- 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
The
various
factors
of
the
labour-process
play
different
parts
in
forming
the
value
of
the
product.
The
labourer
adds
fresh
value
to
the
subject
of
his
labour
by
expending
upon
it
a
given
amount
of
additional
labour,
no
matter
what
the
specific
character
and
utility
of
that
labour
may
be.
On
the
other
hand,the
values
of
the
means
of
production
used
up
in
the
process
are
preserved,
and
present
themselves
afresh
as
constituent
parts
of
the
value
of
the
product;
the
values
of
the
cotton
and
the
spindle,
for
instance,
re
appear
again
in
the
value
of
the
yarn.
The
value
of
the
means
of
production
is
therefore
preserved,
by
being
transferred
to
the
product.
This
transfer
takes
place
during
the
conversion
of
those
means
into
a
product,or
in
other
words,
during
the
labour-process.
It
is
brought
about
by
labour;
but
how
The
labourer
does
not
perform
two
operations
at
once,
one
in
order
to
add
value
to
the
cotton,
the
other
in
order
to
preserve
the
value
of
the
means
of
production,
or,
what
amounts
to
the
same
thing,
to
transfer
to
the
yarn,
to
the
product,
the
value
of
the
cotton
on
which
he
works,
and
part
of
the
value
of
the
spindle
with
which
he
works.
But,
by
the
very
act
of
adding
new
value,
he
preserves
their
former
values.Since,
however,
the
addition
of
new
value
to
the
subject
of
his
labour,
and
the
preservation
of
its
former
value,
are
two
entirely
distinct
results,
produced
simultaneously
by
the
labourer,
during
one
operation,it
is
plain
that
this
two-fold
nature
of
the
result
can
be
explained
only
by
the
two-fold
nature
of
his
labour;
at
one
and
the
same
time,
it
must
in
one
character
create
value,
and
in
another
character
preserve
or
transfer
value.
Now,
in
what
manner
does
every
labourer
add
new
labour
and
consequently
new
value
Evidently,only
by
labouring
productively
in
a
particular
way;the
spinner
by
spinning,
the
weaver
by
weaving,
the
smith
by
forging.
But,
while
thus
incorporating
labour
generally,
that
is
value,
it
is
by
the
particular
form
alone
of
the
labour,
by
the
spinning,
the
weaving
and
the
forging
respectively,
that
the
means
of
production,
the
cotton
and
spindle,
the
yarn
and
loom,and
the
iron
and
anvil
become
constituent
elements
of
the
product,
of
a
new
use-value.1Each
use-value
disappears,
but
only
to
re-appear
under
a
new
form
in
a
new
use-value.
Now,
we
saw,
when
we
were
considering
the
process
of
creating
value,
that,
if
a
use-value
be
effectively
consumed
in
the
production
of
a
new
use-value,
the
quantity
of
labour
expended
in
the
production
of
the
consumed
article,
forms
a
portion
of
the
quantity
of
labour
necessary
to
produce
the
new
use-value;
this
portion
is
therefore
labour
transferred
from
the
means
of
production
to
the
new
product.
Hence,
the
labourer
preserves
the
values
of
the
consumed
means
of
production,
or
transfers
them
as
portions
of
its
value
to
the
product,
not
by
virtue
of
his
additional
labour,
abstractedly
considered,
but
by
virtue
of
the
particular
useful
character
of
that
labour,by
virtue
of
its
special
productive
form.
In
so
far
then
as
labour
is
such
specific
productive
activity,
in
so
far
as
it
is
spinning,
weaving,
or
forging,
it
raises,
by
mere
contact,
the
means
of
production
from
the
dead,makes
them
living
factors
of
the
labour-process,
and
combines
with
them
to
form
the
new
products.
If
the
special
productive
labour
of
the
workman
were
not
spinning,
he
could
not
convert
the
cotton
into
yarn,
and
therefore
could
not
transfer
the
values
of
the
cotton
and
spindle
to
the
yarn.
Suppose
the
same
workman
were
to
change
his
occupation
to
that
of
a
joiner,
he
would
still
by
a
day's
labour
add
value
to
the
material
he
works
upon.
Consequently,
we
see,first,
that
the
addition
of
new
value
takes
place
not
by
virtue
of
his
labour
being
spinning
in
particular,
or
joinering
in
particular,
but
because
it
is
labour
in
the
abstract,
a
portion
of
the
total
labour
of
society;
and
we
see
next,
that
the
value
added
is
of
a
given
definite
amount,
not
because
his
labour
has
a
special
utility,but
because
it
is
exerted
for
a
definite
time.
On
the
one
hand,
then,
it
is
by
virtue
of
its
general
character,as
being
expenditure
of
human
labour-power
in
the
abstract,
that
spinning
adds
new
value
to
the
values
of
the
cotton
and
the
spindle;
and
on
the
other
hand,
it
is
by
virtue
of
its
special
character,
as
being
a
concrete,useful
process,
that
the
same
labour
of
spinning
both
transfers
the
values
of
the
means
of
production
to
the
product,
and
preserves
them
in
the
product.
Hence
at
one
and
the
same
time
there
is
produced
a
two-fold
result.
By
the
simple
addition
of
a
certain
quantity
of
labour,
new
value
is
added,
and
by
the
quality
of
this
added
labour,
the
original
values
of
the
means
of
production
are
preserved
in
the
product.
This
two-fold
effect,
resulting
from
the
two-fold
character
of
labour,may
be
traced
in
various
phenomena.
Let
us
assume,
that
some
invention
enables
the
spinner
to
spin
as
much
cotton
in
6
hours
as
he
was
able
to
spin
before
in
36
hours.
His
labour
is
now
six
times
as
effective
as
it
was,
for
the
purposes
of
useful
production.
The
product
of
6
hours'
work
has
increased
six-fold,
from
6
lbs.
to
36
lbs.
But
now
the
36
lbs.
of
cotton
absorb
only
the
same
amount
of
labour
as
formerly
did
the
6
lbs.
One-sixth
as
much
new
labour
is
absorbed
by
each
pound
of
cotton,
and
consequently,
the
value
added
by
the
labour
to
each
pound
is
only
one-sixth
of
what
it
formerly
was.
On
the
other
hand,
in
the
product,
in
the
36
lbs.
of
yarn,the
value
transferred
from
the
cotton
is
six
times
as
great
as
before.
By
the
6
hours'
spinning,
the
value
of
the
raw
material
preserved
and
transferred
to
the
product
is
six
times
as
great
as
before,
although
the
new
value
added
by
the
labour
of
the
spinner
to
each
pound
of
the
very
same
raw
material
is
one-sixth
what
it
was
formerly.
This
shows
that
the
two
properties
of
labour,
by
virtue
of
which
it
is
enabled
in
one
case
to
preserve
value,
and
in
the
other
to
create
value,are
essentially
different.
On
the
one
hand,
the
longer
the
time
necessary
to
spin
a
given
weight
of
cotton
into
yarn,
the
greater
is
the
new
value
added
to
the
material;
on
the
other
hand,
the
greater
the
weight
of
the
cotton
spun
in
a
given
time,
the
greater
is
the
value
preserved,
by
being
transferred
from
it
to
the
product.
Let
us
now
assume,
that
the
productiveness
of
the
spinner's
labour,
instead
of
varying,
remains
constant,
that
he
therefore
requires
the
same
time
as
he
formerly
did,
to
convert
one
pound
of
cotton
into
yarn,
but
that
the
exchange-value
of
the
cotton
varies,either
by
rising
to
six
times
its
former
value
or
falling
to
one-sixth
of
that
value.
In
both
these
cases,
the
spinner
puts
the
same
quantity
of
labour
into
a
pound
of
cotton,
and
therefore
adds
as
much
value,
as
he
did
before
the
change
in
the
value:
he
also
produces
a
given
weight
of
yarn
in
the
same
time
as
he
did
before.
Nevertheless,
the
value
that
he
transfers
from
the
cotton
to
the
yarn
is
either
one-sixth
of
what
it
was
before
the
variation,
or,
as
the
case
may
be,
six
times
as
much
as
before.
The
same
result
occurs
when
the
value
of
the
instruments
of
labour
rises
or
falls,
while
their
useful
efficacy
in
the
process
remains
unaltered.
Again,
if
the
technical
conditions
of
the
spinning
process
remain
unchanged,
and
no
change
of
value
takes
place
in
the
means
of
production,
the
spinner
continues
to
consume
in
equal
working-times
equal
quantities
of
raw
material,
and
equal
quantities
of
machinery
of
unvarying
value.
The
value
that
he
preserves
in
the
product
is
directly
proportional
to
the
new
value
that
he
adds
to
the
product.
In
two
weeks
he
incorporates
twice
as
much
labour,
and
therefore
twice
as
much
value,
as
in
one
week,
and
during
the
same
time
he
consumes
twice
as
much
material,
and
wears
out
twice
as
much
machinery,
of
double
the
value
in
each
case:
he
therefore
preserves,
in
the
product
of
two
weeks,
twice
as
much
value
as
in
the
product
of
one
week.
So
long
as
the
conditions
of
production
remain
the
same,
the
more
value
the
labourer
adds
by
fresh
labour,
the
more
value
he
transfers
and
preserves;
but
he
does
so
merely
because
this
addition
of
new
value
takes
place
under
conditions
that
have
not
varied
and
are
independent
of
his
own
labour.
Of
course,
it
may
be
said
in
one
sense,
that
the
labourer
preserves
old
value
always
in
proportion
to
the
quantity
of
new
value
that
he
adds.
Whether
the
value
of
cotton
rise
from
one
shilling
to
two
shillings,
or
fall
to
sixpence,the
workman
invariably
preserves
in
the
product
of
one
hour
only
one
half
as
much
value
as
he
preserves
in
two
hours.
In
like
manner,
if
the
productiveness
of
his
own
labour
varies
by
rising
or
falling,
he
will
in
one
hour
spin
either
more
or
less
cotton,
as
the
case
may
be,
than
he
did
before,
and
will
consequently
preserve
in
the
product
of
one
hour,
more
or
less
value
of
cotton;
but,
all
the
same,
he
will
preserve
by
two
hours'
labour
twice
as
much
value
as
he
will
by
one.
Value
exists
only
in
articles
of
utility,
in
objects:we
leave
out
of
consideration
its
purely
symbolical
representation
by
tokens.
(Man
himself,
viewed
as
the
impersonation
of
labour-power,
is
a
natural
object,
a
thing,
although
a
living
conscious
thing,
and
labour
is
the
manifestation
of
this
power
residing
in
him.)
If
therefore
an
article
loses
its
utility,
it
also
loses
its
value.
The
reason
why
means
of
production
do
not
lose
their
value,
at
the
same
time
that
they
lose
their
use-value,
is
this:
they
lose
in
the
labour-process
the
original
form
of
their
use-value,
only
to
assume
in
the
product
the
form
of
a
new
use-value.
But,
however
important
it
may
be
to
value,
that
it
should
have
some
object
of
utility
to
embody
itself
in,
yet
it
is
a
matter
of
complete
indifference
what
particular
object
serves
this
purpose;
this
we
saw
when
treating
of
the
metamorphosis
of
commodities.
Hence
it
follows
that
in
the
labour-process
the
means
of
production
transfer
their
value
to
the
product
only
so
far
as
along
with
their
use-value
they
lose
also
their
exchange-value.They
give
up
to
the
product
that
value
alone
which
they
themselves
lose
as
means
of
production.
But
in
this
respect
the
material
factors
of
the
labour-process
do
not
all
behave
alike.
The
coal
burnt
under
the
boiler
vanishes
without
leaving
a
trace;
so,
too,
the
tallow
with
which
the
axles
of
wheels
are
greased.
Dye
stuffs
and
other
auxiliary
substances
also
vanish
but
re-appear
as
properties
of
the
product.
Raw
material
forms
the
substance
of
the
product,
but
only
after
it
has
changed
its
form.Hence
raw
material
and
auxiliary
substances
lose
the
characteristic
form
with
which
they
are
clothed
on
entering
the
labour-process.
It
is
otherwise
with
the
instruments
of
labour.
Tools,
machines,
workshops,and
vessels,
are
of
use
in
the
labour-process,
only
so
long
as
they
retain
their
original
shape,
and
are
ready
each
morning
to
renew
the
process
with
their
shape
unchanged.
And
just
as
during
their
lifetime,that
is
to
say,
during
the
continued
labour-process
in
which
they
serve,
they
retain
their
shape
independent
of
the
product,
so,
too,
they
do
after
their
death.The
corpses
of
machines,
tools,
workshops,
&c.,
are
always
separate
and
distinct
from
the
product
they
helped
to
turn
out.
If
we
now
consider
the
case
of
any
instrument
of
labour
during
the
whole
period
of
its
service,
from
the
day
of
its
entry
into
the
workshop,till
the
day
of
its
banishment
into
the
lumber
room,we
find
that
during
this
period
its
use-value
has
been
completely
consumed,
and
therefore
its
exchange
value
completely
transferred
to
the
product.
For
instance,
if
a
spinning
machine
lasts
for
10
years,
it
is
plain
that
during
that
working
period
its
total
value
is
gradually
transferred
to
the
product
of
the
10
years.The
lifetime
of
an
instrument
of
labour,
therefore,
is
spent
in
the
repetition
of
a
greater
or
less
number
of
similar
operations.
Its
life
may
be
compared
with
that
of
a
human
being.
Every
day
brings
a
man
24
hours
nearer
to
his
grave:
but
how
many
days
he
has
still
to
travel
on
that
road,
no
man
can
tell
accurately
by
merely
looking
at
him.
This
difficulty,
however,
does
not
prevent
life
insurance
offices
from
drawing,
by
means
of
the
theory
of
averages,
very
accurate,
and
at
the
same
time
very
profitable
conclusions.
So
it
is
with
the
instruments
of
labour.
It
is
known
by
experience
how
long
on
the
average
a
machine
of
a
particular
kind
will
last.
Suppose
its
use-value
in
the
labour
process
to
last
only
six
days.
Then,
on
the
average,
it
loses
each
day
one-sixth
of
its
use-value,
and
therefore
parts
with
one-sixth
of
its
value
to
the
daily
product.The
wear
and
tear
of
all
instruments,
their
daily
loss
of
use-value,
and
the
corresponding
quantity
of
value
they
part
with
to
the
product,
are
accordingly
calculated
upon
this
basis.
It
is
thus
strikingly
clear,
that
means
of
production
never
transfer
more
value
to
the
product
than
they
themselves
lose
during
the
labour-process
by
the
destruction
of
their
own
use-value.
If
such
an
instrument
has
no
value
to
lose,
if,
in
other
words,
it
is
not
the
product
of
human
labour,
it
transfers
no
value
to
the
product.
It
helps
to
create
use-value
without
contributing
to
the
formation
of
exchange-value.In
this
class
are
included
all
means
of
production
supplied
by
Nature
without
human
assistance,
such
as
land,
wind,
water,
metals
in
situ,
and
timber
in
virgin
forests.
Yet
another
interesting
phenomenon
here
presents
itself.
Suppose
a
machine
to
be
worth
￡1,000,
and
to
wear
out
in
1,000
days.
Then
one
thousandth
part
of
the
value
of
the
machine
is
daily
transferred
to
the
day's
product.
At
the
same
time,
though
with
diminishing
vitality,
the
machine
as
a
whole
continues
to
take
part
in
the
labour-process.
Thus
it
appears,
that
one
factor
of
the
labour-process,
a
means
of
production,continually
enters
as
a
whole
into
that
process,
while
it
enters
into
the
process
of
the
formation
of
value
by
fractions
only.
The
difference
between
the
two
processes
is
here
reflected
in
their
material
factors,by
the
same
instrument
of
production
taking
part
as
a
whole
in
the
labour-process,
while
at
the
same
time
as
an
element
in
the
formation
of
value,
it
enters
only
by
fractions.2
On
the
other
hand,
a
means
of
production
may
take
part
as
a
whole
in
the
formation
of
value,
while
into
the
labour-process
it
enters
only
bit
by
bit.
Suppose
that
in
spinning
cotton,
the
waste
for
every
115
lbs.used
amounts
to
15
lbs.,
which
is
converted,
not
into
yarn,
but
into
\"devil's
dust.\"
Now,
although
this
15
lbs.of
cotton
never
becomes
a
constituent
element
of
the
yarn,
yet
assuming
this
amount
of
waste
to
be
normal
and
inevitable
under
average
conditions
of
spinning,its
value
is
just
as
surely
transferred
to
the
value
of
the
yarn,
as
is
the
value
of
the
100
lbs.
that
form
the
substance
of
the
yarn.
The
use-value
of
15
lbs.
of
cotton
must
vanish
into
dust,
before
100
lbs.
of
yarn
can
be
made.
The
destruction
of
this
cotton
is
therefore
a
necessary
condition
in
the
production
of
the
yarn.And
because
it
is
a
necessary
condition,
and
for
no
other
reason,
the
value
of
that
cotton
is
transferred
to
the
product.
The
same
holds
good
for
every
kind
of
refuse
resulting
from
a
labour-process,
so
far
at
least
as
such
refuse
cannot
be
further
employed
as
a
means
in
the
production
of
new
and
independent
use-values.Such
an
employment
of
refuse
may
be
seen
in
the
large
machine
works
at
Manchester,
where
mountains
of
iron
turnings
are
carted
away
to
the
foundry
in
the
evening,
in
order
the
next
morning
to
re-appear
in
the
workshops
as
solid
masses
of
iron.
We
have
seen
that
the
means
of
production
transfer
value
to
the
new
product,
so
far
only
as
during
the
labour-process
they
lose
value
in
the
shape
of
their
old
use-value.
The
maximum
loss
of
value
that
they
can
suffer
in
the
process,
is
plainly
limited
by
the
amount
of
the
original
value
with
which
they
came
into
the
process,
or
in
other
words,
by
the
labour
time
necessary
for
their
production.
Therefore,
the
means
of
production
can
never
add
more
value
to
the
product
than
they
themselves
possess
independently
of
the
process
in
which
they
assist.
However
useful
a
given
kind
of
raw
material,
or
a
machine,
or
other
means
of
production
may
be,
though
it
may
cost
￡150,or,
say,
500
days'
labour,
yet
it
cannot,
under
any
circumstances,
add
to
the
value
of
the
product
more
than
￡150.
Its
value
is
determined
not
by
the
labour
process
into
which
it
enters
as
a
means
of
production,but
by
that
out
of
which
it
has
issued
as
a
product.
In
the
labour-process
it
only
serves
as
a
mere
use-value,
a
thing
with
useful
properties,
and
could
not,
therefore,transfer
any
value
to
the
product,
unless
it
possessed
such
value
previously.3
While
productive
labour
is
changing
the
means
of
production
into
constituent
elements
of
a
new
product,their
value
undergoes
a
metempsychosis.
It
deserts
the
consumed
body,
to
occupy
the
newly
created
one.But
this
transmigration
takes
place,
as
it
were,
behind
the
back
of
the
labourer.
He
is
unable
to
add
new
labour,
to
create
new
value,
without
at
the
same
time
preserving
old
values,
and
this,
because
the
labour
he
adds
must
be
of
a
specific
useful
kind;
and
he
cannot
do
work
of
a
useful
kind,
without
employing
products
as
the
means
of
production
of
a
new
product,
and
thereby
transferring
their
value
to
the
new
product.The
property
therefore
which
labour-power
in
action,living
labour,
possesses
of
preserving
value,
at
the
same
time
that
it
adds
it,
is
a
gift
of
Nature
which
costs
the
labourer
nothing,
but
which
is
very
advantageous
to
the
capitalist
inasmuch
as
it
preserves
the
existing
value
of
his
capital.4So
long
as
trade
is
good,
the
capitalist
is
too
much
absorbed
in
money-grubbing
to
take
notice
of
this
gratuitous
gift
of
labour.
A
violent
interruption
of
the
labour-process
by
a
crisis,
makes
him
sensitively
aware
of
it.5
As
regards
the
means
of
production,
what
is
really
consumed
is
their
use-value,
and
the
consumption
of
this
use-value
by
labour
results
in
the
product.There
is
no
consumption
of
their
value,
6and
it
would
therefore
be
inaccurate
to
say
that
it
is
reproduced.
It
is
rather
preserved;
not
by
reason
of
any
operation
it
undergoes
itself
in
the
process;
but
because
the
article
in
which
it
originally
exists,
vanishes,
it
is
true,
but
vanishes
into
some
other
article.
Hence,
in
the
value
of
the
product,
there
is
a
reappearance
of
the
value
of
the
means
of
production,
but
there
is,
strictly
speaking,no
reproduction
of
that
value.
That
which
is
produced
is
a
new
use-value
in
which
the
old
exchange-value
7reappears.
It
is
otherwise
with
the
subjective
factor
of
the
labour-process,
with
labour-power
in
action.
While
the
labourer,
by
virtue
of
his
labour
being
of
a
specialised
kind
that
has
a
special
object,
preserves
and
transfers
to
the
product
the
value
of
the
means
of
production,
he
at
the
same
time,
by
the
mere
act
of
working,
creates
each
instant
an
additional
or
new
value.
Suppose
the
process
of
production
to
be
stopped
just
when
the
workman
has
produced
an
equivalent
for
the
value
of
his
own
labour-power,
when,
for
example,
by
six
hours'
labour,
he
has
added
a
value
of
three
shillings.This
value
is
the
surplus,
of
the
total
value
of
the
product,
over
the
portion
of
its
value
that
is
due
to
the
means
of
production.
It
is
the
only
original
bit
of
value
formed
during
this
process,
the
only
portion
of
the
value
of
the
product
created
by
this
process.Of
course,
we
do
not
forget
that
this
new
value
only
replaces
the
money
advanced
by
the
capitalist
in
the
purchase
of
the
labour-power,
and
spent
by
the
labourer
on
the
necessaries
of
life.
With
regard
to
the
money
spent,
the
new
value
is
merely
a
reproduction;but,
nevertheless,
it
is
an
actual,
and
not,
as
in
the
case
of
the
value
of
the
means
of
production,
only
an
apparent,
reproduction.
The
substitution
of
one
value
for
another,
is
here
effected
by
the
creation
of
new
value.
We
know,
however,
from
what
has
gone
before,that
the
labour-process
may
continue
beyond
the
time
necessary
to
reproduce
and
incorporate
in
the
product
a
mere
equivalent
for
the
value
of
the
labour-power.Instead
of
the
six
hours
that
are
sufficient
for
the
latter
purpose,
the
process
may
continue
for
twelve
hours.
The
action
of
labour-power,
therefore,
not
only
reproduces
its
own
value,
but
produces
value
over
and
above
it.
This
surplus-value
is
the
difference
between
the
value
of
the
product
and
the
value
of
the
elements
consumed
in
the
formation
of
that
product,
in
other
words,
of
the
means
of
production
and
the
labour
power.
By
our
explanation
of
the
different
parts
played
by
the
various
factors
of
the
labour-process
in
the
formation
of
the
product's
value,
we
have,
in
fact,disclosed
the
characters
of
the
different
functions
allotted
to
the
different
elements
of
capital
in
the
process
of
expanding
its
own
value.
The
surplus
of
the
total
value
of
the
product,
over
the
sum
of
the
values
of
its
constituent
factors,
is
the
surplus
of
the
expanded
capital
over
the
capital
originally
advanced.The
means
of
production
on
the
one
hand,
labour
power
on
the
other,
are
merely
the
different
modes
of
existence
which
the
value
of
the
original
capital
assumed
when
from
being
money
it
was
transformed
into
the
various
factors
of
the
labour-process.
That
part
of
capital
then,
which
is
represented
by
the
means
of
production,
by
the
raw
material,
auxiliary
material
and
the
instruments
of
labour
does
not,
in
the
process
of
production,
undergo
any
quantitative
alteration
of
value.
I
therefore
call
it
the
constant
part
of
capital,
or,more
shortly,
constant
capital.
On
the
other
hand,
that
part
of
capital,
represented
by
labour-power,
does,
in
the
process
of
production,undergo
an
alteration
of
value.
It
both
reproduces
the
equivalent
of
its
own
value,
and
also
produces
an
excess,
a
surplus-value,
which
may
itself
vary,
may
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,
shortly,
variable
capital.
The
same
elements
of
capital
which,
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
labour-process,
present
themselves
respectively
as
the
objective
and
subjective
factors,as
means
of
production
and
labour-power,
present
themselves,
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
process
of
creating
surplus-value,
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.
Suppose
the
price
of
cotton
to
be
one
day
sixpence
a
pound,
and
the
next
day,
in
consequence
of
a
failure
of
the
cotton
crop,
a
shilling
a
pound.
Each
pound
of
the
cotton
bought
at
sixpence,
and
worked
up
after
the
rise
in
value,
transfers
to
the
product
a
value
of
one
shilling;
and
the
cotton
already
spun
before
the
rise,
and
perhaps
circulating
in
the
market
as
yarn,
likewise
transfers
to
the
product
twice
its
original
value.
It
is
plain,
however,
that
these
changes
of
value
are
independent
of
the
increment
or
surplus
value
added
to
the
value
of
the
cotton
by
the
spinning
itself.
If
the
old
cotton
had
never
been
spun,
it
could,after
the
rise,
be
resold
at
a
shilling
a
pound
instead
of
at
sixpence.
Further,
the
fewer
the
processes
the
cotton
has
gone
through,
the
more
certain
is
this
result.
We
therefore
find
that
speculators
make
it
a
rule
when
such
sudden
changes
in
value
occur,
to
speculate
in
that
material
on
which
the
least
possible
quantity
of
labour
has
been
spent:
to
speculate,
therefore,
in
yarn
rather
than
in
cloth,
in
cotton
itself,
rather
than
in
yarn.
The
change
of
value
in
the
case
we
have
been
considering,
originates,
not
in
the
process
in
which
the
cotton
plays
the
part
of
a
means
of
production,
and
in
which
it
therefore
functions
as
constant
capital,
but
in
the
process
in
which
the
cotton
itself
is
produced.
The
value
of
a
commodity,
it
is
true,
is
determined
by
the
quantity
of
labour
contained
in
it,
but
this
quantity
is
itself
limited
by
social
conditions.
If
the
time
socially
necessary
for
the
production
of
any
commodity
alters–
and
a
given
weight
of
cotton
represents,
after
a
bad
harvest,
more
labour
than
after
a
good
one
–
all
previously
existing
commodities
of
the
same
class
are
affected,
because
they
are,
as
it
were,
only
individuals
of
the
species,8and
their
value
at
any
given
time
is
measured
by
the
labour
socially
necessary,
i.e.,
by
the
labour
necessary
for
their
production
under
the
then
existing
social
conditions.
As
the
value
of
the
raw
material
may
change,so,
too,
may
that
of
the
instruments
of
labour,
of
the
machinery,
&c.,
employed
in
the
process;
and
consequently
that
portion
of
the
value
of
the
product
transferred
to
it
from
them,
may
also
change.
If
in
consequence
of
a
new
invention,
machinery
of
a
particular
kind
can
be
produced
by
a
diminished
expenditure
of
labour,
the
old
machinery
becomes
depreciated
more
or
less,
and
consequently
transfers
so
much
less
value
to
the
product.
But
here
again,
the
change
in
value
originates
outside
the
process
in
which
the
machine
is
acting
as
a
means
of
production.
Once
engaged
in
this
process,
the
machine
cannot
transfer
more
value
than
it
possesses
apart
from
the
process.
Just
as
a
change
in
the
value
of
the
means
of
production,
even
after
they
have
commenced
to
take
a
part
in
the
labour-process,
does
not
alter
their
character
as
constant
capital,
so,
too,
a
change
in
the
proportion
of
constant
to
variable
capital
does
not
affect
the
respective
functions
of
these
two
kinds
of
capital.
The
technical
conditions
of
the
labour-process
may
be
revolutionised
to
such
an
extent,
that
where
formerly
ten
men
using
ten
implements
of
small
value
worked
up
a
relatively
small
quantity
of
raw
material,
one
man
may
now,
with
the
aid
of
one
expensive
machine,work
up
one
hundred
times
as
much
raw
material.
In
the
latter
case
we
have
an
enormous
increase
in
the
constant
capital,
that
is
represented
by
the
total
value
of
the
means
of
production
used,
and
at
the
same
time
a
great
reduction
in
the
variable
capital,
invested
in
labour-power.
Such
a
revolution,
however,
alters
only
the
quantitative
relation
between
the
constant
and
the
variable
capital,
or
the
proportions
in
which
the
total
capital
is
split
up
into
its
constant
and
variable
constituents;
it
has
not
in
the
least
degree
affected
the
essential
difference
between
the
two.
NOTES:
1\"Labour
gives
a
new
creation
for
one
extinguished.\"
(\"An
Essay
on
the
Polit.
Econ.
of
Nations,\"
London,
1821,
p.
13.)
2The
subject
of
repairs
of
the
implements
of
labour
does
not
concern
us
here.
A
machine
that
is
undergoing
repair,
no
longer
plays
the
part
of
an
instrument,
but
that
of
a
subject
of
labour.
Work
is
no
longer
done
with
it,
but
upon
it.
It
is
quite
permissible
for
our
purpose
to
assume,
that
the
labour
expended
on
the
repairs
of
instruments
is
included
in
the
labour
necessary
for
their
original
production.
But
in
the
text
we
deal
with
that
wear
and
tear,
which
no
doctor
can
cure,
and
which
little
by
little
brings
about
death,
with
\"that
kind
of
wear
which
cannot
be
repaired
from
time
to
time,
and
which,
in
the
case
of
a
knife,
would
ultimately
reduce
it
to
a
state
in
which
the
cutler
would
say
of
it,
it
is
not
worth
a
new
blade.\"
We
have
shewn
in
the
text,
that
a
machine
takes
part
in
every
labour-process
as
an
integral
machine,
but
that
into
the
simultaneous
process
of
creating
value
it
enters
only
bit
by
bit.
How
great
then
is
the
confusion
of
ideas
exhibited
in
the
following
extract!
\"Mr.Ricardo
says
a
portion
of
the
labour
of
the
engineer
in
making[stocking]
machines\"
is
contained
for
example
in
the
value
of
a
pair
of
stockings.
\"Yet
the
total
labour,
that
produced
each
single
pair
of
stockings
...
includes
the
whole
labour
of
the
engineer,
not
a
portion;
for
one
machine
makes
many
pairs,and
none
of
those
pairs
could
have
been
done
without
any
part
of
the
machine.\"
\"Obs.
on
Certain
Verbal
Disputes
in
Pol.Econ.,
Particularly
Relating
to
Value,\"
p.
54.
The
author,
an
uncommonly
self-satisfied
wiseacre,
is
right
in
his
confusion
and
therefore
in
his
contention,
to
this
extent
only,
that
neither
Ricardo
nor
any
other
economist,
before
or
since
him,
has
accurately
distinguished
the
two
aspects
of
labour,
and
still
less,
therefore,
the
part
played
by
it
under
each
of
these
aspects
in
the
formation
of
value.
3From
this
we
may
judge
of
the
absurdity
of
J.
B.
Say,
who
pretends
to
account
for
surplus-value
(Interest,
Profit,
Rent),
by
the
\"services
productifs\"
which
the
means
of
production,
soil,instruments,
and
raw
material,
render
in
the
labour-process
by
means
of
their
use-values.
Mr.
Wm.
Roscher
who
seldom
loses
an
occasion
of
registering,
in
black
and
white,
ingenious
apologetic
fancies,
records
the
following
specimen:
-
\"J.
B.Say
(Traité,
t.
1,
ch.
4)
very
truly
remarks:
the
value
produced
by
an
oil
mill,
after
deduction
of
all
costs,
is
something
new,something
quite
different
from
the
labour
by
which
the
oil
mill
itself
was
erected.\"
(l.c.,
p.
82,
note.)
Very
true,
Mr.
Professor!the
oil
produced
by
the
oil
mill
is
indeed
something
very
different
from
the
labour
expended
in
constructing
the
mill!
By
value,
Mr.
Roscher
understands
such
stuff
as
\"oil,\"
because
oil
has
value,
notwithstanding
that
\"Nature\"
produces
petroleum,though
relatively
\"in
small
quantities,\"
a
fact
to
which
he
seems
to
refer
in
his
further
observation:
\"It
(Nature)
produces
scarcely
any
exchange-value.\"
Mr.
Roscher's
\"Nature\"
and
the
exchange-value
it
produces
are
rather
like
the
foolish
virgin
who
admitted
indeed
that
she
had
had
a
child,
but
\"it
was
such
a
little
one.\"
This
\"savant
sérieux\"
in
continuation
remarks:\"Ricardo's
school
is
in
the
habit
of
including
capital
as
accumulated
labour
under
the
head
of
labour.
This
is
unskilful
work,
because,
indeed,
the
owner
of
capital,
after
all,
does
something
more
than
the
merely
creating
and
preserving
of
the
same:
namely,
the
abstention
from
the
enjoyment
of
it,
for
which
he
demands,
e.g.,
interest.\"
(l.c.)
How
very
\"skilful\"
is
this
\"anatomico-physiological
method\"
of
Political
Economy,which,
\"indeed,\"
converts
a
mere
desire
\"after
all\"
into
a
source
of
value.
4\"Of
all
the
instruments
of
the
farmers'
trade,
the
labour
of
man
...
is
that
on
which
he
is
most
to
rely
for
the
repayment
of
his
capital.
The
other
two
...
the
working
stock
of
the
cattle
and
the
...
carts,
ploughs,
spades,
and
so
forth,
without
a
given
portion
of
the
first,
are
nothing
at
all.\"
(Edmund
Burke:\"Thoughts
and
Details
on
Scarcity,
originally
presented
to
the
Right
Hon.
W.
Pitt,
in
the
month
of
November
1795,\"
Edit.London,
1800,
p.
10.)
5In
The
Times
of
26th
November,
1862,
a
manufacturer,whose
mill
employed
800
hands,
and
consumed,
on
the
average,
150
bales
of
East
Indian,
or
130
bales
of
American
cotton,
complains,
in
doleful
manner,
of
the
standing
expenses
of
his
factory
when
not
working.
He
estimates
them
at
￡6,000
a
year.
Among
them
are
a
number
of
items
that
do
not
concern
us
here,
such
as
rent,
rates,
and
taxes,
insurance,
salaries
of
the
manager,
book-keeper,
engineer,
and
others.
Then
he
reckons￡150
for
coal
used
to
heat
the
mill
occasionally,
and
run
the
engine
now
and
then.
Besides
this,
he
includes
the
wages
of
the
people
employed
at
odd
times
to
keep
the
machinery
in
working
order.
Lastly,
he
puts
down
￡1,200
for
depreciation
of
machinery,
because
\"the
weather
and
the
natural
principle
of
decay
do
not
suspend
their
operations
because
the
steam
engine
ceases
to
revolve.\"
He
says,
emphatically,
he
does
not
estimate
his
depreciation
at
more
than
the
small
sum
of
￡1,200,
because
his
machinery
is
already
nearly
worn
out.
6\"Productive
consumption
...
where
the
consumption
of
a
commodity
is
a
part
of
the
process
of
production.
...
In
these
instances
there
is
no
consumption
of
value.\"
(S.
P.
Newman,l.c.,
p.
296.)
7In
an
American
compendium
that
has
gone
through,perhaps,
20
editions,
this
passage
occurs:
\"It
matters
not
in
what
form
capital
re-appears;\"
then
after
a
lengthy
enumeration
of
all
the
possible
ingredients
of
production
whose
value
re
appears
in
the
product,
the
passage
concludes
thus:
\"The
various
kinds
of
food,
clothing,
and
shelter,
necessary
for
the
existence
and
comfort
of
the
human
being,
are
also
changed.They
are
consumed
from
time
to
time,
and
their
value
re
appears
in
that
new
vigour
imparted
to
his
body
and
mind,forming
fresh
capital,
to
be
employed
again
in
the
work
of
production.\"
(F.
Wayland,
l.c.,
pp.
31,
32.)
Without
noticing
any
other
oddities,
it
suffices
to
observe,
that
what
re-appears
in
the
fresh
vigour,
is
not
the
bread's
price,
but
its
bloodforming
substances.
What,
on
the
other
hand,
re-appears
in
the
value
of
that
vigour,
is
not
the
means
of
subsistence,
but
their
value.
The
same
necessaries
of
life,
at
half
the
price,
would
form
just
as
much
muscle
and
bone,
just
as
much
vigour,
but
not
vigour
of
the
same
value.
This
confusion
of
\"value\"
and
\"vigour\"
coupled
with
our
author's
pharisaical
indefiniteness,
mark
an
attempt,futile
for
all
that,
to
thrash
out
an
explanation
of
surplus-value
from
a
mere
re-appearance
of
pre-existing
values.
8\"Toutes
les
productions
d'un
même
genre
ne
forment
proprement
qu'une
masse,
dont
le
prix
se
détermine
en
général
et
sans
égard
aux
circonstances
particulières.\"
(Le
Trosne,
l.c.,p.
893.)
[\"Properly
speaking,
all
products
of
the
same
kind
form
a
single
mass,
and
their
price
is
determined
in
general
and
without
regard
to
particular
circumstances.\"]
精選分類
