2) All ground-rent is surplus-value, the product of surplus-labour. In its
 undeveloped form as rent in kind it is still directly the surplus-product
 itself. Hence, the mistaken idea that the rent corresponding to the capitalist
 mode of production — which is always a surplus over and above profit,
 i.e., above a value portion of commodities which itself consists of
 surplus-value (surplus-labour) — that this special and specific component
 of surplus-value is explained by merely explaining the general conditions for
 the existence of surplus-value and profit in general. These conditions are: the
 direct producers must work beyond the time necessary for reproducing their own
 labour-power, for their own reproduction. They must perform surplus-labour in
 general. This is the subjective condition. The objective condition is that they
 must be able to perform surplus-labour. The natural conditions must be such
 that a part of their available labour-time suffices for their reproduction and
 self-maintenance as producers, that the production of their necessary means of
 subsistence shall not consume their whole labour-power. The fertility of Nature
 establishes a limit here, a starting-point, a basis. On the other hand, the
 development of the social productive power of their labour forms the other
 limit. Examined more closely, since the production of means of subsistence is
 the very first condition of their existence and of all production in general,
 labour used in this production, that is, agricultural labour in the broadest
 economic sense, must be fruitful enough so as not to absorb the entire
 available labour-time in the production of means of subsistence for the direct
 producers, that is, agricultural surplus-labour and therefore agricultural
 surplus-product must be possible. Developed further, the total agricultural
 labour, both necessary and surplus labour, of a segment of society must suffice
 to produce the necessary subsistence for the whole of society, that is, for
 non-agricultural labourers too. This means therefore that the major division of
 labour between agricultural and industrial must be possible; and similarly
 between tillers of the soil producing means of subsistence and those producing
 raw materials. Although the labour of the direct producers of means of
 subsistence breaks up into necessary and surplus labour as far as they
 themselves are concerned, it represents from the social standpoint only the
 necessary labour required to produce the means of subsistence. Incidentally,
 the same is true for all division of labour within society as a whole, as
 distinct from the division of labour within individual workshops. It is the
 labour necessary for the production of particular articles, for the
 satisfaction of some particular need of society for these particular articles.
 If this division is proportional, then the products of various groups are sold
 at their values (at a later stage of development they are sold at their prices
 of production), or at prices which are certain modifications of these values or
 prices of production determined by general laws. It is indeed the effect of the
 law of value, not with reference to individual commodities or articles, but to
 each total product of the particular social spheres of production made
 independent by the division of labour; so that not only is no more than the
 necessary labour-time used up for each specific commodity, but only the
 necessary proportional quantity of the total social labour-time is used up in
 the various groups. For the condition remains that the commodity represents
 use-value. But if the use-value of individual commodities depends on whether
 they satisfy a particular need then the use-value of the mass of the social
 product depends on whether it satisfies the quantitatively definite social need
 for each particular kind of product in an adequate manner, and whether the
 labour is therefore proportionately distributed among the different spheres in
 keeping with these social needs, which are quantitatively circumscribed. (This
 point is to be noted in the distribution of capital among the various spheres
 of production.) The social need, that is, the use-value on a social scale,
 appears here as a determining factor for the amount of total social labour-time
 which is expended in various specific spheres of production. But it is merely
 the same law which is already applied in the case of single commodities,
 namely, that the use-value of a commodity is the basis of its exchange-value
 and thus of its value. This point has a bearing upon the relationship between
 necessary and surplus labour only in so far as a violation of this proportion
 makes it impossible to realise the value of the commodity and thus the
 surplus-value contained in it. For instance; let us assume that proportionally
 too much cotton goods have been produced, although only the labour-time
 necessary under the prevailing conditions is incorporated in this total cloth
 production. But in general too much social labour has been expended in this
 particular line; in other words, a portion of this product is useless. It is
 therefore sold solely as if it had been produced in the necessary proportion.
 This quantitative limit to the quota of social labour-time available for the
 various particular spheres of production is but a more developed expression of
 the law of value in general, although the necessary labour-time assumes a
 different meaning here. Only just so much of it is required for the
 satisfaction of social needs. The limitation occurring here is due to the use
 value. Society can use only so much of its total labour-time for this
 particular kind of product under prevailing conditions of production. But the
 subjective and objective conditions of surplus labour and surplus-value in
 general have nothing to do with the particular form of either the profit or the
 rent. These conditions apply to surplus-value as such, no matter what special
 form it may assume. Hence they do not explain ground-rent.