Some clarification on "Wage Labour and Capital"

[Ritzy Cat]

So I just finished a close read of Wage Labour and Capital. Very clearly written and a great introduction to the relationships between capitalists and laborers.

However, the conclusion was a bit too wordy and confusing for me. Could someone explain that to me in more colloquial terms?

"Thus we see: if capital grows rapidly, competition among the workers grows incomparably more rapidly, that is, the means of employment, the means of subsistence, of the working class decrease proportionately so much the more, and nevertheless, the rapid growth of capital is the most favourable condition for wage labour."

While I understand the latter of that conclusion is true I am confused as to how he arrived to that conclusion based on the preceding part of this phrase.

Thanks in advance for any help

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Marx is saying that the growth of capital implies the growth of employment. If you invest in more machines for your factory you'll need workers to run them, since the workers create commodities that are sold on the market. The "reserve army of the unemployed" are used by capitalism to keep wages low, as there are more workers (supply) than jobs (demand). So, with the expansion of capital comes the expansion of employment, sucking the pool of the unemployed and filling up very quickly. Competition for these few job openings create huge competition between those looking for the job, again the way wages are driven down. The only way out of this predicament under capitalism is, of course, the continuation of capitalist social relations with growth, in hopes of more jobs opening up to be quickly filled.

A great example of this is the countless stories heard during the peak of the economic crisis about how janitorial positions for local schools were receiving thousands of applications or when McDonald's did the whole "national hiring day" in 2011 and tons of people rushed to all of them to fill out applications.

[Hatshepsut]

...a close read of Wage Labour and Capital.

"Thus we see: if capital grows rapidly, competition among the workers grows incomparably more rapidly, that is, the means of employment, the means of subsistence, of the working class decrease proportionately so much the more, and nevertheless, the rapid growth of capital is the most favourable condition for wage labour."

Bear with me since I have a different English translation. Back up a little, to near the beginning of the section or chapter where your sentence is, and find

“The greater division of labor enables one laborer to accomplish the work of five…it therefore increases competition among the laborers fivefold.”

Because labor efficiency increased fivefold, the capitalist was able to fire the other four workers, who now compete for jobs. Note that these workers are craftsmen who were making the same products by hand. They were skilled. The workers using the machines are less skilled, and get paid less than craftsmen. Yet again, because the efficiency of labor had increased fivefold, the capitalist need spend less on wages to produce the same outputs, so he can invest in more machinery, leading to more employment.

So the fired workers eventually do get jobs. But these are lower-paid, and the time these workers do spend in unemployment offices is enough to significantly hike competition among workers. This finishes Marx’s conclusion, “the means of employment and subsistence for the working class decrease in proportion even more rapidly; but, this notwithstanding, the rapid growth of capital is the most favorable condition for wage-labor.”

It still works the same way in the contemporary service economy like our other friend says here. You see, the service economy pays a few knowledge workers well, and everyone else waits tables in those trendy sidewalk cafes…


Marx is saying that the growth of capital implies the growth of employment. ...when McDonald's did the whole "national hiring day" in 2011 and tons of people rushed to all of them to fill out applications.