XI. Replacement of the Fixed Capital
However it is a momentous fact in the exchange of the annual product that by the expenditure of the wages as revenue there is restored to the form of money capital in the one case 1,000 IIC, likewise, by this circuitous route, 1,000 Iv and ditto 500 IIV, hence constant and variable capital. (In the case of the variable capital partly by means of a direct and partly by means of an indirect reflux.)
XI. Replacement of the Fixed Capital
In the analysis of the exchanges of the annual reproduction the following presents great difficulty. If we take the simplest form in which the matter may be presented, we get:
(I) 4,000c+ l,000v+ l,000s + (II) 2,000c+ 500v+ 500s= 9,000.
This resolves itself finally into:
4,000 I c+ 2,000 IIC+ 1,000 I v+ 500 IIV+ 1,000 I,+ + 500 II S= 6,000f+ l,500v+ 1,500,= 9,000.
One portion of the value of the constant capital, which consists of instruments of labour in the strict meaning of the term (as a distinct section of the means of production), is transferred from the instruments of labour to the product of labour (the commodity); these instruments of labour continue to function as elements of the productive capital, doing so in their old natural form. It is their wear and tear, the diminution in value gradually experienced by them during their continual functioning for a definite period, which re-appears as an element of the value of the commodities produced by means of them, which is transferred from the instrument of labour to the product of labour. With regard to the annual reproduction therefore only such component parts of fixed capital will from the first be given consideration as last longer than a year. If they are completely worn out within the year they must be completely replaced and renewed by the annual reproduction, and the point at issue does not concern them at all. It may happen in the case of machines and other more durable forms of fixed capital — and it frequently does happen — that certain parts of them must be replaced lock, stock and barrel within one year, although the building or machine in its entirety lasts much longer. These parts belong in one category with the elements of fixed capital which are to be replaced within one year.
This element of the value of commodities must not be confused with the costs of repair." If a commodity is sold, this value element is turned into money, the same as all others. But after it has been turned into money, its difference from the other elements of value becomes apparent. The raw and auxiliary materials consumed in the production of commodities must be replaced in natura in order that the reproduction of commodities may begin (or that the process of production of commodities in general may be continuous). The labour power spent on them must also be replaced by fresh labour power. Consequently the money realised on the commodities must be continually reconverted into these elements of the productive capital, from the money form into the commodity form. It does not alter the matter if raw and auxiliary materials for instance are bought at certain intervals in larger quantities — so that they constitute productive supplies— and need not be bought anew during certain periods; and therefore — as long as they last — the money coming in through the sale of commodities, inasmuch as it is meant for this purpose, may accumulate and this portion of constant capital thus appears temporarily as money capital whose active function has been suspended. It is not a revenue capital; it is productive capital suspended in the form of money. The renewal of the means of production must go on all the time, although the form of this renewal — with reference to the circulation— may vary. The new purchase, the circulation operation by which they are renewed or replaced, may take place at more or at less prolonged intervals: then a large amount may be invested at one stroke, compensated by a corresponding productive supply. Or the intervals between purchases may be small: then follows a rapid succession of money expenditures in small doses, of small productive supplies. This does not alter the matter itself. The same applies to labour power. Where production is carried on continuously throughout the year on the same scale — continuous replacement of consumed labour power by new. Where work is seasonable, or different portions of labour are applied at different periods, as in agriculture — corresponding purchases of labour power, now in small, now in large amounts. But the money proceeds realised from the sale of commodities, so far as they turn into money that part of the commodity value which is equal to the wear and tear of fixed capital, are not reconverted into that component part of the productive capital whose diminution in value they cover. They settle down beside the productive capital and persist in the form of money. This precipitation of money is repeated, until the period of reproduction consisting of great or small numbers of years has elapsed, during which the fixed element of constant capital continues to function in the process of production in its old natural form. As soon as the fixed element, such as buildings, machinery, etc., has been worn out, and can no longer function in the process of production, its value exists alongside it fully replaced by money, by the sum of money precipitations, the values which had been gradually transferred from the fixed capital to the commodities in whose production it participated and which had assumed the form of money as a result of the sale of these commodities. This money then serves to replace the fixed capital (or its elements, since its various elements have different durabilities) in natura and thus really to renew this component part of the productive capital. This money is therefore the money form of a part of the constant capital value, of its fixed part. The formation of this hoard is thus itself an element of the capitalist process of reproduction; it is the reproduction and storing up — in the form of money — of the value of fixed capital, or its several elements, until the fixed capital has ceased to live and in consequence has given off its full value to the commodities produced and must now be replaced in natura. But this money loses only its form of a hoard and hence resumes its activity in the process of reproduction of capital brought about by the circulation as soon as it is reconverted into new elements of fixed capital to replace those that died off.
Just as simple commodity circulation is in no way identical with a mere exchange of products, the conversion of the annual commodity product can in no way resolve itself into a mere unmediated mutual exchange of its various components. Money plays a specific role in it, which finds expression particularly in the manner in which the value of the fixed capital is reproduced. (How different the matter would present itself if production were collective and no longer possessed the form of commodity production is left to a later analysis.)
Should we now return to our fundamental scheme, we shall get the following for class II: 2,000c+ 500v+ 500s. All the articles of consumption produced in the course of the year are in that case equal in value to 3,000; and every one of the different commodity elements in the total sum of the commodities is composed, so far as its value is concerned, of [2]/3c+ llSv+ 'l6s, or, in percentages, 66[2]/3c+ 16[2]/3v + 16[2]/3s. The various kinds of commodities of class II may contain different proportions of constant capital. Likewise the fixed portion of the constant capital may be different. The duration of the parts of the fixed capital and hence the annual wear and tear, or that portion of value which they transfer pro rata to the commodities in the production of which they participate, may also differ. But that is immaterial here. As to the process of social reproduction, it is only a question of exchange between classes II and I. These two classes here confront each other only in their social, mass relations. Therefore the proportional magnitude of part c of the value of commodity product II (the only one of consequence in the question now being discussed) gives the average proportion if all the branches of production classed under II are embraced.
Every kind of commodity (and they are largely the same kinds) whose aggregate value is classed under 2,000c+ 500v+ 500s is therefore equal in value to 66[2]/[3]%c + 16[2]/[3]%v+ 16[2]/[3]%s. This applies to every 100 of the commodities, whether classed under c, v or s.
The commodities in which the 2,000c are incorporated may be further divided, in value, into:
1) 1,33373c + 333[1]/3v+333,/3s=2,000c; similarly 500v may be divided into:
2) 33373c+8373v+8373,= 500v; and finally 500s may be divided into:
3) 3337 3 c+837 3 v+837 3 s=500 s. Now, if we add the c's in 1, 2 and 3 we get l,33373r + 33373r+ 33373c= 2,000. Similarly, 33373v+ 8373v + 83'/3v= 500. And the same in the case of s. The addition gives the same total value of 3,000, as above.
The entire constant capital value contained in the commodity mass II representing a value of 3,000 is therefore comprised in 2,000c, and neither 500v nor 500s hold an atom of it. The same is true of v and s respectively.
In other words, the entire share of commodity mass II that represents constant capital value and therefore is reconvertible either into its natural or its money form, exists in 2,000c. Everything referring to the exchange of the constant value of commodities II is therefore confined to the movement of 2,000 IIC. And this exchange can be made only with I (l,000v+ l,000s).
Similarly, as regards class I, everything that bears on the exchange of the constant capital value ofthat class is to be confined to a consideration of 4,000 Ic.
Endnotes
[1] In the second half of the 1850s Marx began to study the problems to be dealt with in Volume II of Capital, and continued this work in the 1860s, as is shown, amongst other things, by the Economic Manuscripts of 1861-63 and 1864-65 where the results of these investigations were still, in his words, in the form of preparatory outlines. Later stages in Marx's work on this volume are described at length by Engels in his Preface to the First Edition, which he prepared for the press and published after Marx's death. Manuscript I, written in the early half of 1865, was, in effect, the first composite version of the volume. According to Engels, "Some parts of the argument would be treated in detail, others of equal importance only indicated" in this manuscript (see this volume, p. 5). From the end of 1868 to the middle of 1870 Marx prepared the second version of the volume — Manuscript II — which comprises all three parts (three sections, according to Engels) and "is the only somewhat complete elaboration of Book II" (see this volume, p.7). After 1870 there followed a long interruption in the work on the volume, mainly as a result of the author's illness. Marx was able to resume his work only in 1877. Prior to 1881 he wrote several more manuscripts of varying size; most of them were versions of the beginning of the volume, and only the last represented a revised version of the third chapter of Manuscript II. During the last two years of his life Marx did not work on Volume II. After studying the content of Marx's manuscripts and considering the volume of material involved, Engels decided to divide Volume II into two portions and publish two separate volumes — Vol. II and Vol. III. Engels edited the text with great discretion: according to his own words, he con-tented himself "with reproducing these manuscripts as literally as possible, changing the style only in places where Marx would have changed it himself, and interpolat-ing explanatory sentences or connecting statements only where this was absolutely necessary, and where, besides, the meaning was clear beyond any doubt" (see this volume, pp. 5-6). Structural division was made according to the model used in the Second Edition of Capital, Vol. I (1872). The titles of parts and chapters were also provided by Engels. The first German edition of Vol. II appeared in 1885, the second edition — in 1893. Soon after the publication of the volume the newspaper Le Socialiste printed a review of it in its first number for August 29, 1885. "The second volume of Marx's Capital has just been published in German thanks to the work done by Frederick Engels, his old friend and staunch associate. It was compiled on the basis of manuscripts left by Marx. "In the first volume Marx examined the question of the production of capital; on the basis of a broad and comprehensive analysis he demonstrated that capital was just unpaid labour, in other words, labour stolen from the working class. Although many economists in Germany, France, Italy, Russia and America tried to criticise his book, not one of them could refute Marx's scientific proposition. To this day Capital remains the most formidable indictment written against capitalist society; and the fact that capital is a product of theft is now proved beyond doubt. "In the second volume, which is expected so impatiently, Marx analyses the circulation of capital, that is, the manner in which the bourgeois divide among themselves the products they have stolen from the working class. After making a comprehensive study of all economic theories of ground rent he refuted all of them and formulat-ed a new theory of rent. "Marx's works are not text-books consisting of repetitions, neither are they volumes filled with the banal talk of representatives of various schools, such as the works of Mr. Leroy-Beaulieu and Co.; they are scientific books that must be studied thoroughly as mathematical treatises and works on physics or chemistry; for the moment, therefore, we are merely announcing the fact of publication, and after reading and re-reading it with a clear head we shall return to discuss it with our readers." The first English edition of Capital, Vol. II was published in Chicago in 1907 by the Charles H. Kerr & Company in the translation of Ernest Untermann.— 1
[2] Engels did not have time to publish Marx's Theories of Surplus Value as the fourth volume of Capital. It was first published in 1905-10 by Karl Kautsky. In 1954-61 and 1962-64, the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC CPSU in Moscow published in Russian a new edition of Theories... which differed from that of Kautsky. In 1956-62 this Russian edition was used by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC SUPG as the basis for the publication of Theories... in German. In the present edition Theories of Surplus Value is published, according to MEGA 2, Abt. II, Bd. 3, Berlin, 1976-82, as part of the Economic Manuscript of 1861-63 (see present edition, vols 30-34).— 6
[3] From the numerous notebooks compiled by Marx in the period indicated by Engels, the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC CPSU published nearly all the passages from Russian sources (see Marx-Engels Archives, vols XI-XII, XVI, Moscow, 1948, 1952, 1955, 1982) as well as Mathematical Manuscripts (Moscow, 1968). Marx's notebooks are published in full in Section IV of Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe.— 7