The Wage Bargain Undone
Why is the exchange between worker and employer, which looks like a free and fair trade, actually the very form of the worker's dependence? What the wage really buys is the question.
Marx explains to a workers' club that labour is a commodity, sold near the cost of keeping the worker alive and able to work, while the value produced beyond that goes to capital — so wages and profit move against each other, and the freedom to sell one's labour is itself a bondage. Serialised in his revolutionary newspaper until Prussia shut it down in 1849, the argument broke off unfinished. Engels reissued it in 1891, replacing labour with labour-power throughout — the distinction on which Capital would later turn.
- wages
- wage labor
- capital
- labor
- labor power
- profit
- competition
- exchange value
- surplus value
- class struggle
- production
Enter a dialogue
- A person signs a job contract freely and calls it a fair deal — on your account, why is that very freedom the shape of their dependence?
- A person's wages rise and their employer's profits rise too — does your claim that the two move against each other still hold for them?
- If wages settle near the cost of keeping a worker alive, how do you square that with workers whose pay plainly rose far above subsistence?
- Seeing the wage as bondage rather than a fair exchange, what everyday sense of earning an honest living does a worker have to give up?
- What did Engels' change from 'labour' to 'labour-power' fix in your argument — what does the worker actually sell, if not their labour?