Mr. Rondbertus first examines how things stand in a country where land ownership and capital ownership are not separate, and he concludes with the significant finding that rent (which he defines as all surplus value) equals only unpaid labor or the quantity of goods with which it is represented.

First of all, it should be noted that Rondbertus only refers to the increase in relative surplus value, meaning the increase in surplus value, as it comes from the growing productivity of labor and not the increase in surplus value that arises from extending the working day itself.

Of course, every absolute surplus value is, in a sense, relative. Labor must be productive enough so that the worker does not need all of their time merely to sustain themselves. However, beyond that point, the difference begins. Moreover, if initially labor is minimally productive, then the needs are at the most basic level (like that of a slave), and the masters themselves do not live much better than the servants.

The relative productivity of labor, necessary to create a consumer of profit, a parasite, is very small. If we find a high profit rate somewhere, where labor is still very minimally productive, where machines are not used, division of labor etc., we will find this only, either as in parts of India, because the laborer's needs are absolutely small, and the worker themselves is pressured so much that they fall even further below this miserable level of needs, or partly because low labor productivity is identical to small dimensions of fixed capital in relation to the part of capital spent on labor, or, which is the same, with the large dimensions of the part of capital expended for labor in relation to the total capital, finally, because the working time is extended excessively.