Das Kapital

CHANGES OF MAGNITUDE IN THE PRICE OF LABOUR-POWER AND IN SURPLUS-VALUE

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Seventeen
Karl Marx. Capital Volume One
Chapter Seventeen: Changes of Magnitude in the Price of Labour-Power and in Surplus-Value
Contents
Section 1 - Length of the Working-Day and Intensity of Labour Constant. Productiveness of Labour Variable
Section 2 - Working-Day Constant. Productiveness of Labour
Constant. Intensity of Labour Variable
Section 3 - Productiveness and Intensity of Labour Constant.
Length of the Working-Day Variable
Section 4 - Simultaneous Variations in the Duration, Productiveness,
and Intensity of Labour
A. Diminishing Productiveness of Labour with
a Simultaneous Lengthening of the Working-Day
B. Increasing Intensity and Productiveness
of Labour with Simultaneous Shortening of the Working-Day
The value of labour-power is determined by the value
of the necessaries of life habitually required by the average labourer.
The quantity of these necessaries is known at any given epoch of a given
society, and can therefore be treated as a constant magnitude. What changes,
is the value of this quantity. There are, besides, two other factors that
enter into the determination of the value of labour-power. One, the expenses
of developing that power, which expenses vary with the mode of production;
the other, its natural diversity, the difference between the labour-power
of men and women, of children and adults. The employment of these different
sorts of labour-power, an employment which is, in its turn, made necessary
by the mode of production, makes a great difference in the cost of maintaining
the family of the labourer, and in the value of the labour-power of the
adult male. Both these factors, however, are excluded in the following
investigation.

I assume (1) that commodities are sold at their value; (2) that
the price of labour-power rises occasionally above its value, but never
sinks below it.
On this assumption we have seen that the relative magnitudes of
surplus-value and of price of labour-power are determined by three circumstances;
(1) the length of the working-day, or the extensive magnitude of labour;
(2) the normal intensity of labour, its intensive magnitude, whereby a
given quantity of labour is expended in a given time; (3) the productiveness
of labour, whereby the same quantum of labour yields, in a given time, a
greater or less quantum of product, dependent on the degree of development
in the conditions of production. Very different combinations are clearly
possible, according as one of the three factors is constant and two variable,
or two constant and one variable, or lastly, all three simultaneously variable.
And the number of these combinations is augmented by the fact that, when
these factors simultaneously vary, the amount and direction of their respective
variations may differ. In what follows the chief combinations alone are
considered.
SECTION 1
LENGTH OF THE WORKING-DAY AND INTENSITY OF LABOUR CONSTANT. PRODUCTIVENESS OF LABOUR VARIABLE.
On these assumptions the value of labour-power, and
the magnitude of surplus-value, are determined by three laws.
(1.) A working day of given length always creates the same
amount of value, no matter how the productiveness of labour, and, with
it, the mass of the product, and the price of each single commodity produced,
may vary.
If the value created by a working-day of 12 hours be, say, six
shillings, then, although the mass of the articles produced varies with
the productiveness of labour, the only result is that the value represented
by six shillings is spread over a greater or less number of articles.
(2.) Surplus-value and the value of labour-power vary in
opposite directions. A variation in the productiveness of labour, its increase
or diminution, causes a variation in the opposite direction in the value
of labour-power, and in the same direction in surplus-value.
The value created by a working day of 12 hours is a constant quantity,
say, six shillings. This constant quantity is the sum of the surplus-value
plus the value of the labour-power, which latter value the labourer replaces
by an equivalent. It is self-evident, that if a constant quantity consists
of two parts, neither of them can increase without the other diminishing.
Let the two parts at starting be equal; 3 shillings value of labour-power,
3 shillings surplus-value. Then the value of the labour-power cannot rise
from three shillings to four, without the surplus-value falling from three
shillings to two; and the surplus-value cannot rise from three shillings
to four, without the value of labour-power falling from three shillings
to two. Under these circumstances, therefore, no change can take place
in the absolute magnitude, either of the surplus-value, or of the value
of labour-power, without a simultaneous change in their relative magnitudes,
i.e., relatively to each other. It is impossible for them to rise
or fall simultaneously.
Further, the value of labour-power cannot fall, and consequently
surplus-value cannot rise, without a rise in the productiveness of labour.
For instance, in the above case, the value of the labour-power cannot sink
from three shillings to two, unless an increase in the productiveness of
labour makes it possible to produce in 4 hours the same quantity of necessaries
as previously required 6 hours to produce. On the other hand, the value
of the labour-power cannot rise from three shillings to four, without a
decrease in the productiveness of labour, whereby eight hours become requisite
to produce the same quantity of necessaries, for the production of which
six hours previously sufficed. It follows from this, that an increase in
the productiveness of labour causes a fall in the value of labour-power
and a consequent rise in surplus-value, while, on the other hand, a decrease
in such productiveness causes a rise in the value of labour-power, and
a fall in surplus-value.
In formulating this law, Ricardo overlooked one circumstance;
although a change in the magnitude of the surplus-value or surplus-labour
causes a change in the opposite direction in the magnitude of the value
of labour-power, or in the quantity of necessary labour, it by no means
follows that they vary in the same proportion. They do increase or diminish
by the same quantity. But their proportional increase or diminution depends
on their original magnitudes before the change in the productiveness of
labour took place. If the value of the labour-power be 4 shillings, or
the necessary labour time 8 hours, and the surplus-value be 2 shillings,
or the surplus-labour 4 hours, and if, in consequence of an increase in
the productiveness of labour, the value of the labour-power fall to 3 shillings,
or the necessary labour to 6 hours, the surplus-value will rise to 3 shillings,
or the surplus-labour to 6 hours. The same quantity, 1 shilling or 2 hours,
is added in one case and subtracted in the other. But the proportional
change of magnitude is different in each case. While the value of the labour-power
falls from 4 shillings to 3, i.e., by 1/4 or 25%, the surplus-value
rises from 2 shillings to 3, i.e., by 1/2 or 50%. It therefore follows
that the proportional increase or diminution in surplus-value, consequent
on a given change in the productiveness of labour, depends on the original
magnitude of that portion of the working day which embodies itself in surplus-value;
the smaller that portion, the greater is the proportional change; the greater
that portion, the less is the proportional change.
(3.) Increase or diminution in surplus-value is always
consequent on, and never the cause of, the corresponding diminution or
increase in the value of labour-power.
Since the working-day is constant in magnitude, and is represented
by a value of constant magnitude, since, to every variation in the magnitude
of surplus-value, there corresponds an inverse variation in the value of
labour-power, and since the value of labour-power cannot change, except
in consequence of a change in the productiveness of labour, it clearly
follows, under these conditions, that every change of magnitude in surplus-value
arises from an inverse change of magnitude in the value of labour-power.
If, then, as we have already seen, there can be no change of absolute magnitude
in the value of labour-power, and in surplus-value, unaccompanied by a
change in their relative magnitudes, so now it follows that no change in
their relative magnitudes is possible, without a previous change in the
absolute magnitude of the value of labour-power.
According to the third law, a change in the magnitude of surplus-value,
presupposes a movement in the value of labour-power, which movement is
brought about by a variation in the productiveness of labour. The limit
of this change is given by the altered value of labour-power. Nevertheless,
even when circumstances allow the law to operate, subsidiary movements
may occur. For example: if in consequence of the increased productiveness
of labour, the value of labour-power falls from 4 shillings to 3, or the
necessary labour time from 8 hours to 6, the price of labour-power may
possibly not fall below 3s. 8d., 3s. 6d., or 3s. 2d., and the surplus-value
consequently not rise above 3s. 4d., 3s. 6d., or 3s. 10d. The amount of
this fall, the lowest limit of which is 3 shillings (the new value of labour-power),
depends on the relative weight, which the pressure of capital on the one
side, and the resistance of the labourer on the other, throws into the
scale.
The value of labour-power is determined by the value of a given
quantity of necessaries. It is the value and not the mass of these necessaries
that varies with the productiveness of labour. It is, however, possible
that, owing to an increase of productiveness, both the labourer and the
capitalist may simultaneously be able to appropriate a greater quantity
of these necessaries, without any change in the price of labour-power or
in surplus-value. If the value of labour-power be 3 shillings, and the
necessary labour time amount to 6 hours, if the surplus-value likewise
be 3 shillings, and the surplus-labour 6 hours, then if the productiveness
of labour were doubled without altering the ratio of necessary labour to
surplus-labour, there would be no change of magnitude in surplus-value
and price of labour-power. The only result would be that each of them would
represent twice as many use-values as before; these use-values being twice
as cheap as before. Although labour-power would be unchanged in price,
it would be above its value. If, however, the price of labour-power had
fallen, not to 1s. 6d., the lowest possible point consistent with its new
value, but to 2s. 10d. or 2s. 6d., still this lower price would represent
an increased mass of necessaries. In this way it is possible with an increasing
productiveness of labour, for the price of labour-power to keep on falling,
and yet this fall to be accompanied by a constant growth in the mass of
the labourer's means of subsistence. But even in such case, the fall in
the value of labour-power would cause a corresponding rise of surplus-value,
and thus the abyss between the labourer's position and that of the capitalist
would keep widening.
Ricardo was the first who accurately formulated the three laws
we have above stated. But he falls into the following errors: (1) he looks
upon the special conditions under which these laws hold good as the general
and sole conditions of capitalist production. He knows no change, either
in the length of the working-day, or in the intensity of labour; consequently
with him there can be only one variable factor, viz., the productiveness
of labour; (2), and this error vitiates his analysis much more than (1),
he has not, any more than have the other economists, investigated surplus-value
as such, i.e., independently of its particular forms, such as profit,
rent, &c. He therefore confounds together the laws of the rate of surplus-value
and the laws of the rate of profit. The rate of profit is, as we have already
said, the ratio of the surplus-value to the total capital advanced; the
rate of surplus-value is the ratio of the surplus-value to the variable
part of that capital. Assume that a capital C of £500 is made up
of raw material, instruments of labour, &c. (c) to the amount of £400;
and of wages (v) to the amount of £100; and further, that the surplus-value
(s) = £100. Then we have rate of surplus-value s/v = £100/£100
= 100%. But the rate of profit s/c = £100/£500 = 20%. It is,
besides, obvious that the rate of profit may depend on circumstances that
in no way affect the rate of surplus-value. I shall show in Book III. that,
with a given rate of surplus-value, we may have any number of rates of
profit, and that various rates of surplus-value may, under given conditions,
express themselves in a single rate of profit.
SECTION 2
WORKING-DAY CONSTANT. PRODUCTIVENESS OF LABOUR CONSTANT. INTENSITY OF LABOUR VARIABLE
Increased intensity of labour means increased expenditure
of labour in a given time. Hence a working-day of more intense labour is
embodied in more products than is one of less intense labour, the length
of each day being the same. Increased productiveness of labour also, it
is true, will supply more products in a given working-day. But in this
latter case, the value of each single product falls, for it costs less
labour than before; in the former case, that value remains unchanged, for
each article costs the same labour as before. Here we have an increase
in the number of products, unaccompanied by a fall in their individual
prices: as their number increases, so does the sum of their prices. But
in the case of increased productiveness, a given value is spread over a
greater mass of products. Hence the length of the working-day being constant,
a day's labour of increased intensity will be incorporated in an increased
value, and, the value of money remaining unchanged, in more money. The
value created varies with the extent to which the intensity of labour deviates
from its normal intensity in the society. A given working-day, therefore,
no longer creates a constant, but a variable value; in a day of 12 hours
of ordinary intensity, the value created is, say 6 shillings, but with
increased intensity, the value created may be 7, 8, or more shillings.
It is clear that, if the value created by a day's labour increases from,
say, 6 to 8 shillings then the two parts into which this value is divided,
viz., price of labour-power and surplus-value, may both of them increase
simultaneously, and either equally or unequally. They may both simultaneously
increase from 3 shillings to 4. Here, the rise in the price of labour-power
does not necessarily imply that the price has risen above the value of
labour-power. On the contrary, the rise in price may be accompanied by
a fall in value. This occurs whenever the rise in the price of labour-power
does not compensate for its increased wear and tear.
We know that, with transitory exceptions, a change in the productiveness
of labour does not cause any change in the value of labour-power, nor consequently
in the magnitude of surplus-value, unless the products of the industries
affected are articles habitually consumed by the labourers. In the present
case this condition no longer applies. For when the variation is either
in the duration or in the intensity of labour, there is always a corresponding
change in the magnitude of the value created, independently of the nature
of the article in which that value is embodied.
If the intensity of labour were to increase simultaneously and
equally in every branch of industry, then the new and higher degree of
intensity would become the normal degree for the society, and would therefore
cease to be taken account of. But still, even then, the intensity of labour
would be different in different countries, and would modify the international
application of the law of value. The more intense working-day of one nation
would be represented by a greater sum of money than would the less intense
day of another nation.
SECTION 3
PRODUCTIVENESS AND INTENSITY OF LABOUR CONSTANT. LENGTH OF THE WORKING-DAY VARIABLE
The working-day may vary in two ways. It may be made
either longer or shorter. From our present data, and within the limits
of the assumptions made on p. 487 [v. 35 MECW p. 520] we obtain the following laws:
(1.) The working-day creates a greater or less amount of
value in proportion to its length — thus, a variable and not a constant
quantity of value.
(2.) Every change in the relation between the magnitudes
of surplus-value and of the value of labour-power arises from a change
in the absolute magnitude of the surplus-labour, and consequently of the
surplus-value.
(3.) The absolute value of labour-power can change only
in consequence of the reaction exercised by the prolongation of surplus-labour
upon the wear and tear of labour-power. Every change in this absolute value
is therefore the effect, but never the cause, of a change in the magnitude
of surplus-value.
We begin with the case in which the working-day is shortened.
(1.) A shortening of the working-day under the conditions
given above, leaves the value of labour-power, and with it, the necessary
labour time, unaltered. It reduces the surplus-labour and surplus-value.
Along with the absolute magnitude of the latter, its relative magnitude
also falls, i.e., its magnitude relatively to the value of labour-power
whose magnitude remains unaltered. Only by lowering the price of labour-power
below its value could the capitalist save himself harmless.
All the usual arguments against the shortening of the working-day,
assume that it takes place under the conditions we have here supposed to
exist; but in reality the very contrary is the case: a change in the productiveness
and intensity of labour either precedes, or immediately follows, a shortening
of the working-day.
(2.) Lengthening of the working-day. Let the necessary
labour time be 6 hours, or the value of labour-power 3 shillings; also
let the surplus-labour be 6 hours or the surplus-value 3 shillings. The
whole working-day then amounts to 12 hours and is embodied in a value of
6 shillings. If, now, the working-day be lengthened by 2 hours and the
price of labour-power remain unaltered, the surplus-value increases both
absolutely and relatively. Although there is no absolute change in the
value of labour-power, it suffers a relative fall. Under the conditions
assumed in 1. there could not be a change of relative magnitude in the
value of labour-power without a change in its absolute magnitude. Here,
on the contrary, the change of relative magnitude in the value of labour-power
is the result of the change of absolute magnitude in surplus-value.
Since the value in which a day's labour is embodied, increases
with the length of that day, it is evident that the surplus-value and the
price of labour-power may simultaneously increase, either by equal or unequal
quantities. This simultaneous increase is therefore possible in two cases,
one, the actual lengthening of the working-day, the other, an increase
in the intensity of labour unaccompanied by such lengthening.
When the working-day is prolonged, the price of labour-power may
fall below its value, although that price be nominally unchanged or even
rise. The value of a day's labour-power is, as will be remembered, estimated
from its normal average duration, or from the normal duration of life among
the labourers, and from corresponding normal transformations of organised
bodily matter into motion, in conformity with the
nature of man. Up to a certain point, the increased wear and tear of labour-power,
inseparable from a lengthened working-day, may be compensated by higher
wages. But beyond this point the wear and tear increases in geometrical
progression, and every condition suitable for the normal reproduction and
functioning of labour-power is suppressed. The price of labour-power and
the degree of its exploitation cease to be commensurable quantities.
SECTION 4
SIMULTANEOUS VARIATIONS IN THE DURATION, PRODUCTIVENESS, AND INTENSITY OF LABOUR
It is obvious that a large number of combinations
are here possible. Any two of the factors may vary and the third remain
constant, or all three may vary at once. They may vary either in the same
or in different degrees, in the same or in opposite directions, with the
result that the variations counteract one another, either wholly or in
part. Nevertheless the analysis of every possible case is easy in view
of the results given in I., II., and III. The effect of every possible
combination may be found by treating each factor in turn as variable, and
the other two constant for the time being. We shall, therefore, notice,
and that briefly, but two important cases.
A. Diminishing productiveness of labour with a simultaneous lengthening of the working-day.
In speaking of diminishing productiveness of labour, we here refer to diminution
in those industries whose products determine the value of labour-power;
such a diminution, for example, as results from decreasing fertility of
the soil, and from the corresponding dearness of its products. Take the
working-day at 12 hours and the value created by it at 6 shillings, of
which one half replaces the value of the labour-power, the other forms
the surplus-value. Suppose, in consequence of the increased dearness of
the products of the soil, that the value of labour-power rises from 3 shillings
to 4, and therefore the necessary labour time from 6 hours to 8. If there
be no change in the length of the working-day, the surplus-labour would
fall from 6 hours to 4, the surplus-value from 3 shillings to 2. If the
day be lengthened by 2 hours, i.e., from 12 hours to 14, the surplus-labour
remains at 6 hours, the surplus-value at 3 shillings [note], but the surplus-value
decreases compared with the value of labour-power, as measured by the necessary
labour time. If the day be lengthened by 4 hours, viz., from 12 hours to
16, the proportional magnitudes of surplus-value and value of labour-power,
of surplus-labour and necessary labour, continue unchanged, but the absolute
magnitude of surplus-value rises from 3 shillings to 4, that of the surplus-labour
from 6 hours to 8, an increment of 33 1/3%. Therefore, with diminishing
productiveness of labour and a simultaneous lengthening of the working-day,
the absolute magnitude of surplus-value may continue unaltered, at the
same time that its relative magnitude diminishes; its relative magnitude
may continue unchanged, at the same time that its absolute magnitude increases;
and, provided the lengthening of the day be sufficient, both may increase.
In the period between 1799 and 1815 the increasing price of provisions
led in England to a nominal rise in wages, although the real wages, expressed
in the necessaries of life, fell. From this fact West and Ricardo drew
the conclusion, that the diminution in the productiveness of agricultural
labour had brought about a fall in the rate of surplus-value, and they
made this assumption of a fact that existed only in their imaginations,
the starting-point of important investigations into the relative magnitudes
of wages, profits, and rent. But, as a matter of fact, surplus-value had
at that time, thanks to the increased intensity of labour, and to the prolongation
of the working-day, increased both in absolute and relative magnitude.
This was the period in which the right to prolong the hours of labour to
an outrageous extent was established; the period
that was especially characterised by an accelerated accumulation of capital
here, by pauperism there.
B. Increasing intensity and productiveness of labour
with simultaneous shortening of the working-day.
Increased productiveness and greater intensity of labour, both have a like
effect. They both augment the mass of articles produced in a given time.
Both, therefore, shorten that portion of the working-day which the labourer
needs to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent. The minimum
length of the working-day is fixed by this necessary but contractile portion
of it. If the whole working-day were to shrink to the length of this portion,
surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the
régime of capital. Only by suppressing the capitalist form of production
could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour time.
But, even in that case, the latter would extend its limits. On the one
hand, because the notion of “means of subsistence” would considerably expand,
and the labourer would lay claim to an altogether different standard of
life. On the other hand, because a part of what is now surplus-labour,
would then count as necessary labour; I mean the labour of forming a fund
for reserve and accumulation.
The more the productiveness of labour increases, the more can
the working-day be shortened; and the more the working-day is shortened,
the more can the intensity of labour increase. From a social point of view,
the productiveness increases in the same ratio as the economy of labour,
which, in its turn, includes not only economy of the means of production,
but also the avoidance of all useless labour. The capitalist mode of production,
while on the one hand, enforcing economy in each individual business, on
the other hand, begets, by its anarchical system of competition, the most
outrageous squandering of labour-power and of the social means of production,
not to mention the creation of a vast number of employments, at present
indispensable, but in themselves superfluous.
The intensity and productiveness of labour being given, the time
which society is bound to devote to material production is shorter, and
as a consequence, the time at its disposal for the free development, intellectual
and social, of the individual is greater, in proportion as the work is
more and more evenly divided among all the able-bodied members of society,
and as a particular class is more and more deprived of the power to shift
the natural burden of labour from its own shoulders to those of another
layer of society. In this direction, the shortening of the working-day
finds at last a limit in the generalisation of labour. In capitalist society
spare time is acquired for one class by converting the whole life-time
of the masses into labour time.
Footnotes
1. Note in the 3rd German edition. — The case considered at pages 321-324 is here of course omitted. — F. E.
2. To this third law MacCulloch has made, amongst others, this absurd addition, that a rise in surplus-value, unaccompanied by a fall in the value of labour-power, can occur through the abolition
of taxes payable by the capitalist. The abolition of such taxes makes no
change whatever in the quantity of surplus-value that the capitalist extorts
at first-hand from the labourer. It alters only the proportion in which
that surplus-value is divided between himself and third persons. It consequently
makes no alteration whatever in the relation between surplus-value and
value of labour-power. MacCulloch's exception therefore proves only his
misapprehension of the rule, a misfortune that as often happens to him
in the vulgarisation of Ricardo, as it does to J. B. Say in the vulgarisation
of Adam Smith.
3. “When an alteration takes place in the productiveness of industry, and that either more or less is produced
by a given quantity of labour and capital, the proportion of wages may
obviously vary, whilst the quantity, which that proportion represents,
remains the same, or the quantity may vary, whilst the proportion remains
the same.” (“Outlines of Political Economy, &c.,” p. 67.)
4. “All things being equal, the English manufacturer can turn out a considerably larger amount of work in a given
time than a foreign manufacturer, so much as to counterbalance the difference
of the working-days, between 60 hours a week here, and 72 or 80 elsewhere.”
(Rep. of Insp. of Fact. for 31st Oct., 1855, p. 65.) The most infallible
means for reducing this qualitative difference between the English and
Continental working hour would be a law shortening quantitatively the length
of the working-day in Continental factories.
5. “There are compensating circumstances ... which the working of the Ten Hours' Act has brought to light.” (“Rep. of Insp. of Fact. for 31st Oct. 1848,” p. 7.)
6. “The amount of labour which a man had undergone in the course of 24 hours might be approximately arrived
at by an examination of the chemical changes which had taken place in his
body, changed forms in matter indicating the anterior exercise of dynamic
force.” (Grove: “On the Correlation of Physical Forces.”)
7. “Corn and labour rarely march quite abreast; but there is an obvious limit, beyond which they cannot be separated.
With regard to the unusual exertions made by the labouring classes in periods
of dearness, which produce the fall of wages noticed in the evidence” (namely,
before the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, 1814-15), “they are most
meritorious in the individuals, and certainly favour the growth of capital.
But no man of humanity could wish to see them constant and unremitted.
They are most admirable as a temporary relief; but if they were constantly
in action, effects of a similar kind would result from them, as from the
population of a country being pushed to the very extreme limits of its
food.” (Malthus: “Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent,” Lond.,
1815, p. 48, note.) All honour to Malthus that he lays stress on the lengthening
of the hours of labour, a fact to which he elsewhere in his pamphlet draws
attention, while Ricardo and others, in face of the most notorious facts,
make invariability in the length of the working-day the groundwork of all
their investigations. But the conservative interests, which Malthus served,
prevented him from seeing that an unlimited prolongation of the working-day,
combined with an extraordinary development of machinery, and the exploitation
of women and children, must inevitably have made a great portion of the
working-class “supernumerary,” particularly whenever the war should have
ceased, and the monopoly of England in the markets of the world should
have come to an end. It was, of course, far more convenient, and much more
in conformity with the interests of the ruling classes, whom Malthus adored
like a true priest, to explain this “over-population” by the eternal laws
of Nature, rather than by the historical laws of capitalist production.
8. “A principal cause of the increase of capital, during the war, proceeded from the greater exertions, and perhaps
the greater privations of the labouring classes, the most numerous in every
society. More women and children were compelled by necessitous circumstances,
to enter upon laborious occupations, and former workmen were, from the
same cause, obliged to devote a greater portion of their time to increase
production.” (Essays on Pol. Econ., in which are illustrated the principal
causes of the present national distress. Lond., 1830, p. 248.)
Transcribed by Alan Thurrott
Html Markup by Stephen Baird (1999)
Note
Earlier English translations have “6 sh.” instead of 3 shillings. This error was pointed out to us by a reader, we have investigated and checked with the 1872 German Edition and duly corrected an obvious error. See “A three shilling mystery”.
Andy Blunden (2002)
Next: Chapter Eighteen: Various Formula for the Rate of surplus-value
Capital Volume One- Index