(2.iii.24) As this percentage however is generally spoken in the sense of exchangeable value,it may happen, as we have seen above, that the shares may be altered without an alteration of thispercentage. If, at the same time that the shares of the capitalists are reduced, by a rise of wages,there should happen an increase of the productive powers of labour and capital, the reducedshares might consist of as great a quantity of commodities as the previous shares, and of coursethe exchangeable value, and percentage on the capital, expressed in the language ofexchangeable value, would remain the same.
(2.iii.25) If it should be deemed a better mode of expounding the subject, not to regard, as aseparate portion, what is required to replace the capital consumed, but to consider it as formingpart of the share of the capitalist; the same propositions will still be true. The whole which is tobe divided will, in this case, be different from the former whole, and the shares will not be thesame proportion of that whole; but it will still be true that by how much the proportion of thelabourers is increased, by so much that of the capitalist will be reduced; and that when thecapitalist has set apart that portion of his share which is required to replace his capital, hisprofits, or the advantage upon the use of his capital, will be affected, precisely as they are said tobe according to the former mode of exposition.
(2.iii.26) If we speak of what accrues to the two parties in the language of quantity, not ofproportion, it is equally clear, in this mode of exposition as in the former, that the quantity ofcommodities is not necessarily altered when the shares are altered; that the shares may alterwhen there is no alteration in the quantity of produce to be shared; and, on the other hand, thatthe quantity of produce to be shared may alter, either up or down, while the shares are the same.
It is, at the same time, true, that there can be no alteration in the quantity of produce which theone receives, but by an alteration in the quantity which the other receives; unless in that onecase, in which the productive powers of the instruments of production have undergonealteration. The following, therefore, is a connected chain of true propositions.
(2.iii.27) 1. That which accrues to the parties concerned in the production of a commodity orcommodities, the labourers, and capitalist, as the return for their cooperation, is a share of theproduce to each.
(2.iii.28) 2. The share of the one cannot be increased, with out a corresponding diminutionof the share of the other.
(2.iii.29) 3. These shares remaining the same, the quantity of produce included in them maybe either greater or less, according as the productive operations have been followed with a greateror a smaller produce.
(2.iii.30) 4. According as you apply the term value, to the effect, the quantity of produce; orto the cause, the quantity of labour employed; it will be true, or it will not be true, that the value ofwhat is received by the capitalist the labourer and reciprocates along with their shares.
(2.iii.31) It is equally easy, in this mode of expression as in the former, to translate thelanguage of shares into that of percentage. The amount of the produce, or its exchangeable value, may begreater, or may be less, than the amount of capital employed. If the capital is all circulatingcapital, and consumed in the process of production, and if, as in ordinary language, we supposewages to be included, the produce is greater than the capital, by the amount of the profits. Let ussuppose that the capital is 500 l., and profits 10 per cent; the value of the produce is 550 l.; let ussuppose that of this the capitalist pays 275 l. in wages; in other words, that the labourers' share is50 per cent; it follows, that the share of the capitalist is 50 per cent also; but 50 per cent of 550 l. is a greater amount than 50 per cent of his capital, which is only 500 l. This is equal to 55 percent upon his capital. And when he has deducted from his share, what is necessary to replace theportion of his capital, otherwise consumed than in the payment of wages, viz. 500 l. - 275 l. =225 l., he has 50 l. remaining, or 10 per cent upon his capital.
(2.iii.32) Let us next take the case in which the capital 500 l., as before, is all fixed capital,none of it, excepting what is advanced as wages, consumed; that this is small, viz. 25 l.; and that thevalue of the commodity is 75 l.; of this, 25 l., or 1/3 is the share of the labourer; 50 l., or 2/3, isthe share of the capitalist; but this, though 66-1/2 per cent upon the product, is but 10 per centupon the capital.
(2.iii.33) There is a mode of viewing the gross return to the capitalist, which has a tendencyto simplify our language, and, so far, has a great advantage to recommend it. The case of fixed andof circulating capital may be treated as the same, by merely considering the fixed capital as aproduct, which is regularly consumed and replaced, by every course of productive operations.
The capital, not consumed, may be always taken, as an additional commodity, the result of theproductive process.
(2.iii.34) According to this supposition, the share of the capitalist is always equal to thewhole or his capital, together with its profits.
(2.iii.35) We may consider capital in two senses; first, as including; next, as excluding,wages.
(2.iii.36) In the first case, let us suppose a capital, of 500 l., of which 100 l. is paid in wages,to produce a commodity worth 550 l. The share of the capitalist is 450 l. or somewhat more thanfour-fifths, while that of the labourers is so much less than one-fifth and the profit of stock, afterreplacing capital, is 10 per cent.
