Key Arguments

• He notes that the means of production (raw materials, auxiliary materials, instruments of labour) 'does not undergo any quantitative alteration of value in the process of production', even though their value is preserved and transferred.
• On this basis he names that part of capital 'the constant part of capital, or more briefly, constant capital.'
• Conversely, the part of capital turned into labour-power 'does undergo an alteration of value in the process of production': it reproduces an equivalent of its own value and produces a surplus that can vary, so he calls it 'the variable part of capital, or more briefly, variable capital.'
• He stresses that this distinction is specifically from the point of view of the valorization process, whereas from the perspective of the labour process the same elements appear as 'objective and subjective factors, as means of production and labour-power.'
• By framing the different roles in value-formation as different 'functions allotted to the different elements of capital in its own valorization process', he embeds the constant/variable distinction in his general theory of capital.

Source Quotes

The means of production on the one hand, labour-power on the other, are merely the different forms of existence which the value of the original capital assumed when it lost its monetary form and was transformed into the various factors of the labour process. That part of capital, therefore, which is turned into means of production, i.e. the raw material, the auxiliary material and the instruments of labour, does not undergo any quantitative alteration of value in the process of production. For this reason, I call it the constant part of capital, or more briefly, constant capital.

That part of capital, therefore, which is turned into means of production, i.e. the raw material, the auxiliary material and the instruments of labour, does not undergo any quantitative alteration of value in the process of production. For this reason, I call it the constant part of capital, or more briefly, constant capital. On the other hand, that part of capital which is turned into labour-power does undergo an alteration of value in the process of production.

For this reason, I call it the constant part of capital, or more briefly, constant capital. On the other hand, that part of capital which is turned into labour-power does undergo an alteration of value in the process of production. It both reproduces the equivalent of its own value and produces an excess, a surplus-value, which may itself vary, and be more or less according to circumstances.

On the other hand, that part of capital which is turned into labour-power does undergo an alteration of value in the process of production. It both reproduces the equivalent of its own value and produces an excess, a surplus-value, which may itself vary, and be more or less according to circumstances. This part of capital is continually being transformed from a constant into a variable magnitude.

It both reproduces the equivalent of its own value and produces an excess, a surplus-value, which may itself vary, and be more or less according to circumstances. This part of capital is continually being transformed from a constant into a variable magnitude. I therefore call it the variable part of capital, or more briefly, variable capital. The same elements of capital which, from the point of view of the labour process, can be distinguished respectively as the objective and subjective factors, as means of production and labour-power, can be distinguished, from the point of view of the valorization process, as constant and variable capital.

I therefore call it the variable part of capital, or more briefly, variable capital. The same elements of capital which, from the point of view of the labour process, can be distinguished respectively as the objective and subjective factors, as means of production and labour-power, can be distinguished, from the point of view of the valorization process, as constant and variable capital. The definition of constant capital given above by no means excludes the possibility of a change of value in its elements.

Key Concepts

• That part of capital, therefore, which is turned into means of production, i.e. the raw material, the auxiliary material and the instruments of labour, does not undergo any quantitative alteration of value in the process of production.
• For this reason, I call it the constant part of capital, or more briefly, constant capital.
• On the other hand, that part of capital which is turned into labour-power does undergo an alteration of value in the process of production.
• It both reproduces the equivalent of its own value and produces an excess, a surplus-value, which may itself vary, and be more or less according to circumstances.
• This part of capital is continually being transformed from a constant into a variable magnitude. I therefore call it the variable part of capital, or more briefly, variable capital.
• The same elements of capital which, from the point of view of the labour process, can be distinguished respectively as the objective and subjective factors, as means of production and labour-power, can be distinguished, from the point of view of the valorization process, as constant and variable capital.

Context

In the latter half of the passage, after analyzing value creation and transfer, Marx introduces his crucial terminological distinction between constant and variable capital as a re-description of means of production and labour-power from the standpoint of capital’s self‑valorization.