If capital grows, the mass of wage-labor grows, the number of wage-workers increases; in a word, the sway of capital extends over a greater mass of individuals.
Let us suppose the most favorable case: if productive capital grows, the demand for labor grows.It therefore increases the price of labor-power, wages.
A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence.But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut.The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one;and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal of even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.
An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital.Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures.Therefore, although the pleasures of the laborer have increased, the social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the stage of development of society in general.Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification.Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.
But wages are not at all determined merely by the sum of commodities for which they may be exchanged.Other factors enter into the problem.
What the workers directly receive for their labor-power is a certain sum of money.Are wages determined merely by this money price?
In the 16th century, the gold and silver circulation in Europe increased in consequence of the discovery of richer and more easily worked mines in America.The value of gold and silver, therefore, fell in relation to other commodities.The workers received the same amount of coined silver for their labor-power as before.The money price of their work remained the same, and yet their wages had fallen, for in exchange for the same amount of silver they obtained a smaller amount of other commodities.This was one of the circumstances which furthered the growth of capital, the rise of the bourgeoisie, in the 18th century.
Let us take another case.In the winter of 1847, in consequence of bad harvest, the most indispensable means of subsistence -- grains, meat, butter, cheese, etc.-- rose greatly in price.Let us suppose that the workers still received the same sum of money for their labor-power as before.Did not their wages fall? To be sure.For the same money they received in exchange less bread, meat, etc.Their wages fell, not because the value of silver was less, but because the value of the means of subsistence had increased.
Finally, let us suppose that the money price of labor-power remained the same, while all agricultural and manufactured commodities had fallen in price because of the employment of new machines, of favorable seasons, etc.For the same money the workers could now buy more commodities of all kinds.Their wages have therefore risen, just because their money value has not changed.
The money price of labor-power, the nominal wages, do not therefore coincide with the actual or real wages -- i.e., with the amount of commodities which are actually given in exchange for the wages.If then we speak of a rise or fall of wages, we have to keep in mind not only the money price of labor-power, the nominal wages, but also the real wages.
But neither the nominal wages -- i.e., the amount of money for which the laborer sells himself to the capitalist -- nor the real wages -- i.e., the amount of commodities which he can buy for this money -- exhausts the relations which are comprehended in the term wages.
Wages are determined above all by their relations to the gain, the profit, of the capitalist.In other words, wages are a proportionate, relative quantity.
Real wages express the price of labor-power in relation to the price of commodities; relative wages, on the other hand, express the share of immediate labor in the value newly created by it, in relation to the share of it which falls to accumulated labor, to capital.