39
rise, and yet the relative wages may none the less have fallen. Let us assume, for example, that the price of all the means of subsistence has fallen by two-thirds, while a day’s wages have only fallen one-third, as for instance, from three shillings to two. Although the laborer has a larger amount of commodities at his disposal for two shillings than he had before for three, yet his wages are nevertheless diminished in proportion to the capitalist’s gain, The capitalist’s profit—the manufacturer’s, for instance—has been augmented by a shilling, since for the smaller sum of exchange-values which he pays to the laborer, the laborer has to produce a larger sum of exchange-values than he did before. The share of capital is raised in proportion to the share of labor. The division of social wealth between capital and labor has become more disproportionate. The capitalist commands a larger amount of labor with the same amount of capital. The power of the capitalist class over the laboring class is increased; the social position of the laborer has deteriorated, and is depressed another degree below that of the capitalist.
What then is the general law which determines the rise and fall of wages and profit in their reciprocal relation?
They stand in inverse proportion to one another. The share of capital, profit, rises in the same proportion in which the share of labor, wages, sinks; and inversely. The rise in profit is exatly measured by the fall in wages and the fall in profit by the rise in wages.
The objection may perhaps be made that the capi-
