- 歡迎訪問欣可小說小說網
-
桌麵快捷
-
加入收藏
-
設為首頁
桌麵快捷
加入收藏
設為首頁
While
the
labourer
is
at
work,
his
labour
constantly
undergoes
a
transformation:
from
being
motion,
it
becomes
an
object
without
motion;
from
being
the
labourer
working,
it
becomes
the
thing
produced.
At
the
end
of
one
hour's
spinning,
that
act
is
represented
by
a
definite
quantity
of
yarn;
in
other
words,
a
definite
quantity
of
labour,
namely
that
of
one
hour,has
become
embodied
in
the
cotton.
We
say
labour,i.e.,
the
expenditure
of
his
vital
force
by
the
spinner,and
not
spinning
labour,
because
the
special
work
of
spinning
counts
here,
only
so
far
as
it
is
the
expenditure
of
labour-power
in
general,
and
not
in
so
far
as
it
is
the
specific
work
of
the
spinner.
In
the
process
we
are
now
considering
it
is
of
extreme
importance,
that
no
more
time
be
consumed
in
the
work
of
transforming
the
cotton
into
yarn
than
is
necessary
under
the
given
social
conditions.
If
under
normal,
i.e.,
average
social
conditions
of
production,a
pounds
of
cotton
ought
to
be
made
into
b
pounds
of
yarn
by
one
hour's
labour,
then
a
day's
labour
does
not
count
as
12
hours'
labour
unless
12
a
pounds
of
cotton
have
been
made
into
12
b
pounds
of
yarn;
for
in
the
creation
of
value,
the
time
that
is
socially
necessary
alone
counts.
Not
only
the
labour,
but
also
the
raw
material
and
the
product
now
appear
in
quite
a
new
light,
very
different
from
that
in
which
we
viewed
them
in
the
labour
process
pure
and
simple.
The
raw
material
serves
now
merely
as
an
absorbent
of
a
definite
quantity
of
labour.
By
this
absorption
it
is
in
fact
changed
into
yarn,
because
it
is
spun,
because
labour-power
in
the
form
of
spinning
is
added
to
it;
but
the
product,the
yarn,
is
now
nothing
more
than
a
measure
of
the
labour
absorbed
by
the
cotton.
If
in
one
hour
1
2\/3
lbs.of
cotton
can
be
spun
into
1
2\/3
lbs.
of
yarn,
then
10
lbs.
of
yarn
indicate
the
absorption
of
6
hours'
labour.Definite
quantities
of
product,
these
quantities
being
determined
by
experience,
now
represent
nothing
but
definite
quantities
of
labour,
definite
masses
of
crystallised
labour-time.
They
are
nothing
more
than
the
materialisation
of
so
many
hours
or
so
many
days
of
social
labour.
We
are
here
no
more
concerned
about
the
facts,that
the
labour
is
the
specific
work
of
spinning,
that
its
subject
is
cotton
and
its
product
yarn,
than
we
are
about
the
fact
that
the
subject
itself
is
already
a
product
and
therefore
raw
material.
If
the
spinner,instead
of
spinning,
were
working
in
a
coal
mine,
the
subject
of
his
labour,
the
coal,
would
be
supplied
by
Nature;
nevertheless,
a
definite
quantity
of
extracted
coal,
a
hundredweight
for
example,
would
represent
a
definite
quantity
of
absorbed
labour.
We
assumed,
on
the
occasion
of
its
sale,
that
the
value
of
a
day's
labour-power
is
three
shillings,
and
that
six
hours'
labour
is
incorporated
in
that
sum;
and
consequently
that
this
amount
of
labour
is
requisite
to
produce
the
necessaries
of
life
daily
required
on
an
average
by
the
labourer.
If
now
our
spinner
by
working
for
one
hour,
can
convert
1
2\/3
lbs.
of
cotton
into
1
2\/3
lbs.
of
yarn,12it
follows
that
in
six
hours
he
will
convert
10
lbs.
of
cotton
into
10
lbs.
of
yarn.
Hence,
during
the
spinning
process,
the
cotton
absorbs
six
hours'
labour.
The
same
quantity
of
labour
is
also
embodied
in
a
piece
of
gold
of
the
value
of
three
shillings.
Consequently
by
the
mere
labour
of
spinning,
a
value
of
three
shillings
is
added
to
the
cotton.
Let
us
now
consider
the
total
value
of
the
product,the
10
lbs.
of
yarn.
Two
and
a
half
days'
labour
has
been
embodied
in
it,
of
which
two
days
were
contained
in
the
cotton
and
in
the
substance
of
the
spindle
worn
away,
and
half
a
day
was
absorbed
during
the
process
of
spinning.
This
two
and
a
half
days'
labour
is
also
represented
by
a
piece
of
gold
of
the
value
of
fifteen
shillings.
Hence,
fifteen
shillings
is
an
adequate
price
for
the
10
lbs.
of
yarn,
or
the
price
of
one
pound
is
eighteenpence.
Our
capitalist
stares
in
astonishment.
The
value
of
the
product
is
exactly
equal
to
the
value
of
the
capital
advanced.
The
value
so
advanced
has
not
expanded,no
surplus-value
has
been
created,
and
consequently
money
has
not
been
converted
into
capital.
The
price
of
the
yarn
is
fifteen
shillings,
and
fifteen
shillings
were
spent
in
the
open
market
upon
the
constituent
elements
of
the
product,
or,
what
amounts
to
the
same
thing,
upon
the
factors
of
the
labour-process;ten
shillings
were
paid
for
the
cotton,
two
shillings
for
the
substance
of
the
spindle
worn
away,
and
three
shillings
for
the
labour-power.
The
swollen
value
of
the
yarn
is
of
no
avail,
for
it
is
merely
the
sum
of
the
values
formerly
existing
in
the
cotton,
the
spindle,and
the
labour-power:
out
of
such
a
simple
addition
of
existing
values,
no
surplus-value
can
possibly
arise.13These
separate
values
are
now
all
concentrated
in
one
thing;
but
so
they
were
also
in
the
sum
of
fifteen
shillings,
before
it
was
split
up
into
three
parts,
by
the
purchase
of
the
commodities.
There
is
in
reality
nothing
very
strange
in
this
result.The
value
of
one
pound
of
yarn
being
eighteenpence,if
our
capitalist
buys
10
lbs.
of
yarn
in
the
market,he
must
pay
fifteen
shillings
for
them.
It
is
clear
that,
whether
a
man
buys
his
house
ready
built,
or
gets
it
built
for
him,
in
neither
case
will
the
mode
of
acquisition
increase
the
amount
of
money
laid
out
on
the
house.
Our
capitalist,
who
is
at
home
in
his
vulgar
economy,
exclaims:
\"Oh!
but
I
advanced
my
money
for
the
express
purpose
of
making
more
money.\"
The
way
to
Hell
is
paved
with
good
intentions,
and
he
might
just
as
easily
have
intended
to
make
money,without
producing
at
all.14He
threatens
all
sorts
of
things.
He
won't
be
caught
napping
again.
In
future
he
will
buy
the
commodities
in
the
market,
instead
of
manufacturing
them
himself.
But
if
all
his
brother
capitalists
were
to
do
the
same,
where
would
he
find
his
commodities
in
the
market
And
his
money
he
cannot
eat.
He
tries
persuasion.
\"Consider
my
abstinence;
I
might
have
played
ducks
and
drakes
with
the
15
shillings;
but
instead
of
that
I
consumed
it
productively,
and
made
yarn
with
it.\"
Very
well,and
by
way
of
reward
he
is
now
in
possession
of
good
yarn
instead
of
a
bad
conscience;
and
as
for
playing
the
part
of
a
miser,
it
would
never
do
for
him
to
relapse
into
such
bad
ways
as
that;
we
have
seen
before
to
what
results
such
asceticism
leads.
Besides,where
nothing
is,
the
king
has
lost
his
rights;
whatever
may
be
the
merit
of
his
abstinence,
there
is
nothing
wherewith
specially
to
remunerate
it,
because
the
value
of
the
product
is
merely
the
sum
of
the
values
of
the
commodities
that
were
thrown
into
the
process
of
production.
Let
him
therefore
console
himself
with
the
reflection
that
virtue
is
its
own
reward.
But
no,
he
becomes
importunate.
He
says:
\"The
yarn
is
of
no
use
to
me:
I
produced
it
for
sale.\"
In
that
case
let
him
sell
it,
or,
still
better,
let
him
for
the
future
produce
only
things
for
satisfying
his
personal
wants,a
remedy
that
his
physician
MacCulloch
has
already
prescribed
as
infallible
against
an
epidemic
of
over
production.
He
now
gets
obstinate.
\"Can
the
labourer,\"he
asks,
\"merely
with
his
arms
and
legs,
produce
commodities
out
of
nothing
Did
I
not
supply
him
with
the
materials,
by
means
of
which,
and
in
which
alone,
his
labour
could
be
embodied
And
as
the
greater
part
of
society
consists
of
such
ne'er-do-wells,have
I
not
rendered
society
incalculable
service
by
my
instruments
of
production,
my
cotton
and
my
spindle,and
not
only
society,
but
the
labourer
also,
whom
in
addition
I
have
provided
with
the
necessaries
of
life
And
am
I
to
be
allowed
nothing
in
return
for
all
this
service\"
Well,
but
has
not
the
labourer
rendered
him
the
equivalent
service
of
changing
his
cotton
and
spindle
into
yarn
Moreover,
there
is
here
no
question
of
service.15A
service
is
nothing
more
than
the
useful
effect
of
a
use-value,
be
it
of
a
commodity,or
be
it
of
labour.16But
here
we
are
dealing
with
exchange-value.
The
capitalist
paid
to
the
labourer
a
value
of
3
shillings,
and
the
labourer
gave
him
back
an
exact
equivalent
in
the
value
of
3
shillings,
added
by
him
to
the
cotton:
he
gave
him
value
for
value.Our
friend,
up
to
this
time
so
purse-proud,
suddenly
assumes
the
modest
demeanour
of
his
own
workman,and
exclaims:
\"Have
I
myself
not
worked
Have
I
not
performed
the
labour
of
superintendence
and
of
overlooking
the
spinner
And
does
not
this
labour,
too,
create
value\"
His
overlooker
and
his
manager
try
to
hide
their
smiles.
Meanwhile,
after
a
hearty
laugh,
he
re-assumes
his
usual
mien.
Though
he
chanted
to
us
the
whole
creed
of
the
economists,
in
reality,
he
says,he
would
not
give
a
brass
farthing
for
it.
He
leaves
this
and
all
such
like
subterfuges
and
juggling
tricks
to
the
professors
of
Political
Economy,
who
are
paid
for
it.He
himself
is
a
practical
man;
and
though
he
does
not
always
consider
what
he
says
outside
his
business,
yet
in
his
business
he
knows
what
he
is
about.
Let
us
examine
the
matter
more
closely.
The
value
of
a
day's
labour-power
amounts
to
3
shillings,
because
on
our
assumption
half
a
day's
labour
is
embodied
in
that
quantity
of
labour-power,
i.e.,
because
the
means
of
subsistence
that
are
daily
required
for
the
production
of
labour-power,
cost
half
a
day's
labour.But
the
past
labour
that
is
embodied
in
the
labour
power,
and
the
living
labour
that
it
can
call
into
action;
the
daily
cost
of
maintaining
it,
and
its
daily
expenditure
in
work,
are
two
totally
different
things.The
former
determines
the
exchange-value
of
the
labour-power,
the
latter
is
its
use-value.
The
fact
that
half
a
day's
labour
is
necessary
to
keep
the
labourer
alive
during
24
hours,
does
not
in
any
way
prevent
him
from
working
a
whole
day.
Therefore,
the
value
of
labour-power,
and
the
value
which
that
labour
power
creates
in
the
labour-process,
are
two
entirely
different
magnitudes;
and
this
difference
of
the
two
values
was
what
the
capitalist
had
in
view,
when
he
was
purchasing
the
labour-power.
The
useful
qualities
that
labour-power
possesses,
and
by
virtue
of
which
it
makes
yarn
or
boots,
were
to
him
nothing
more
than
a
conditio
sine
qua
non;
for
in
order
to
create
value,
labour
must
be
expended
in
a
useful
manner.What
really
influenced
him
was
the
specific
use-value
which
this
commodity
possesses
of
being
a
source
not
only
of
value,
but
of
more
value
than
it
has
itself.This
is
the
special
service
that
the
capitalist
expects
from
labour-power,
and
in
this
transaction
he
acts
in
accordance
with
the
\"eternal
laws\"
of
the
exchange
of
commodities.
The
seller
of
labour-power,
like
the
seller
of
any
other
commodity,
realises
its
exchange
value,
and
parts
with
its
use-value.
He
cannot
take
the
one
without
giving
the
other.
The
use-value
of
labour
power,
or
in
other
words,
labour,
belongs
just
as
little
to
its
seller,
as
the
use-value
of
oil
after
it
has
been
sold
belongs
to
the
dealer
who
has
sold
it.
The
owner
of
the
money
has
paid
the
value
of
a
day's
labour
power;
his,
therefore,
is
the
use
of
it
for
a
day;
a
day's
labour
belongs
to
him.
The
circumstance,
that
on
the
one
hand
the
daily
sustenance
of
labour-power
costs
only
half
a
day's
labour,
while
on
the
other
hand
the
very
same
labour-power
can
work
during
a
whole
day,that
consequently
the
value
which
its
use
during
one
day
creates,
is
double
what
he
pays
for
that
use,
this
circumstance
is,
without
doubt,
a
piece
of
good
luck
for
the
buyer,
but
by
no
means
an
injury
to
the
seller.
Our
capitalist
foresaw
this
state
of
things,
and
that
was
the
cause
of
his
laughter.
The
labourer
therefore
finds,
in
the
workshop,
the
means
of
production
necessary
for
working,
not
only
during
six,
but
during
twelve
hours.
Just
as
during
the
six
hours'
process
our
10
lbs.
of
cotton
absorbed
six
hours'
labour,
and
became
10
lbs.
of
yarn,
so
now,
20
lbs.
of
cotton
will
absorb
12
hours'
labour
and
be
changed
into
20
lbs.
of
yarn.
Let
us
now
examine
the
product
of
this
prolonged
process.
There
is
now
materialised
in
this
20
lbs.
of
yarn
the
labour
of
five
days,
of
which
four
days
are
due
to
the
cotton
and
the
lost
steel
of
the
spindle,
the
remaining
day
having
been
absorbed
by
the
cotton
during
the
spinning
process.
Expressed
in
gold,
the
labour
of
five
days
is
thirty
shillings.
This
is
therefore
the
price
of
the
20
lbs.
of
yarn,
giving,as
before,
eighteenpence
as
the
price
of
a
pound.
But
the
sum
of
the
values
of
the
commodities
that
entered
into
the
process
amounts
to
27
shillings.
The
value
of
the
yarn
is
30
shillings.
Therefore
the
value
of
the
product
is
1\/9
greater
than
the
value
advanced
for
its
production;
27
shillings
have
been
transformed
into
30
shillings;
a
surplus-value
of
3
shillings
has
been
created.
The
trick
has
at
last
succeeded;
money
has
been
converted
into
capital.
Every
condition
of
the
problem
is
satisfied,
while
the
laws
that
regulate
the
exchange
of
commodities,have
been
in
no
way
violated.
Equivalent
has
been
exchanged
for
equivalent.
For
the
capitalist
as
buyer
paid
for
each
commodity,
for
the
cotton,
the
spindle
and
the
labour-power,
its
full
value.
He
then
did
what
is
done
by
every
purchaser
of
commodities;
he
consumed
their
use-value.
The
consumption
of
the
labour-power,
which
was
also
the
process
of
producing
commodities,
resulted
in
20
lbs.
of
yarn,
having
a
value
of
30
shillings.
The
capitalist,
formerly
a
buyer,now
returns
to
market
as
a
seller,
of
commodities.
He
sells
his
yarn
at
eighteenpence
a
pound,
which
is
its
exact
value.
Yet
for
all
that
he
withdraws
3
shillings
more
from
circulation
than
he
originally
threw
into
it.
This
metamorphosis,
this
conversion
of
money
into
capital,
takes
place
both
within
the
sphere
of
circulation
and
also
outside
it;
within
the
circulation,because
conditioned
by
the
purchase
of
the
labour
power
in
the
market;
outside
the
circulation,
because
what
is
done
within
it
is
only
a
stepping-stone
to
the
production
of
surplus-value,
a
process
which
is
entirely
confined
to
the
sphere
of
production.
Thus\"tout
est
pour
le
mieux
dans
le
meilleur
des
mondes
possibles.\"
[\"Everything
is
for
the
best
in
the
best
of
all
possible
worlds.\"
–
Voltaire,
Candide]
By
turning
his
money
into
commodities
that
serve
as
the
material
elements
of
a
new
product,
and
as
factors
in
the
labour-process,
by
incorporating
living
labour
with
their
dead
substance,
the
capitalist
at
the
same
time
converts
value,
i.e.,
past,
materialised,
and
dead
labour
into
capital,
into
value
big
with
value,
a
live
monster
that
is
fruitful
and
multiplies.
If
we
now
compare
the
two
processes
of
producing
value
and
of
creating
surplus-value,
we
see
that
the
latter
is
nothing
but
the
continuation
of
the
former
beyond
a
definite
point.
If
on
the
one
hand
the
process
be
not
carried
beyond
the
point,
where
the
value
paid
by
the
capitalist
for
the
labour-power
is
replaced
by
an
exact
equivalent,
it
is
simply
a
process
of
producing
value;
if,
on
the
other
hand,
it
be
continued
beyond
that
point,
it
becomes
a
process
of
creating
surplus
value.
If
we
proceed
further,
and
compare
the
process
of
producing
value
with
the
labour-process,
pure
and
simple,
we
find
that
the
latter
consists
of
the
useful
labour,
the
work,
that
produces
use-values.
Here
we
contemplate
the
labour
as
producing
a
particular
article;
we
view
it
under
its
qualitative
aspect
alone,with
regard
to
its
end
and
aim.
But
viewed
as
a
value
creating
process,
the
same
labour-process
presents
itself
under
its
quantitative
aspect
alone.
Here
it
is
a
question
merely
of
the
time
occupied
by
the
labourer
in
doing
the
work;
of
the
period
during
which
the
labour-power
is
usefully
expended.
Here,
the
commodities
that
take
part
in
the
process,
do
not
count
any
longer
as
necessary
adjuncts
of
labour-power
in
the
production
of
a
definite,
useful
object.
They
count
merely
as
depositories
of
so
much
absorbed
or
materialised
labour;
that
labour,
whether
previously
embodied
in
the
means
of
production,
or
incorporated
in
them
for
the
first
time
during
the
process
by
the
action
of
labour-power,
counts
in
either
case
only
according
to
its
duration;
it
amounts
to
so
many
hours
or
days
as
the
case
may
be.
Moreover,
only
so
much
of
the
time
spent
in
the
production
of
any
article
is
counted,
as,
under
the
given
social
conditions,
is
necessary.
The
consequences
of
this
are
various.
In
the
first
place,
it
becomes
necessary
that
the
labour
should
be
carried
on
under
normal
conditions.
If
a
self-acting
mule
is
the
implement
in
general
use
for
spinning,
it
would
be
absurd
to
supply
the
spinner
with
a
distaff
and
spinning
wheel.
The
cotton
too
must
not
be
such
rubbish
as
to
cause
extra
waste
in
being
worked,
but
must
be
of
suitable
quality.
Otherwise
the
spinner
would
be
found
to
spend
more
time
in
producing
a
pound
of
yarn
than
is
socially
necessary,
in
which
case
the
excess
of
time
would
create
neither
value
nor
money.
But
whether
the
material
factors
of
the
process
are
of
normal
quality
or
not,
depends
not
upon
the
labourer,
but
entirely
upon
the
capitalist.
Then
again,the
labour-power
itself
must
be
of
average
efficacy.In
the
trade
in
which
it
is
being
employed,
it
must
possess
the
average
skill,
handiness
and
quickness
prevalent
in
that
trade,
and
our
capitalist
took
good
care
to
buy
labour-power
of
such
normal
goodness.This
power
must
be
applied
with
the
average
amount
of
exertion
and
with
the
usual
degree
of
intensity;
and
the
capitalist
is
as
careful
to
see
that
this
is
done,
as
that
his
workmen
are
not
idle
for
a
single
moment.
He
has
bought
the
use
of
the
labour-power
for
a
definite
period,
and
he
insists
upon
his
rights.
He
has
no
intention
of
being
robbed.
Lastly,
and
for
this
purpose
our
friend
has
a
penal
code
of
his
own,
all
wasteful
consumption
of
raw
material
or
instruments
of
labour
is
strictly
forbidden,
because
what
is
so
wasted,represents
labour
superfluously
expended,
labour
that
does
not
count
in
the
product
or
enter
into
its
value.17
We
now
see,
that
the
difference
between
labour,considered
on
the
one
hand
as
producing
utilities,and
on
the
other
hand,
as
creating
value,
a
difference
which
we
discovered
by
our
analysis
of
a
commodity,resolves
itself
into
a
distinction
between
two
aspects
of
the
process
of
production.
The
process
of
production,
considered
on
the
one
hand
as
the
unity
of
the
labour-process
and
the
process
of
creating
value,
is
production
of
commodities;
considered
on
the
other
hand
as
the
unity
of
the
labour-process
and
the
process
of
producing
surplus
value,
it
is
the
capitalist
process
of
production,
or
capitalist
production
of
commodities.
We
stated,
on
a
previous
page,
that
in
the
creation
of
surplus-value
it
does
not
in
the
least
matter,whether
the
labour
appropriated
by
the
capitalist
be
simple
unskilled
labour
of
average
quality
or
more
complicated
skilled
labour.
All
labour
of
a
higher
or
more
complicated
character
than
average
labour
is
expenditure
of
labour-power
of
a
more
costly
kind,
labour-power
whose
production
has
cost
more
time
and
labour,
and
which
therefore
has
a
higher
value,
than
unskilled
or
simple
labour-power.
This
power
being
higher-value,
its
consumption
is
labour
of
a
higher
class,
labour
that
creates
in
equal
times
proportionally
higher
values
than
unskilled
labour
does.
Whatever
difference
in
skill
there
may
be
between
the
labour
of
a
spinner
and
that
of
a
jeweller,the
portion
of
his
labour
by
which
the
jeweller
merely
replaces
the
value
of
his
own
labour-power,
does
not
in
any
way
differ
in
quality
from
the
additional
portion
by
which
he
creates
surplus-value.
In
the
making
of
jewellery,
just
as
in
spinning,
the
surplus-value
results
only
from
a
quantitative
excess
of
labour,
from
a
lengthening-out
of
one
and
the
same
labour-process,in
the
one
case,
of
the
process
of
making
jewels,
in
the
other
of
the
process
of
making
yarn.18
But
on
the
other
hand,
in
every
process
of
creating
value,
the
reduction
of
skilled
labour
to
average
social
labour,
e.g.,
one
day
of
skilled
to
six
days
of
unskilled
labour,
is
unavoidable.19We
therefore
save
ourselves
a
superfluous
operation,
and
simplify
our
analysis,by
the
assumption,
that
the
labour
of
the
workman
employed
by
the
capitalist
is
unskilled
average
labour.
NOTES:
1\"The
earth's
spontaneous
productions
being
in
small
quantity,
and
quite
independent
of
man,
appear,
as
it
were,to
be
furnished
by
Nature,
in
the
same
way
as
a
small
sum
is
given
to
a
young
man,
in
order
to
put
him
in
a
way
of
industry,and
of
making
his
fortune.\"
(James
Steuart:
\"Principles
of
Polit.
Econ.\"
edit.
Dublin,
1770,
v.
I,
p.116.)
2\"Reason
is
just
as
cunning
as
she
is
powerful.
Her
cunning
consists
principally
in
her
mediating
activity,
which,
by
causing
objects
to
act
and
re-act
on
each
other
in
accordance
with
their
own
nature,
in
this
way,
without
any
direct
interference
in
the
process,
carries
out
reason's
intentions.\"
(Hegel:\"Enzyklopdie,
Erster
Theil,
Die
Logik,\"
Berlin,
1840,
p.
382.)
3In
his
otherwise
miserable
work
(\"Théorie
de
l'Econ.Polit.\"
Paris,
1815),
Ganilh
enumerates
in
a
striking
manner
in
opposition
to
the
\"Physiocrats\"
the
long
series
of
previous
processes
necessary
before
agriculture
properly
so
called
can
commence.
4Turgot
in
his
\"Réflexions
sur
la
Formation
et
la
Distribution
des
Richesses\"
(1766)
brings
well
into
prominence
the
importance
of
domesticated
animals
to
early
civilisation.
5The
least
important
commodities
of
all
for
the
technological
comparison
of
different
epochs
of
production
are
articles
of
luxury,
in
the
strict
meaning
of
the
term.However
little
our
written
histories
up
to
this
time
notice
the
development
of
material
production,
which
is
the
basis
of
all
social
life,
and
therefore
of
all
real
history,
yet
prehistoric
times
have
been
classified
in
accordance
with
the
results,
not
of
so-called
historical,
but
of
materialistic
investigations.
These
periods
have
been
divided,
to
correspond
with
the
materials
from
which
their
implements
and
weapons
were
made,
viz.,into
the
stone,
the
bronze,
and
the
iron
ages.
6It
appears
paradoxical
to
assert,
that
uncaught
fish,
for
instance,
are
a
means
of
production
in
the
fishing
industry.
But
hitherto
no
one
has
discovered
the
art
of
catching
fish
in
waters
that
contain
none.
7This
method
of
determining,
from
the
standpoint
of
the
labour-process
alone,
what
is
productive
labour,
is
by
no
means
directly
applicable
to
the
case
of
the
capitalist
process
of
production.
8Storch
calls
true
raw
materials
\"matières,\"
and
accessory
material
\"matériaux.\"
Cherbuliez
describes
accessories
as\"matières
instrumentales.\"
9By
a
wonderful
feat
of
logical
acumen,
Colonel
Torrens
has
discovered,
in
this
stone
of
the
savage
the
origin
of
capital.\"In
the
first
stone
which
he
[the
savage]
flings
at
the
wild
animal
he
pursues,
in
the
first
stick
that
he
seizes
to
strike
down
the
fruit
which
hangs
above
his
reach,
we
see
the
appropriation
of
one
article
for
the
purpose
of
aiding
in
the
acquisition
of
another,
and
thus
discover
the
origin
of
capital.\"
(R.
Torrens:\"An
Essay
on
the
Production
of
Wealth,\"
&c.,
pp.
70-71.)
10\"Products
are
appropriated
before
they
are
converted
into
capital;
this
conversion
does
not
secure
them
from
such
appropriation.\"
(Cheibuliez:
\"Richesse
ou
Pauvreté,\"
edit.Paris,
1841,
p.
54.)
\"The
Proletarian,
by
selling
his
labour
for
a
definite
quantity
of
the
necessaries
of
life,
renounces
all
claim
to
a
share
in
the
product.
The
mode
of
appropriation
of
the
products
remains
the
same
as
before;
it
is
in
no
way
altered
by
the
bargain
we
have
mentioned.
The
product
belongs
exclusively
to
the
capitalist,
who
supplied
the
raw
material
and
the
necessaries
of
life;
and
this
is
a
rigorous
consequence
of
the
law
of
appropriation,
a
law
whose
fundamental
principle
was
the
very
opposite,
namely,
that
every
labourer
has
an
exclusive
right
to
the
ownership
of
what
he
produces.\"
(l.c.,
p.58.)
\"When
the
labourers
receive
wages
for
their
labour
...
the
capitalist
is
then
the
owner
not
of
the
capital
only\"
(he
means
the
means
of
production)
\"but
of
the
labour
also.
If
what
is
paid
as
wages
is
included,
as
it
commonly
is,
in
the
term
capital,
it
is
absurd
to
talk
of
labour
separately
from
capital.
The
word
capital
as
thus
employed
includes
labour
and
capital
both.\"(James
Mill:
\"Elements
of
Pol.
Econ.,\"
&c.,
Ed.
1821,
pp.
70,71.)
11As
has
been
stated
in
a
previous
note,
the
English
language
has
two
different
expressions
for
these
two
different
aspects
of
labour:
in
the
Simple
Labour-process,
the
process
of
producing
Use-Values,
it
is
Work;
in
the
process
of
creation
of
Value,
it
is
Labour,
taking
the
term
in
its
strictly
economic
sense.
—
F.
E.
12These
figures
are
quite
arbitrary.
13This
is
the
fundamental
proposition
on
which
is
based
the
doctrine
of
the
Physiocrats
as
to
the
unproductiveness
of
all
labour
that
is
not
agriculture:
it
is
irrefutable
for
the
orthodox
economist.
\"Cette
faon
d'imputer
à
une
seule
chose
la
valeur
de
plusieurs
autres\"
(par
exemple
au
lin
la
consommation
du
tisserand),
\"d'appliquer,
pour
ainsi
dire,
couche
sur
couche,plusieurs
valeurs
sur
une
seule,
fait
que
celle-ci
grossit
d'autant....
Le
terme
d'addition
peint
trés
bien
la
maniere
dont
se
forme
le
prix
des
ouvrages
de
main
d'oeuvre;
ce
prix
n'est
qu'un
total
de
plusieurs
valeurs
consommées
et
additionnées
ensemble;
or,
additionner
n'est
pas
multiplier.\"
[\"This
method
of
adding
to
one
particular
object
the
value
of
a
number
of
others,\"
(for
example,
adding
the
living
costs
of
the
weaver
to
the
flax),
\"of
as
it
were
heaping
up
various
values
in
layers
on
top
of
one
single
value,
has
the
result
that
this
value
grows
to
the
same
extent
...
The
expression
'addition'
gives
a
very
clear
picture
of
the
way
in
which
the
price
of
a
manufactured
product
is
formed;
this
price
is
only
the
sum
of
a
number
of
values
which
have
been
consumed,
and
it
is
arrived
at
by
adding
them
together;
however,
addition
is
not
the
same
as
multiplication.\"](\"Mercier
de
la
Rivière,\"
l.c.,
p.
599.)
14Thus
from
1844-47
he
withdrew
part
of
his
capital
from
productive
employment,
in
order
to
throw
it
away
in
railway
speculations;
and
so
also,
during
the
American
Civil
War,
he
closed
his
factory,
and
turned
his
work-people
into
the
streets,in
order
to
gamble
on
the
Liverpool
cotton
exchange.
15\"Extol
thyself,
put
on
finery
and
adorn
thyself
...
but
whoever
takes
more
or
better
than
he
gives,
that
is
usury,and
is
not
service,
but
wrong
done
to
his
neighbour,
as
when
one
steals
and
robs.
All
is
not
service
and
benefit
to
a
neighbour
that
is
called
service
and
benefit.
For
an
adulteress
and
adulterer
do
one
another
great
service
and
pleasure.
A
horseman
does
an
incendiary
a
great
service,
by
helping
him
to
rob
on
the
highway,
and
pillage
land
and
houses.
The
papists
do
ours
a
great
service,
in
that
they
don't
drown,
burn,
murder
all
of
them,
or
let
them
all
rot
in
prison;
but
let
some
live,
and
only
drive
them
out,
or
take
from
them
what
they
have.
The
devil
himself
does
his
servants
inestimable
service....
To
sum
up,
the
world
is
full
of
great,
excellent,
and
daily
service
and
benefit.\"
(Martin
Luther:
\"An
die
Pfarrherrn
wider
den
Wucher
zu
predigen,\"
Wittenberg,
1540.)
16In
\"Zur
Kritik
der
Pol.
Oek.,\"
p.
14,
I
make
the
following
remark
on
this
point
—
\"It
is
not
difficult
to
understand
what
'service'
the
category
'service'
must
render
to
a
class
of
economists
like
J.
B.
Say
and
F.
Bastiat.\"
17This
is
one
of
the
circumstances
that
makes
production
by
slave
labour
such
a
costly
process.
The
labourer
here
is,
to
use
a
striking
expression
of
the
ancients,
distinguishable
only
as
instrumentum
vocale,
from
an
animal
as
instrumentum
semi
vocale,
and
from
an
implement
as
instrumentum
mutum.
But
he
himself
takes
care
to
let
both
beast
and
implement
feel
that
he
is
none
of
them,
but
is
a
man.
He
convinces
himself
with
immense
satisfaction,
that
he
is
a
different
being,
by
treating
the
one
unmercifully
and
damaging
the
other
con
amore.
Hence
the
principle,
universally
applied
in
this
method
of
production,only
to
employ
the
rudest
and
heaviest
implements
and
such
as
are
difficult
to
damage
owing
to
their
sheer
clumsiness.In
the
slave-states
bordering
on
the
Gulf
of
Mexico,
down
to
the
date
of
the
civil
war,
ploughs
constructed
on
old
Chinese
models,
which
turned
up
the
soil
like
a
hog
or
a
mole,
instead
of
making
furrows,
were
alone
to
be
found.
Conf.
J.
E.
Cairnes.\"The
Slave
Power,\"
London,
1862,
p.
46
sqq.
In
his
\"Sea
Board
Slave
States,\"
Olmsted
tells
us:
\"I
am
here
shown
tools
that
no
man
in
his
senses,
with
us,
would
allow
a
labourcr,for
whom
he
was
paying
wages,
to
be
encumbered
with;and
the
excessive
weight
and
clumsiness
of
which,
I
would
judge,
would
make
work
at
least
ten
per
cent
greater
than
with
those
ordinarily
used
with
us.
And
I
am
assured
that,
in
the
careless
and
clumsy
way
they
must
be
used
by
the
slaves,anything
lighter
or
less
rude
could
not
be
furnished
them
with
good
economy,
and
that
such
tools
as
we
constantly
give
our
labourers
and
find
our
profit
in
giving
them,
would
not
last
out
a
day
in
a
Virginia
cornfield
–
much
lighter
and
more
free
from
stones
though
it
be
than
ours.
So,
too,
when
I
ask
why
mules
are
so
universally
substituted
for
horses
on
the
farm,
the
first
reason
given,
and
confessedly
the
most
conclusive
one,
is
that
horses
cannot
bear
the
treatment
that
they
always
must
get
from
negroes;
horses
are
always
soon
foundered
or
crippled
by
them,
while
mules
will
bear
cudgelling,
or
lose
a
meal
or
two
now
and
then,
and
not
be
materially
injured,
and
they
do
not
take
cold
or
get
sick,
if
neglected
or
overworked.
But
I
do
not
need
to
go
further
than
to
the
window
of
the
room
in
which
I
am
writing,
to
see
at
almost
any
time,
treatment
of
cattle
that
would
ensure
the
immediate
discharge
of
the
driver
by
almost
any
farmer
owning
them
in
the
North.\"
18The
distinction
between
skilled
and
unskilled
labour
rests
in
part
on
pure
illusion,
or,
to
say
the
least,
on
distinctions
that
have
long
since
ceased
to
be
real,
and
that
survive
only
by
virtue
of
a
traditional
convention;
in
part
on
the
helpless
condition
of
some
groups
of
the
working-class,
a
condition
that
prevents
them
from
exacting
equally
with
the
rest
the
value
of
their
labour-power.
Accidental
circumstances
here
play
so
great
a
part,
that
these
two
forms
of
labour
sometimes
change
places.
Where,
for
instance,
the
physique
of
the
working-class
has
deteriorated,
and
is,
relatively
speaking,
exhausted,
which
is
the
case
in
all
countries
with
a
well
developed
capitalist
production,
the
lower
forms
of
labour,
which
demand
great
expenditure
of
muscle,
are
in
general
considered
as
skilled,compared
with
much
more
delicate
forms
of
labour;
the
latter
sink
down
to
the
level
of
unskilled
labour.
Take
as
an
example
the
labour
of
a
bricklayer,
which
in
England
occupies
a
much
higher
level
than
that
of
a
damask-weaver.
Again,
although
the
labour
of
a
fustian
cutter
demands
great
bodily
exertion,
and
is
at
the
same
time
unhealthy,
yet
it
counts
only
as
unskilled
labour.
And
then,
we
must
not
forget,
that
the
so-called
skilled
labour
does
not
occupy
a
large
space
in
the
field
of
national
labour.
Laing
estimates
that
in
England
(and
Wales)
the
livelihood
of
11,300,000
people
depends
on
unskilled
labour.
If
from
the
total
population
of
18,000,000
living
at
the
time
when
he
wrote,
we
deduct
1,000,000
for
the
\"genteel
population,\"and
1,500,000
for
paupers,
vagrants,
criminals,
prostitutes,
&c.,and
4,650,000
who
compose
the
middle-class,
there
remain
the
above
mentioned
11,000,000.
But
in
his
middle-class
he
includes
people
that
live
on
the
interest
of
small
investments,officials,
men
of
letters,
artists,
schoolmasters
and
the
like,and
in
order
to
swell
the
number
he
also
includes
in
these
4,650,000
the
better
paid
portion
of
the
factory
operatives!
The
bricklayers,
too,
figure
amongst
them.
(S.
Laing:
\"National
Distress,\"
&c.,
London,
1844).
\"The
great
class
who
have
nothing
to
give
for
food
but
ordinary
labour,
are
the
great
bulk
of
the
people.\"
(James
Mill,
in
art.:
\"Colony,\"
Supplement
to
the
Encyclop.
Brit.,
1831.)
19\"Where
reference
is
made
to
labour
as
a
measure
of
value,
it
necessarily
implies
labour
of
one
particular
kind
...the
proportion
which
the
other
kinds
bear
to
it
being
easily
ascertained.\"
(\"Outlines
of
Pol.
Econ.,\"
Lond.,
1832,
pp.
22
and
23.)
精選分類
