OCR Text |
Show OF TH:E. PROFITS Ob"' CAPITAL. . [ CH. ,y. the produce would be divided chi~fl~* be_t,veen the capitalist and the labourers, and It IS evident ~hat if the nu1nber of labourers necessary to obta1n a given produce were continuall~ increasing, and the wa o·es of each labourer remained the san1e, the b portion destined to the ~ayn1ent of labour_ would be continually encroachtng upon the portion destined to the payment of profits; and the rate of profits would of course continue regulc~rly diminishing till, from the 'vant of power or \VIll to save, the progress of accurnulatio~ had ceased. In this case, and supposing an equal den1and for all the parts of the san1e produce,t it is o4vious that the profits of capital in agriculture would be in proportion to the fertility of the last land taken into cultivation, or to the amount of the produce obtained by a given quantity of labour. And as profits in the san1e ~ountry tend to an equality, the general rate of profits \vould follo\V the san1e course. * I say chiffiy, because, in fact, some rent, though it may be trifling, is almost always paid in the materials of the farmer's capital. t It is necessary to qualify the position in this way, becaus~ , with regard to the main products of agriculture, it might easily happen that all the parts were not of the same value. If a farmer cultivated his lands by means of domestics living in his house whom he found in food and clothing, his advances might always be nearly the same in quantity and of the same high value in use; but in the case of a glut from the shutting up of an accustomed market, or a season of unusual abundance, a part of the crop might be of no value either in use or exchange, and his profits could ~y no rrteans be determined, by the excess of the quantity produced, above the advances necessary to prouuce it. S,EC. 1.] OF THE PROFITS OF CAPITAL. 297 But a moment's consideration will shew us, that the supposition here made of a constant uniformity in the Teal \vages of labour is not only contrary to the actual state of things, but involves a contradiction. The progress of population is almost exclusively regulated by the quantity of the necessaries of life actually awarded. to the labourer; and if fron1 the Erst he had no n1ore than sufficient to keep up the actual population, the labouring classes could not increase, nor \vould there be any occasion for the progressive cultivation of poorer land. On the other hand, if the real vvages of labour 'vere such as to adn1it of and encourage an increase of population, and yet \Vere al vvays to ren1ain the san1e, it would involve the contradiction of a continued increase of population after the accumulation of capital, and the n1cans of supporting such an increase had entirely ceased. \Ve cannot then n1akc the supposition of a natural and constant price of labour, at least if \Ve mean by such a price, an unvarying quantity of the necessaries of life. And if \Ve cannot fix the real price of labour, it n1ust evidently vary with the progress of capital and revenue, and the detnand for labour con1pared 'vith the supply. · We may ho,vever, if \Ve please, suppose a unifonn progress of capital and population, by \vhich is not mea~t in the present case the san1e 1~ate of progress permanently, which is impossible; but a unifonn pr.ogress to,vards the greatest practicable amount, Without ternporary accelerations or retardations. |