drew on II for articles of consumption to the amount of 1000 II c, transforming them from commodities into money. Department II reconverted them into the natural form of its constant capital, by purchasing from I commodities valued at 1000 v and thus restoring to I the value of its variable capital in money.

The variable capital of I passes through three metamorphoses, which are only indicated in the circulation of the annual product or do not appear at all in it.

(2) The second form is the only one in which variable capital actually varies and serves as variable capital. In this form, a power which creates values takes the place of given values offered in exchange for it. It belongs exclusively to the process of production which is past.

(3) The third form, in which the variable capital as such performs its function in the process of production, is the annual product in values, which in the case of I amounts to 1000 v plus 1000 s, or 2000 I (v+s). In the place of its original value of 1000 in money we have a value of double this amount, or 2000, in commodities. The variable capital-value of 1000 is therefore only one half of the product in values created by it as an element of productive capital. The 1000 I v in commodities are an exact equivalent of the variable part of capital originally advanced in money. But in the form of commodities they are but potential money (they do not become money until they are sold), so that they are still less directly money-capital. They finally become money-capital by the sale of the commodities of 1000 I v to II c, and by the hurried reappearance of labor-power as a purchasable commodity, as a material for which 1000 v in money may be exchanged.

During all these transactions the capitalist of I continually holds the variable capital in his hands; (1) originally as money-capital; (2) then as an element of his productive capital; (3) still later as a portion of the value of his commodity-capital, in the form of the value of commodities; (4) finally once more in money which seeks the company of labor-power for the purpose of exchange. During the process of production, the capitalist has the variable capital in his control as a labor-power creating values, but not as a value of a given magnitude. But since he never pays the laborer until the laborer’s power has been applied for a certain length of time, he always holds in his hands the value created by labor for its own reproduction and the surplus-value in excess of this, before he pays him.

It is a weighty fact in the circulation of the annual production that the expenditure of wages restores both the constant and variable capital to the form of money-capital, in the one case 1000 II c, in the other 1000 I v and 500 II v (In the case of the variable capital either by means of a direct or indirect reflux).

A great difficulty in the analysis of the transactions in annual reproduction is the following. Take the simplest form in which the matter may be presented, as follows:

(I.) 4000 c + 1000 v + 1000 s +

(II.) 2000 c + 500 v + 500s = 9000.

This resolves itself finally into

4000 I c + 2000 II c + 1000 I v + 500 II v + 1000 I s + 500 II s = 6000 c + 1500 v + 1500 s = 9000.

The transactions disposing of the annual product in commodities can no more be dissolved into a mere direct exchange of its individual elements than the simple circulation of commodities can be regarded as identical with a simple exchange of commodities. Money plays a specific role in this circulation, which is particularly marked by the manner in which the value of the fixed capital is reproduced. (It is left to a later analysis to ascertain how the matter would present itself, if production were collective and no longer a production of commodities.)

Let us now return to our fundamental diagram, which showed in department II the formula 2000 c + 500 v + 500 s. All the articles of consumption produced in the course of the year are in that case valued at 3000. And every one of the different elements of the commodities composing the total quantity of the product consists, so far as its value is concerned, of 2-3 c + 1-6 v + 1-6 s, or in percentages, 66 2-3 c + 16 2-3 v + 16 2-3 s. The various kinds of commodities of department II may contain different proportions of constant capital. The fixed portion of their constant capitals may be different. The duration of this fixed portion, its wear and tear and therefore that portion of value which it transfers by degrees to the commodities, produced by its assistance, may also differ. But that is immaterial. So far as the process of social reproduction is concerned, it is only a question of transactions between departments II and I. These two departments are here confronted by each other only as social masses. Hence the proportional magnitude of the portion c of the value of the commodity-product of II (which is the only essential one in the settlement of the present question) gives the average proportion, if all the branches of production classed under II are taken as a whole.

The commodities in which the 2000 are incorporated may be further divided into

(1) 1333 1-3 c + 333 1-3 v + 333 1-3 s = 2000 c.

Those under 500 v may be divided into

(2) 333 1-3 c + 83 1-3 v + 83 1-3 s = 500 v.

Those under 500 s may be divided into

(3) 333 1-3 c + 83 1-3 v + 83 1-3 s = 500 s.

Now, if we add these three formulae, we have 1333 1-3 c + 333 1-3 c + 333 1-3 c = 2000 c. Furthermore 333 1-3 v + 83 1-3 v + 83 1-3 v=500 v. And the same in the case of s. The addition gives the same total value of 3000 as above.

The entire constant capital-value contained in the quantity of commodities of II represented by 3000 is therefore incorporated in 2000 c, and neither 500 v nor 500 s contain an atom of it. The same is true of v and s in the case of 500 v and 500 s.

In other words, the entire quantity of constant capital-value, embodied in the commodities of II and reconvertible either into its natural or its money-form, exists in 2000 c. Everything referring to the conversion of the constant value of the commodities of II is therefore dealing only with the movements of 2000 c of II. And these transactions can be made only with 1000 v + 1000 s of I.

In the same way, all remarks made with reference to the transactions of the constant capital-value of department I are confined to a consideration of 4000 I c.

Let us first consider the diagram

As this problem offers peculiar difficulties and has never been mentioned by political economy, we shall consider one by one all possible solutions (at least apparent solutions), or rather all possible formulations of the problem.

We should then be studying the transaction

According to our assumption department I buys with 200 p. st. the articles of consumption II w, valued at the same amount. But II holds these 200 p. st., since 200 w represents wear and tear and is not immediately reconverted into means of production. Therefore 200 I s cannot be sold. One-tenth of the surplus-value of I cannot be realized by any exchange, cannot be converted from the natural form of means of production into that of articles of consumption.

This does not only contradict our assumption of reproduction on a simple scale, but it is not even a hypothesis which would explain the payment of 200 II w in money. It is another way of saying that it cannot be explained. Since it cannot be demonstrated in what manner 200 w is converted into money, it is assumed that department I is obliging enough to supply the money, just because it is not able to convert its own remainder of 200 s into money. This is as much a legitimate method of analysis as the assumption that 200 p. st. fall every year from the clouds in order to convert 200 II w into money.

Nor does it improve the matter, if the direct transaction between departments I and II, the two great departments of capitalist producers, is circumvented and the merchant is dragged in as a mediator, in order to overcome all difficulties with his “money.” In the present case, for instance, 200 I s must ultimately be sold to the industrial capitalists of II. It may pass through the hands of a number of merchants, but the last of them will find himself in the same predicament, in which the capitalists of I were at the outset, that is to say he cannot sell the 200 I s to the capitalists of II. And this amount, being arrested in its course, cannot renew the same process with department I.

We see, then, that, aside from our ultimate purpose, it is quite necessary to view the process of reproduction in its fundamental simplicity, in order to get rid of all obscuring interference and dispose of the false subterfuges, which assume the semblance of scientific analysis, but which cannot be removed so long as the process of social reproduction is immediately analyzed in its concrete and complicated form.

The law that under normal conditions of reproduction—whether it be on a simple or on an enlarged scale—the money advanced by the capitalist producer to the circulation must return to its point of departure (no matter whether the money is his own or borrowed) excludes decidedly the hypotheses that 200 II w can be converted into money by an advance of money on the part of department I.

Having disposed of the above hypothesis, only such hypotheses remain as assume the possibility of a reproduction of the worn-out fixed capital partly in money and partly in its natural form.

We had assumed in the preceding case

(a) That 1000 p. st. had been paid in wages by department I and spent by the laborers for articles of consumption of II c to the same amount.

This looks only seemingly absurd. For the producers of department II are capitalists whose fixed capital is in various stages of its reproduction. In the case of some of them it has arrived at the stage where it must be entirely renewed in its natural form. In the case of the others it is more or less removed from this stage. All the capitalists of these last named stages have this in common, that their fixed capital is not actually reproduced, that is to say, not actually renewed in its natural form by a new specimen of the same kind, but that its value is successively accumulated in money. The first class of the capitalists of II are in the same (or almost the same) position as they were at the establishment of their business, when they came on the market with their money-capital in order to convert this money partly into constant (fixed and circulating) capital, partly into labor-power (variable capital). They have once more to advance this money to the circulation, the value of fixed constant capital as well as that of circulating constant and variable capital.

One section of II has secured means of production whose value is covered by their commodities, and has furthermore converted 200 p. st. of money into natural elements of new fixed capital. The money thus spent does not return to this section by way of the circulation until after a succession of years and is gradually accumulated by the sale of products created by this fixed capital and bearing the value of its worn-out portion.

But the other section of II did not purchase any commodities from I for 200 p. st. That section is rather paid with the money which the first section of II spent for elements of its fixed capital. The first section of II has its fixed capital-value once more in a natural form, while the second section is still engaged in accumulating money for the purpose of renewing its fixed capital later on.

The second 200 of the 400 thrown into circulation by II in this remaining transaction buy circulating elements of constant capital from I. A portion of these 200 p. st. may be thrown into circulation by both sections of II, or only by the one not renewing its fixed capital in its natural form.

Department I, then, secures with these 400 p. st. in the first place commodities valued at 200 p. st., consisting only of elements of fixed capital; in the second place, commodities valued at 200 p. st., reproducing only natural elements of the circulating portion of the constant capital of II. Department I has then sold its entire annual product in commodities, so far as it is sold to department II. And the value of one-fifth, or 400 p. st., is now held in its hands in the form of money. This money is monetized surplus-value which must be spent as revenue for articles of consumption. Department I having bought with its 400 p. st. the entire stock of department II, valued at 400, this money flows back to II.

Then we have the following distributions:

(a) Of the value of the commodities still in the hands of department II, namely 400 c, section 1 holds 100, and section 2 holds 300; 200 out of the 300 represent depreciation. In that case section 1 originally advanced 300 of the 400 in money returned by department I for commodities of II, namely 200 in money, for which it secured elements of fixed capital from I, and 100 in money for the promotion of its transaction with I. Section 2, on the other hand, advanced only 100 of the 400, likewise for the promotion of its exchange with I.

Remember, then, that section 1 advanced 300, and section 2 advanced 100 of the 400.

On the other hand, section 2 receives 300 in money back, while it has advanced only 100 in money. As a buyer it first threw 100 in money into circulation, and these it receives back when acting as a seller. And it receives 200 more, because it acts only as a seller of commodities to that amount, but not in turn as a buyer. Hence the money cannot return to department I. The value of the depreciation of the fixed capital is thus balanced by the money thrown into circulation by section 1 of department II in the purchase of elements of fixed capital. But it reaches the hands of section 2, not as money of section 1, but as money of department I.

(b) Under these conditions the remainder of IIc is distributed so that section 1 has 200 in money, and section 2 has 400 in commodities.

Section 1 has sold all of its commodities, but 200 in money are a changed form of the fixed elements of its constant capital which it has to renew in their natural form. It acts only as a buyer in the present case and receives in exchange for its money the same value in commodities of department I having the natural form of elements of its fixed capital. Section 2 has to throw 200 p. st. into circulation, at a maximum (if department I does not advance any money for the transaction between I and II), since it is to the extent of one-half of the value of its commodities only a seller to I, not a buyer from I.

It recovers from the circulation 400 p. st. It gets 200, because it has advanced them as a buyer and recovers them as a seller of commodities of the same value. It receives another 200, because it sells commodities of that value to I without buying an equivalent from I.

(c) Section 1 has 200 in money and 200c in commodities. Section 2 has 200c (w) in commodities.

Section 1 advances 400 p. st. in money, of which 200 serve for a mutual exchange with department I, while 200 are used to buy from I. The last 200 serve in the purchase of the elements of fixed capital.

Department I buys from section 1 commodities to the value of 200 with 200 p. st. in money, so that section 1 thus recovers the money it had advanced for its transaction with I. And I buys with the other 200 p. st., which it has likewise received from section 1, commodities valued at 200 from section 2, which thus recovers the value of the depreciation of its fixed capital.

The difficulty encountered in the transaction between I (1000 v + 1000 s) and II 2000 c was reduced to the difficulty of balancing accounts between I 400 s and II (section 1) 200 in money plus 200 c in commodities plus (section 2) 200 c in commodities. Or, to make the matter still clearer, 1 (200 s + 200 s) against II (200 in money of section 1 plus 200 c in commodities of section 1 plus 200 c in commodities of section 2).

Since section I of department II exchanges 200c for commodities of department I representing 200s, and since all the money circulating in this exchange of 400 commodities between I and II returns to him who first advances it, be he I or II, this money promoting the exchange between I and II is not an element of the problem which troubles us here. Or, to express it differently, if we assume that the money used in the transaction between 200 I s (commodities) and 200 IIc (commodities of section 1, department II) serves only as a medium of payment, not as a medium of purchase and therefore not as a “medium of circulation,” strictly speaking, it is evident that the means of production valued at 200 are exchanged for articles of consumption valued at 200, because the commodities of 200 I s and 200 IIc (section 1) are equivalent in value, that therefore the money serves here merely ideally, and that neither side has to advance any money to the circulation for the payment of any balance. Hence the problem does not show itself in its clearest form, until we eliminate the commodities of 200 I s and their equivalent, the commodities of 200 IIc (section 1), from both sides.

After the elimination of these two amounts of commodities of equal value, which balance one another in I and II, the remainder of the transaction shows the problem clearly, namely I 200s in commodities against II (200c in money of section 1 plus 200c in commodities of section 2).

The first condition is here evidently that this fixed element of constant capital II, which must annually be reconverted into money to the full extent of its value and, therefore, entirely reproduced in its natural form (section 1), should be equal to the annual depreciation of the other fixed element of constant capital II, which continues its function in its old natural form and whose depreciation, represented by the value transferred by it to the commodities produced by it, is first accumulated in money. Such a balance of value would seem to be a law of reproduction on the same scale. This is equivalent to saying that the proportional division of labor in department I, which puts out means of production, must remain unchanged, to the extent that it produces partly circulating, partly fixed portions of the constant capital of department II.

Before we analyze this more closely, we must first see how the matter looks, if the remaining amount of II c (1) is not equal to the remainder of II c (2). It may be larger or smaller. Let us study either case.

I. 200 s.

II. (1) 220 c in money plus (2) 200 c in commodities.

In this case II c (1) buys with 200 p. st. the commodities of 200 I s, and I buys with the same money the commodities of 200 II c (2), in other words, that portion of the fixed capital which has to be accumulated in money. This portion is thus converted into money. But 20 II c (1) cannot be reconverted into the natural form of fixed capital.

I. 220 s.

II. (1) 220 c in money plus (2) 200 c in commodities.

Section 1 of II c buys with 220 p. st. in money the 220 I s, and I buys with 200 p. st. the 200 II c (2) of commodities. But now 20 p. st. in money remain on the side of I, a portion of surplus-value which it can hold only in money, without being able to spend it in articles of consumption. The difficulty is thus merely transferred from section 1, department II c, to I s.

Let us now assume, on the other hand, that section 1, II c, is smaller than section 2, II c, then we have:

I. 200 s in commodities.

II. (1) 180 c in money plus (2) 200 c in commodities.

Section 1, department II, buys with 180 p. st. in money the commodities of 180 I s. Department I buys with the same money commodities of the same value from section 2, department II, that is to say, 180 II c (2). There remain 20 I s unsaleable on one side, and 20 II c of section 2 on the other. In other words, commodities valued at 40 remain unsaleable.

It would not help us any to make the remainder of I equal to 180. It is true, there would not be any surplus in I under these circumstances, but the same surplus of 20 would remain unsaleable in section 2 of department II and could not be converted into money.

In the first case, where section 1 of department II is greater than section 2 of department II, there remains a surplus of money in section 1 of department II and cannot be converted into fixed capital; or, if the remainder in I s is assumed to be equal to II c (1), the same surplus in money remains inconvertible into articles of consumption in I s.

If we assume the remainder of I s to be always equal to II c (1)—seeing that production is determined by demand, and reproduction is not altered by the fact that there may be a greater output of fixed elements of capital this year, and a greater output of circulating elements of constant capitals I and II next year—then I s could not be reconverted into articles of consumption in the first case, unless I brought with it a portion of the surplus-value of II and accumulated it in money instead of consuming it; in the second case there would be no other way out but an expenditure of the money on the part of I itself, an assumption which we have already rejected.

If II c (1) is greater than II c (2), then the importation of foreign commodities is required for the employment of the money-surplus in I s. If II c (1) is smaller than II c (2), then an exportation of commodities (articles of consumption) is required for the realization of the value of the depreciation of II c in means of production. In either case, foreign trade is necessary.

Even assuming that, on the basis of simple reproduction on the same scale, the productivity of all lines of industry, and thus the proportional relation of the value of their commodities, would remain unchanged, there would nevertheless be an incentive for production on an enlarged scale whenever the two last named cases may occur, in which II c (1) is greater or smaller than II c (2).

With reference to the reproduction of the fixed capital, the following general remarks may be made:

The result would be a crisis—a crisis in production—in spite of the fact that reproduction had taken place on the same scale.

In short, unless a constant proportion between expiring (and about to be renewed) fixed capital and still continuing (merely transferring the value of its depreciation to its product) fixed capital is assumed, so long as reproduction takes place on a simple scale under the same conditions, such as productivity, volume, intensity of labor, the mass of circulating elements to be reproduced in one case would remain the same while the mass of fixed elements to be reproduced would have been increased. Therefore the aggregate production of I would have to increase, or, there would be a deficit in the reproduction, even aside from money matters.

In the other case, if the proportional magnitude of the fixed capital of II, to be reproduced in its natural form, should decrease and the elements of the fixed capital of II, which must be merely accumulated in money, should increase in the same ratio, then the quantity of the circulating elements of the constant capital of II, reproduced by I, would remain unchanged, while that of the fixed elements about to be reproduced would have decreased. Hence there would be either a decrease in the aggregate production of I, or a surplus (the same as previously a deficit) which could not be converted into money.

It is true that the same labor may, in the first case, supply a greater product with an increase in its productivity, extension, or intensity, and so the deficit could be covered in the first case. But such a change could not take place without a transfer of capital and labor from one line of production of department I to another, and every transfer would cause monetary disturbances. Furthermore, to the extent that an expansion and intensification of labor would increase, department I would have to exchange more of its value for less value of II. In other words, there would be a depreciation of the product of I.

Foreign trade could relieve the pressure in either case. In the first case it would convert products of I held in the form of money into articles of consumption, in the second case it would dispose of the surplus of commodities. But foreign trade, so far as it does not merely reproduce certain elements of production, only transfers these contradictions to a wider sphere and gives them a greater latitude.

Once that the capitalist mode of production is abolished, the problem resolves itself into the simple proposition that the magnitude of the expiring portion of fixed capital, which must be reproduced in its natural form every year (which served in our illustration for the production of articles of consumption), varies in successive years. If it is very large in a certain year (in excess of the average mortality, the same as among men), then it is so much smaller in the next year. The quantity of raw materials, half wrought articles, and auxiliary materials required for the annual production of the articles of consumption—other circumstances remaining the same—does not decrease in consequence. Hence the aggregate production of means of production would have to increase in the one case and decrease in the other. This can be remedied only by a continuous relative overproduction. There must be on the one hand a certain quantity of fixed capital in excess of that which is immediately required; on the other hand there must be above all a supply of raw materials, etc., in excess of the actual requirements of annual production (this applies particularly to articles of consumption). This sort of reproduction may take place when society controls the material requirements of its own reproduction. But in capitalist society it is an element of anarchy.

One element has so far been entirely disregarded, namely the annual reproduction of gold and silver. To the extent that these metals serve as material for articles of luxury, gilding, etc., they do not deserve any special mention, any more than any other products. But they play an important role as money-material, as potential money. For the sake of simplicity, we regard only gold as material for money.

Capitalist production does not exist at all without foreign commerce. But when we assume annual reproduction on a given scale, we also assume that foreign commerce replaces home products only by articles of other use-value, or natural form, without affecting the relations of value, such as those of the two categories known as means of production and articles of consumption and their transactions, nor the relations of constant capital, variable capital, and surplus-value, into which the value of the products of each of these categories may be dissolved. The introduction of foreign commerce into the analysis of the annually reproduced value of products can, therefore, produce only confusion, without furnishing any new point in the aspect or solution of the problem. For this reason we leave it aside. And consequently gold as a direct element of annual reproduction is not regarded as a commodity imported from a foreign country.

The production of gold, like that of metals generally, belongs to department I, which occupies itself with means of production. Let us assume that the annual production of gold amounts to 30 (from reasons of expediency, although it is far too high compared to the other figures of our diagrams). Let this value be resolved into 20 c+5 v+5 s; 20 c is to be exchanged for other elements of department I c, and this is to be studied later; but the 5 v+5 s are to be exchanged for elements of II c, namely, articles of consumption.

In the second year of reproduction, when the same proportion of annually produced gold continues to be used as material, 2 will again flow back to I g, and 3 will be reproduced in its natural form, that is to say, it will be set aside in department II as a hoard, etc.

We reply by summarizing the statements made previously (in chapter XVII):

(1) The only essential assumption, namely, that there is money enough available for the exchange of the various elements of annual reproduction, is not touched by the fact that a portion of the value of commodities consists of surplus-value. Take it that the entire production belonged to the laborers, so that their surplus-labor were done for themselves, not for the capitalists, then the quantity of circulating commodity-values would be the same and, other circumstances remaining equal, would require the same amount of money for circulation. The question in either case is therefore only: Where does the money come from which serves as a medium of exchange for this quantity of commodity-values? It is not at all: Where does the money come from which monetizes the surplus-value?

It is true, to repeat it once more, that every individual commodity consists of c+v+s, and the circulation of the entire quantity of commodities therefore requires a certain quantity of money for the circulation of the capital c+v, and another for the circulation of s, the revenue of the capitalists. For the individual capitalist as well as for the entire capitalist class, the money in which they advance capital is distinct from the money in which they spend their revenue. Where does this last money come from? Simply from the entire quantity of money available in society, a portion of which circulates as the revenue of the capitalists. We have already seen in previous instances that every capitalist establishing a new business recovers the money which he spent for his maintenance in the purchase of articles of consumption, by the process of converting his surplus-value into money, once that his business is fairly under way. But generally speaking the difficulty is due to two sources:

We have seen that with Adam Smith the entire value of the social product resolves itself into revenue, into v+s, so that the constant capital-value is set down as zero. It follows necessarily that the money required for the circulation of the yearly revenue must also suffice for the circulation of the entire annual product, so that, in our illustration, the money of 3000 required for the circulation of the articles of consumption of the same value must also suffice for the circulation of the entire annual product valued at 9000. This is indeed the opinion of Adam Smith, and it is repeated by Th. Tooke. This erroneous conception of the ratio of the quantity of money required for the realization of the revenue to the quantity of money required for the circulation of the entire social product is a necessary result of misapprehending, thoughtlessly conceiving the manner in which the various elements of material and value of the total annual product are reproduced and annually renewed. It has already been refuted by us.

Let us listen to Smith and Tooke themselves.

Th. Tooke remarks to this passage of Adam Smith (in “An Inquiry into the Currency Principle,” London, 1844, pages 34 to 36): “There cannot be any doubt that the distinction here made is essentially correct. * * * * The exchange between merchants and consumers includes also the payment of wages, which are the principal means of the consumers. * * * * All transactions between merchant and merchant, that is to say, all sales from the producer or importer, through all gradations of intermediate processes of manufacture, etc., down to the retail merchant or export merchant, may be dissolved into movements transferring capital. But transfers of capital do not necessarily imply, nor indeed carry actually with them, in the great number of exchanges, a real cession of bank notes or coin—I mean a substantial, not a fictitious, cession—at the time of transfer. * * * * The total amount of exchanges between merchants and merchants must in the last instance be determined and limited by the amount of exchanges between merchants and consumers.”

If this last sentence stood by itself, one might think that Tooke stated simply the fact of a ratio between the exchanges of merchants and merchants and those of merchants and consumers, in other words, a ratio between the value of the total annual revenue and the value of the capital with which it is produced. But this is not the case. He explicitly endorses the view of Adam Smith. A special criticism of his theory of circulation is therefore superfluous.

In all lines of industry whose period of production—as distinguished from the working period—extends over a long term, money is continually thrown into circulation during this period by the capitalist producers, either in payment for labor-power employed, or in the purchase of means of production to be consumed. Means of production are thus directly withdrawn from the commodity market, and articles of consumption either indirectly by the laborers spending their wages, or directly by the capitalists, who do not by any means stop consuming, although they do not immediately throw any equivalent on the market, in the shape of commodities. During this period, the money thrown by them into circulation serves for the conversion of the value of commodities, including the surplus value embodied in them, into money. This element becomes very important in an advanced stage of capitalist production in the case of lengthy enterprises, such as are undertaken by stock companies, for instance the construction of railways, canals, docks, large municipal buildings, iron ships, drainage of land on a large scale, etc.

(4) On one side, various things circulate as commodities which were not produced during the current year, such as real estate, houses, etc., furthermore products whose period of production extends over more than one year, such as cattle, wood, wine, etc. It is important to emphasize in this respect that aside from the quantity of money required for the immediate circulation, there is always a certain quantity in a latent state which may enter into service when so required. Furthermore, the value of such products circulates often in fractions and gradually, for instance, the value of houses in the rents of a number of years.

On the other hand, not all movements of the process of reproduction are promoted by the circulation of money. The entire process of production, once that its elements have been purchased, is excluded from it. Furthermore all products, which the producer consumed directly in his own individual or productive consumption. Under this head belongs also the board of agricultural laborers.

The quantity of money, then, which circulates the annual product, exists in society, having been gradually accumulated. It does not belong to the values produced during the current year, with the exception of the gold used for making good the loss of depreciated money.

This presentation of the matter assumes the exclusive circulation of precious metals as money, and the simplest form of cash purchases and sales, although even plain metals, as a basis of circulation, may serve as money, and have actually so served in history and have been the fundament for the development of a credit system and of certain portions of its mechanism.

But the simplest study of the circulation of money in its primitive form, which is the immanent factor of the process of annual reproduction, demonstrates:

(a) Assuming capitalist production to be developed to the point where the wage system predominates, money-capital evidently plays a prominent role, seeing that it is the form in which the variable capital is advanced. To the extent that the wage system develops, all products are converted into commodities and must, therefore, pass through the stage of money as one phase of their metamorphoses, with a few important exceptions. The quantity of circulating money must suffice for this conversion of commodities into money, and the greater part of this quantity is furnished in the form of wages, in that money, which is the money-form of the variable capital advanced by the industrial capitalists in payment for labor-power, and which serves in the hands of the laborers overwhelmingly as a medium of circulation (of purchase). It is quite the reverse under a system of natural economy such as was predominant under every form of vassalage (including serfdom), and still more in more or less primitive communities, whether they are infected by conditions of vassalage or slavery, or not.

This is further complicated by a difference between lines of business whose production proceeds continuously under normal conditions on the same scale, and those which are carried on at different scales at different periods of the year, such as agriculture.

As an illustration of the confused and at the same time boastful thoughtlessness of political economists analyzing social reproduction, the great logician Destutt de Tracy may serve (compare volume I, page 181, footnote 1), whom even Ricardo took seriously, calling him a very distinguished writer.

This distinguished writer makes the following revelations concerning the entire process of social reproduction and circulation:

“One may ask me how these industrial capitalists can make such large profits and out of whom they can draw them. I reply that they do so by selling everything which they produce for more than it has cost to produce; and that they sell

In other words, the capitalists enrich themselves by mutually getting the best of one another in the exchange of that portion of their surplus-value which they reserve for their individual consumption, or consume as revenue. For instance, if this portion of their surplus-value, or of their profits, is 400 p. st., this sum is supposed to be increased to, say, 500 p. st. by mutually selling their respective shares at an excess of 25% over the normal. But if all do the same, the result will be just what it would have been if they had mutually sold their shares at their normal values. They merely need in that case 500 p. st. in money for the circulation of commodities valued at 400 p. st., and this would seem to be rather a method of impoverishing than of enriching themselves, since it means that they are compelled to reserve a large portion of their total wealth unproductively in the state of a medium of circulation. The outcome is simply that the capitalist class can divide only 400 p. st.’s worth of commodities among themselves for their individual consumption, after nominally raising prices all around, but that they do one another the favor of circulating 400 p. st.’s worth of commodities by means of a quantity of money which would just as well circulate 500 p. st.’s worth of commodities.

(2) The same capitalists, furthermore, sell “to the wage workers, both those whom they pay and those whom the idle capitalists pay; from these wage workers they recover the entire wages in this way, except what little they may save.”

According to Destutt, then, the reflux of the money-capital advanced to the laborers as wages, is the second source of the wealth of the capitalists.

For instance, if the capitalists have paid 100 p. st. to their laborers as wages, and if these same laborers buy from the same capitalists commodities of this same value of 100 p. st., so that what the capitalists have advanced to the laborers as wages returns to the capitalists when the laborers spend it for commodities, then the capitalists get richer. A common mortal would think that the capitalists recover only their 100 p. st., which they possessed before this transaction. At the beginning of the transaction they have 100 p. st. They buy labor-power valued at 100 p. st. This labor-power, so bought, produces commodities of a certain value, which, so far as we know, amounts to 100 p. st. By selling these commodities for 100 p. st. to their laborers, the capitalists recover 100 p. st. in money. The capitalists then have once more 100 p. st., the same as before, and the laborers have 100 p. st.’s worth of commodities which they have themselves produced. It is hard to understand how that can make the capitalists any richer. If they did not recover the 100 p. st., then they would have to pay first 100 p. st. to the laborers in wages and then to give them their product for nothing, although it is also worth 100 p. st. The reflux of this money might therefore at best explain, why the capitalists do not get any poorer by this transaction, but not, why they get richer by it.

However, Destutt himself is not quite satisfied with his solution. He did not simply tell us that the capitalists get richer by spending a sum of 100 p. st. in money and then recovering the same amount. He had not plainly spoken of a reflux of 100 p. st. which merely explains why this money is not lost. He had told us that the capitalists get richer “by selling everything which they produce for more than it has cost to produce.”

Consequently the capitalists must also get richer by their transaction with the laborers by selling too dearly to them. Very well! “They pay wages * * * * and all this flows back to them by the expenditures of all these people who pay them more” (for the products) “than they cost the capitalists in wages.” (Page 240.) In other words, the capitalists pay 100 p. st. in wages to the laborers, and then they sell to these laborers their own product at 120 p. st., so that they not only recover their 100 p. st., but also gain 20 p. st. That is impossible. The laborers can pay for the commodities only with the money which they receive in the form of wages. If they get only 100 p. st. in wages, they can buy only 100 p. st.’s worth, not 120 p. st.’s worth. This is therefore impracticable. But there is still another way. The laborers buy from the capitalists commodities for 100 p. st., but receive only 80 p. st.’s worth. They are cheated out of 20 p. st. Then the capitalists have certainly gained 20 p. st., because he practically pays 20% less than the actual value for labor-power. This is equivalent to cutting wages 20% by a circuitous route.

In other words, the fund from which the capitalist class would derive its profits, would be made up of deductions from the normal scale of wages of the laborers, by paying less than its value for labor-power, in other words, less than the value of the necessities of life required for the normal reproduction of the laborer. If the normal scale of wages were paid, which is supposed to be the case according to Destutt, there can be no fund for profits, neither for the industrial nor for the idle capitalists.

Hence Destutt should have reduced the entire secret of how the capitalist class get richer, to these words: A deduction from the wages of the laborers. In that case the other sources of surplus-value, which he mentions under (1) and (3), would not exist.

Under these conditions all the countries, in which the money paid to the laborers in wages is reduced to the value of the articles of consumption required for the subsistence of the working class, would not have any fund for the consumption of capitalists, nor any fund for the accumulation of capital. In other words, there would be no fund permitting a capitalist class to live, and therefore no capitalist class. And according to Destutt this would be the case in all wealthy and developed countries with an old civilization, for in them, “in our deeprooted old societies, the fund from which wages are paid * * * * is an almost constant magnitude” (page 202).

(3) The capitalist class, finally, sells “to the idle capitalists, whom they pay with a portion of their revenue which they have not spent for the wages of the laborers employed by them directly; so that the entire rent, which they pay them annually, flows back to them in this way.”

At the close of this transaction the industrial capitalists have recovered the full 100 p. st., which they paid to the idle capitalists for rent, interest, etc., in money. But one half of their surplus products, valued at 100 p. st., have passed from their hands into the fund for the individual consumption of the idle capitalists.

It is evidently immaterial for the present question, whether the division of the 100 p. st. among the idle capitalists and their dependent wage workers is drawn into this discussion or not. The matter is simple: Their rent, interest, in short, their share in the surplus-value of 200 p. st., is paid to them by the industrial capitalists in money to the amount of 100 p. st. With these 100 p. st. they buy directly or indirectly articles of consumption from the industrial capitalists. They return the 100 p. st. in money to them and take from them instead articles of consumption valued at 100 p. st.

Of course, the land and capital borrowed by the industrial capitalists from the idle capitalists and paid for by a portion of their surplus-value in the form of ground rent and interest, etc., are profitable for them, for they constitute one of the conditions for the production of any commodity, and more especially of that portion of the product, which creates surplus-value, or in which surplus-value is incorporated. This profit flows from the use of the borrowed land and capital, not out of the price paid for them. This price rather constitutes a deduction from the profit. Or one would have to contend, that the industrial capitalists do not get richer, but poorer, if they are enabled to keep the other half of their surplus-value, instead of being compelled to give it up. This is the confusion which results from the indiscriminate mixing up of such phenomena of circulation as a reflux of money with the distribution of the product, which is merely promoted by this circulation.

In other words, in this quotation the rent, etc., of the idle capitalists is a deduction from the profit of the industrial capitalists. In former quotations it was a means of enriching them.

But at least one consolation is left for our friend Destutt. These good industrials treat the idle capitalists in the same way that they have treated one another and their laborers. They sell them all commodities too dearly, for instance, at a raise of 20%. Now there are two possibilities. The idle capitalists either have other funds of money aside from the 100 p. st. which they receive from the industrials, or they have not. In the first case, the industrials sell them commodities valued at 100 p. st. at a price of, say, 120 p. st. In other words, they recover by the sale of their commodities not only the 100 p. st. paid to the idle capitalists, but also 20 p. st. of new values. Now, how stands the account? They have given away 100 p. st. in commodities for nothing, for the 100 p. st. that paid for their commodities were their own money. Their own commodities have been paid with their own money. In other words, they have lost 100 p. st. But they have also received an additional sum of 20 p. st. in the price of their commodities. In other words, 20 p. st. of gain. Balance this against the loss of 100 p. st., and you still have a loss of 80 p. st. Never a plus, always a minus. The advantage taken by the industrials over the idle capitalists has reduced the loss of the industrials, but for all that it has not transformed a reduction of their wealth into an increase of wealth. But this method cannot go on indefinitely, for the idle capitalists cannot pay year after year 120 p. st., if they receive only 100 p. st.

This brilliant analysis is quite worthy of that depth of thought which copies on the one hand from Adam Smith that “labor is the source of all wealth” (page 242), that the industrial capitalists “employ their capital for the payment of labor that reproduces it with a profit” (page 246), and which concludes on the other hand that these industrial capitalists “maintain all the other people, are the only ones who increase the public wealth, and create all the means for our enjoyment” (page 242), that it is not the capitalists who are maintained by the laborers, but the laborers who are maintained by the capitalists, for the brilliant reason that the money, with which the laborers are paid, does not remain in their hands, but continually returns to the capitalists in payment of the commodities produced by the laborers. “They receive only with one hand, and return with the other. Their consumption must therefore be regarded as being due to those who pay their wages.” (Page 235).

After this exhaustive analysis of social reproduction and consumption, as promoted by the circulation of money, Destutt continues: “This is what perfects this
perpetuum mobile of wealth, this movement which,-though ill understood” (I should say so!) “yet has justly been named circulation. For it is indeed a circulation and always returns to its point of departure. This is the point where production is accomplished.” (Pages 139, 140.)

Destutt, that very distinguished writer,
membre de l’Institut de France et de la Sociéte Philosophique de Philadelphie, and indeed to a certain extent a beacon light among the vulgar economists, finally requests his readers to admire the wonderful lucidity with which he has presented to them the course of the social process, the flood of light which he has poured over the matter, and he is condescending enough to communicate to his readers, where all this light comes from. This must be read in the original in order to be appreciated.