- 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
欣可小說 >
其他 >
資本論 >
CHAPTER 10: THE WORKING DAY
Section
1:
The
Limits
of
the
Working
Day
We
started
with
the
supposition
that
labour
power
is
bought
and
sold
at
its
value.
Its
value,
like
that
of
all
other
commodities,
is
determined
by
the
working-time
necessary
to
its
production.
If
the
production
of
the
average
daily
means
of
subsistence
of
the
labourer
takes
up
6
hours,
he
must
work,
on
the
average,
6
hours
every
day,
to
produce
his
daily
labour-power,
or
to
reproduce
the
value
received
as
the
result
of
its
sale.
The
necessary
part
of
his
working
day
amounts
to
6
hours,
and
is,
therefore,
caeteris
paribus
[other
things
being
equal],
a
given
quantity.But
with
this,
the
extent
of
the
working
day
itself
is
not
yet
given.
Let
us
assume
that
the
line
A–––B
represents
the
length
of
the
necessary
working-time,
say
6
hours.
If
the
labour
be
prolonged
1,
3,
or
6
hours
beyond
A––B,we
have
3
other
lines:
representing
3
different
working
days
of
7,
9,
and
12
hours.
The
extension
B––C
of
the
line
A––B
represents
the
length
of
the
surplus
labour.
As
the
working
day
is
A––B
B––C
or
A––C,
it
varies
with
the
variable
quantity
B––C.
Since
A––B
is
constant,
the
ratio
of
B––C
to
A––B
can
always
be
calculated.
In
working
day
I,
it
is
1\/6,
in
working
day
II,
3\/6,
in
working
day
III
6\/6
of
A––B.
Since
further
the
ratio
(surplus
working-time)\/(necessary
working-time),
determines
the
rate
of
the
surplus-value,
the
latter
is
given
by
the
ratio
of
B–-C
to
A–-B.
It
amounts
in
the
3
different
working
days
respectively
to
16
2\/3,
50
and
100
per
cent.
On
the
other
hand,
the
rate
of
surplus-value
alone
would
not
give
us
the
extent
of
the
working
day.
If
this
rate,
e.g.,
were
100
per
cent.,
the
working
day
might
be
of
8,
10,
12,
or
more
hours.
It
would
indicate
that
the
2
constituent
parts
of
the
working
day,
necessary
labour
and
surplus
labour
time,
were
equal
in
extent,but
not
how
long
each
of
these
two
constituent
parts
was.
The
working
day
is
thus
not
a
constant,
but
a
variable
quantity.
One
of
its
parts,
certainly,
is
determined
by
the
working-time
required
for
the
reproduction
of
the
labour-power
of
the
labourer
himself.
But
its
total
amount
varies
with
the
duration
of
the
surplus
labour.The
working
day
is,
therefore,
determinable,
but
is,per
se,
indeterminate.1
Although
the
working
day
is
not
a
fixed,
but
a
fluent
quantity,
it
can,
on
the
other
hand,
only
vary
within
certain
limits.
The
minimum
limit
is,
however,
not
determinable;
of
course,
if
we
make
the
extension
line
B–-C
or
the
surplus
labour
=
0,
we
have
a
minimum
limit,
i.e.,
the
part
of
the
day
which
the
labourer
must
necessarily
work
for
his
own
maintenance.
On
the
basis
of
capitalist
production,
however,
this
necessary
labour
can
form
a
part
only
of
the
working
day;the
working
day
itself
can
never
be
reduced
to
this
minimum.
On
the
other
hand,
the
working
day
has
a
maximum
limit.
It
cannot
be
prolonged
beyond
a
certain
point.
This
maximum
limit
is
conditioned
by
two
things.
First,
by
the
physical
bounds
of
labour
power.
Within
the
24
hours
of
the
natural
day
a
man
can
expend
only
a
definite
quantity
of
his
vital
force.A
horse,
in
like
manner,
can
only
work
from
day
to
day,
8
hours.
During
part
of
the
day
this
force
must
rest,
sleep;
during
another
part
the
man
has
to
satisfy
other
physical
needs,
to
feed,
wash,
and
clothe
himself.
Besides
these
purely
physical
limitations,the
extension
of
the
working
day
encounters
moral
ones.
The
labourer
needs
time
for
satisfying
his
intellectual
and
social
wants,
the
extent
and
number
of
which
are
conditioned
by
the
general
state
of
social
advancement.
The
variation
of
the
working
day
fluctuates,
therefore,
within
physical
and
social
bounds.
But
both
these
limiting
conditions
are
of
a
very
elastic
nature,
and
allow
the
greatest
latitude.
So
we
find
working
days
of
8,
10,
12,
14,
16,
18
hours,i.e.,
of
the
most
different
lengths.
The
capitalist
has
bought
the
labour-power
at
its
day-rate.
To
him
its
use-value
belongs
during
one
working
day.
He
has
thus
acquired
the
right
to
make
the
labourer
work
for
him
during
one
day.
But,
what
is
a
working
day
2
At
all
events,
less
than
a
natural
day.
By
how
much
The
capitalist
has
his
own
views
of
this
ultima
Thule
[the
outermost
limit],
the
necessary
limit
of
the
working
day.
As
capitalist,
he
is
only
capital
personified.
His
soul
is
the
soul
of
capital.
But
capital
has
one
single
life
impulse,
the
tendency
to
create
value
and
surplus-value,
to
make
its
constant
factor,the
means
of
production,
absorb
the
greatest
possible
amount
of
surplus
labour.3
Capital
is
dead
labour,
that,
vampire-like,
only
lives
by
sucking
living
labour,
and
lives
the
more,the
more
labour
it
sucks.
The
time
during
which
the
labourer
works,
is
the
time
during
which
the
capitalist
consumes
the
labour-power
he
has
purchased
of
him.4
If
the
labourer
consumes
his
disposable
time
for
himself,
he
robs
the
capitalist.5
The
capitalist
then
takes
his
stand
on
the
law
of
the
exchange
of
commodities.
He,
like
all
other
buyers,seeks
to
get
the
greatest
possible
benefit
out
of
the
use-value
of
his
commodity.
Suddenly
the
voice
of
the
labourer,
which
had
been
stifled
in
the
storm
and
stress
of
the
process
of
production,
rises:
The
commodity
that
I
have
sold
to
you
differs
from
the
crowd
of
other
commodities,
in
that
its
use
creates
value,
and
a
value
greater
than
its
own.That
is
why
you
bought
it.
That
which
on
your
side
appears
a
spontaneous
expansion
of
capital,
is
on
mine
extra
expenditure
of
labour-power.
You
and
I
know
on
the
market
only
one
law,
that
of
the
exchange
of
commodities.
And
the
consumption
of
the
commodity
belongs
not
to
the
seller
who
parts
with
it,
but
to
the
buyer,
who
acquires
it.
To
you,
therefore,
belongs
the
use
of
my
daily
labour-power.
But
by
means
of
the
price
that
you
pay
for
it
each
day,
I
must
be
able
to
reproduce
it
daily,
and
to
sell
it
again.
Apart
from
natural
exhaustion
through
age,
&c.,
I
must
be
able
on
the
morrow
to
work
with
the
same
normal
amount
of
force,
health
and
freshness
as
to-day.
You
preach
to
me
constantly
the
gospel
of
\"saving\"
and
\"abstinence.\"Good!
I
will,
like
a
sensible
saving
owner,
husband
my
sole
wealth,
labour-power,
and
abstain
from
all
foolish
waste
of
it.
I
will
each
day
spend,
set
in
motion,
put
into
action
only
as
much
of
it
as
is
compatible
with
its
normal
duration,
and
healthy
development.
By
an
unlimited
extension
of
the
working
day,
you
may
in
one
day
use
up
a
quantity
of
labour-power
greater
than
I
can
restore
in
three.
What
you
gain
in
labour
I
lose
in
substance.
The
use
of
my
labour-power
and
the
spoliation
of
it
are
quite
different
things.
If
the
average
time
that
(doing
a
reasonable
amount
of
work)
an
average
labourer
can
live,
is
30
years,
the
value
of
my
labour-power,
which
you
pay
me
from
day
to
day
is
1\/(365×30)
or
1\/10950
of
its
total
value.
But
if
you
consume
it
in
10
years,
you
pay
me
daily
1\/10950
instead
of
1\/3650
of
its
total
value,
i.e.,
only
1\/3
of
its
daily
value,
and
you
rob
me,
therefore,
every
day
of
2\/3
of
the
value
of
my
commodity.
You
pay
me
for
one
day's
labour-power,
whilst
you
use
that
of
3
days.That
is
against
our
contract
and
the
law
of
exchanges.I
demand,
therefore,
a
working
day
of
normal
length,and
I
demand
it
without
any
appeal
to
your
heart,for
in
money
matters
sentiment
is
out
of
place.
You
may
be
a
model
citizen,
perhaps
a
member
of
the
Society
for
the
Prevention
of
Cruelty
to
Animals,and
in
the
odour
of
sanctity
to
boot;
but
the
thing
that
you
represent
face
to
face
with
me
has
no
heart
in
its
breast.
That
which
seems
to
throb
there
is
my
own
heart-beating.
I
demand
the
normal
working
day
because
I,
like
every
other
seller,
demand
the
value
of
my
commodity.
6
We
see
then,
that,
apart
from
extremely
elastic
bounds,
the
nature
of
the
exchange
of
commodities
itself
imposes
no
limit
to
the
working
day,
no
limit
to
surplus
labour.
The
capitalist
maintains
his
rights
as
a
purchaser
when
he
tries
to
make
the
working
day
as
long
as
possible,
and
to
make,
whenever
possible,two
working
days
out
of
one.
On
the
other
hand,the
peculiar
nature
of
the
commodity
sold
implies
a
limit
to
its
consumption
by
the
purchaser,
and
the
labourer
maintains
his
right
as
seller
when
he
wishes
to
reduce
the
working
day
to
one
of
definite
normal
duration.
There
is
here,
therefore,
an
antinomy,
right
against
right,
both
equally
bearing
the
seal
of
the
law
of
exchanges.
Between
equal
rights
force
decides.Hence
is
it
that
in
the
history
of
capitalist
production,the
determination
of
what
is
a
working
day,
presents
itself
as
the
result
of
a
struggle,
a
struggle
between
collective
capital,
i.e.,
the
class
of
capitalists,
and
collective
labour,
i.e.,
the
working-class.
Section
2:
The
Greed
for
Surplus-Labour.
Manufacturer
and
Boyard
Capital
has
not
invented
surplus
labour.
Wherever
a
part
of
society
possesses
the
monopoly
of
the
means
of
production,
the
labourer,
free
or
not
free,must
add
to
the
working-time
necessary
for
his
own
maintenance
an
extra
working-time
in
order
to
produce
the
means
of
subsistence
for
the
owners
of
the
means
of
production7,
whether
this
proprietor
be
the
Athenian
χαλο
γαχαθο
[well-to-do
man],Etruscan
theocrat,
civis
Romanus
[Roman
citizen],Norman
baron,
American
slave-owner,
Wallachian
Boyard,
modern
landlord
or
capitalist.8It
is,
however,clear
that
in
any
given
economic
formation
of
society,where
not
the
exchange-value
but
the
use-value
of
the
product
predominates,
surplus
labour
will
be
limited
by
a
given
set
of
wants
which
may
be
greater
or
less,and
that
here
no
boundless
thirst
for
surplus
labour
arises
from
the
nature
of
the
production
itself.
Hence
in
antiquity
over-work
becomes
horrible
only
when
the
object
is
to
obtain
exchange-value
in
its
specific
independent
money-form;
in
the
production
of
gold
and
silver.
Compulsory
working
to
death
is
here
the
recognised
form
of
over-work.
Only
read
Diodorus
Siculus.9Still
these
are
exceptions
in
antiquity.
But
as
soon
as
people,
whose
production
still
moves
within
the
lower
forms
of
slave-labour,
corvée-labour,
&c.,are
drawn
into
the
whirlpool
of
an
international
market
dominated
by
the
capitalistic
mode
of
production,the
sale
of
their
products
for
export
becoming
their
principal
interest,
the
civilised
horrors
of
over
work
are
grafted
on
the
barbaric
horrors
of
slavery,serfdom,
&c.
Hence
the
negro
labour
in
the
Southern
States
of
the
American
Union
preserved
something
of
a
patriarchal
character,
so
long
as
production
was
chiefly
directed
to
immediate
local
consumption.
But
in
proportion,
as
the
export
of
cotton
became
of
vital
interest
to
these
states,
the
over-working
of
the
negro
and
sometimes
the
using
up
of
his
life
in
7
years
of
labour
became
a
factor
in
a
calculated
and
calculating
system.
It
was
no
longer
a
question
of
obtaining
from
him
a
certain
quantity
of
useful
products.
It
was
now
a
question
of
production
of
surplus
labour
itself:
So
was
it
also
with
the
corvée,
e.g.,
in
the
Danubian
Principalities
(now
Roumania).
The
comparison
of
the
greed
for
surplus
labour
in
the
Danubian
Principalities
with
the
same
greed
in
English
factories
has
a
special
interest,
because
surplus
labour
in
the
corvée
has
an
independent
and
palpable
form.
Suppose
the
working
day
consists
of
6
hours
of
necessary
labour,
and
6
hours
of
surplus
labour.
Then
the
free
labourer
gives
the
capitalist
every
week
6
x
6
or
36
hours
of
surplus
labour.
It
is
the
same
as
if
he
worked
3
days
in
the
week
for
himself,
and
3
days
in
the
week
gratis
for
the
capitalist.
But
this
is
not
evident
on
the
surface.
Surplus
labour
and
necessary
labour
glide
one
into
the
other.
I
can,
therefore,
express
the
same
relationship
by
saying,
e.g.,
that
the
labourer
in
every
minute
works
30
seconds
for
himself,
and
30
for
the
capitalist,
etc.
It
is
otherwise
with
the
corvée.
The
necessary
labour
which
the
Wallachian
peasant
does
for
his
own
maintenance
is
distinctly
marked
off
from
his
surplus
labour
on
behalf
of
the
Boyard.
The
one
he
does
on
his
own
field,
the
other
on
the
seignorial
estate.
Both
parts
of
the
labour-time
exist,
therefore,independently,
side
by
side
one
with
the
other.
In
the
corvée
the
surplus
labour
is
accurately
marked
off
from
the
necessary
labour.
This,
however,
can
make
no
difference
with
regard
to
the
quantitative
relation
of
surplus
labour
to
necessary
labour.
Three
days'
surplus
labour
in
the
week
remain
three
days
that
yield
no
equivalent
to
the
labourer
himself,
whether
it
be
called
corvée
or
wage-labour.
But
in
the
capitalist
the
greed
for
surplus
labour
appears
in
the
straining
after
an
unlimited
extension
of
the
working
day,
in
the
Boyard
more
simply
in
a
direct
hunting
after
days
of
corvée.10
In
the
Danubian
Principalities
the
corvée
was
mixed
up
with
rents
in
kind
and
other
appurtenances
of
bondage,
but
it
formed
the
most
important
tribute
paid
to
the
ruling
class.
Where
this
was
the
case,
the
corvée
rarely
arose
from
serfdom;
serfdom
much
more
frequently
on
the
other
hand
took
origin
from
the
corvée.11This
is
what
took
place
in
the
Roumanian
provinces.
Their
original
mode
of
production
was
based
on
community
of
the
soil,
but
not
in
the
Slavonic
or
Indian
form.
Part
of
the
land
was
cultivated
in
severalty
as
freehold
by
the
members
of
the
community,
another
part
–
ager
publicus
–
was
cultivated
by
them
in
common.
The
products
of
this
common
labour
served
partly
as
a
reserve
fund
against
bad
harvests
and
other
accidents,
partly
as
a
public
store
for
providing
the
costs
of
war,
religion,
and
other
common
expenses.
In
course
of
time
military
and
clerical
dignitaries
usurped,
along
with
the
common
land,
the
labour
spent
upon
it.
The
labour
of
the
free
peasants
on
their
common
land
was
transformed
into
corvée
for
the
thieves
of
the
common
land.
This
corvée
soon
developed
into
a
servile
relationship
existing
in
point
of
fact,
not
in
point
of
law,
until
Russia,
the
liberator
of
the
world,
made
it
legal
under
presence
of
abolishing
serfdom.
The
code
of
the
corvée,
which
the
Russian
General
Kisseleff
proclaimed
in
1831,
was
of
course
dictated
by
the
Boyards
themselves.
Thus
Russia
conquered
with
one
blow
the
magnates
of
the
Danubian
provinces,
and
the
applause
of
liberal
cretins
throughout
Europe.
According
to
the
\"Règlement
organique,\"
as
this
code
of
the
corvée
is
called,
every
Wallachian
peasant
owes
to
the
so-called
landlord,
besides
a
mass
of
detailed
payments
in
kind:
(1),
12
days
of
general
labour;
(2),
one
day
of
field
labour;
(3),
one
day
of
wood
carrying.
In
all,
14
days
in
the
year.
With
deep
insight
into
Political
Economy,
however,
the
working
day
is
not
taken
in
its
ordinary
sense,
but
as
the
working
day
necessary
to
the
production
of
an
average
daily
product;
and
that
average
daily
product
is
determined
in
so
crafty
a
way
that
no
Cyclops
would
be
done
with
it
in
24
hours.
In
dry
words,
the
Réglement
itself
declares
with
true
Russian
irony
that
by
12
working
days
one
must
understand
the
product
of
the
manual
labour
of
36
days,
by
1
day
of
field
labour
3
days,
and
by
1
day
of
wood
carrying
in
like
manner
three
times
as
much.
In
all,
42
corvée
days.
To
this
had
to
be
added
the
so-called
jobagie,service
due
to
the
lord
for
extraordinary
occasions.
In
proportion
to
the
size
of
its
population,
every
village
has
to
furnish
annually
a
definite
contingent
to
the
jobagie.
This
additional
corvée
is
estimated
at
14
days
for
each
Wallachian
peasant.
Thus
the
prescribed
corvée
amounts
to
56
working
days
yearly.
But
the
agricultural
year
in
Wallachia
numbers
in
consequence
of
the
severe
climate
only
210
days,
of
which
40
for
Sundays
and
holidays,
30
on
an
average
for
bad
weather,
together
70
days,
do
not
count.
140
working
days
remain.
The
ratio
of
the
corvée
to
the
necessary
labour
56\/84
or
66
2\/3
%
gives
a
much
smaller
rate
of
surplus-value
than
that
which
regulates
the
labour
of
the
English
agricultural
or
factory
labourer.
This
is,
however,
only
the
legally
prescribed
corvée.
And
in
a
spirit
yet
more
\"liberal\"
than
the
English
Factory
Acts,
the
\"Règlement
organique\"
has
known
how
to
facilitate
its
own
evasion.
After
it
has
made
56
days
out
of
12,
the
nominal
day's
work
of
each
of
the
56
corvée
days
is
again
so
arranged
that
a
portion
of
it
must
fall
on
the
ensuing
day.
In
one
day,
e.g.,must
be
weeded
an
extent
of
land,
which,
for
this
work,
especially
in
maize
plantations,
needs
twice
as
much
time.
The
legal
day's
work
for
some
kinds
of
agricultural
labour
is
interpretable
in
such
a
way
that
the
day
begins
in
May
and
ends
in
October.
In
Moldavia
conditions
are
still
harder.
\"The
12
corvée
days
of
the
'Règlement
organique'cried
a
Boyard
drunk
with
victory,
amount
to
365
days
in
the
year.\"12
If
the
Règlement
organique
of
the
Danubian
provinces
was
a
positive
expression
of
the
greed
for
surplus
labour
which
every
paragraph
legalised,
the
English
Factory
Acts
are
the
negative
expression
of
the
same
greed.
These
acts
curb
the
passion
of
capital
for
a
limitless
draining
of
labour-power,
by
forcibly
limiting
the
working
day
by
state
regulations,
made
by
a
state
that
is
ruled
by
capitalist-and
landlord.
Apart
from
the
working-class
movement
that
daily
grew
more
threatening,
the
limiting
of
factory
labour
was
dictated
by
the
same
necessity
which
spread
guano
over
the
English
fields.
The
same
blind
eagerness
for
plunder
that
in
the
one
case
exhausted
the
soil,
had,in
the
other,
torn
up
by
the
roots
the
living
force
of
the
nation.
Periodical
epidemics
speak
on
this
point
as
clearly
as
the
diminishing
military
standard
in
Germany
and
France.13
The
Factory
Act
of
1850
now
in
force
(1867)
allows
for
the
average
working
day
10
hours,
i.e.,
for
the
first
5
days
12
hours
from
6
a.m.
to
6
p.m.,
including
an
hour
for
breakfast,
and
an
hour
for
dinner,
and
thus
leaving
10
working-hours,
and
8
hours
for
Saturday,from
6
a.m.
to
2
p.m.,
of
which
an
hour
is
subtracted
for
breakfast.
60
working-hours
are
left,
10
for
each
of
the
first
5
days,
7
for
the
last.14
Certain
guardians
of
these
laws
are
appointed,Factory
Inspectors,
directly
under
the
Home
Secretary,whose
reports
are
published
half-yearly,
by
order
of
Parliament.
They
give
regular
and
official
statistics
of
the
capitalistic
greed
for
surplus
labour.
Let
us
listen,
for
a
moment,
to
the
Factory
Inspectors.15
\"The
fraudulent
mill-owner
begins
work
a
quarter
of
an
hour
(sometimes
more,
sometimes
less)
before
6
a.m.,
and
leaves
off
a
quarter
of
an
hour
(sometimes
more,
sometimes
less)
after
6
p.m.
He
takes
5
minutes
from
the
beginning
and
from
the
end
of
the
half
hour
nominally
allowed
for
breakfast,
and
10
minutes
at
the
beginning
and
end
of
the
hour
nominally
allowed
for
dinner.
He
works
for
a
quarter
of
an
hour
(sometimes
more,sometimes
less)
after
2
p.m.
on
Saturday.
Thus
his
gain
is
–
Or
5
hours
and
40
minutes
weekly,
which
multiplied
by
50
working
weeks
in
the
year(allowing
two
for
holidays
and
occasional
stoppages)
is
equal
to
27
working
days.\"16
\"Five
minutes
a
day's
increased
work,
multiplied
by
weeks,
are
equal
to
two
and
a
half
days
of
produce
in
the
year.\"17
\"An
additional
hour
a
day
gained
by
small
instalments
before
6
a.m.,
after
6
p.m.,
and
at
the
beginning
and
end
of
the
times
nominally
fixed
for
meals,
is
nearly
equivalent
to
working
13
months
in
the
year.\"18
Crises
during
which
production
is
interrupted
and
the
factories
work
\"short
time,\"
i.e.,
for
only
a
part
of
the
week,
naturally
do
not
affect
the
tendency
to
extend
the
working
day.
The
less
business
there
is,
the
more
profit
has
to
be
made
on
the
business
done.
The
less
time
spent
in
work,
the
more
of
that
time
has
to
be
turned
into
surplus
labour-time.
Thus
the
Factory
Inspector's
report
on
the
period
of
the
crisis
from
1857
to
1858:
\"It
may
seem
inconsistent
that
there
should
be
any
overworking
at
a
time
when
trade
is
so
bad;
but
that
very
badness
leads
to
the
transgression
by
unscrupulous
men,
they
get
the
extra
profit
of
it.
...
In
the
last
half
year,
says
Leonard
Horner,
122
mills
in
my
district
have
been
given
up;
143
were
found
standing,\"
yet,
over-work
is
continued
beyond
the
legal
hours.\"19\"For
a
great
part
of
the
time,\"
says
Mr.
Howell,\"owing
to
the
depression
of
trade,
many
factories
were
altogether
closed,
and
a
still
greater
number
were
working
short
time.
I
continue,
however,to
receive
about
the
usual
number
of
complaints
that
half,
or
three-quarters
of
an
hour
in
the
day,are
snatched
from
the
workers
by
encroaching
upon
the
times
professedly
allowed
for
rest
and
refreshment.\"
20
The
same
phenomenon
was
reproduced
on
a
smaller
scale
during
the
frightful
cotton-crises
from
1861
to
1865.21
\"It
is
sometimes
advanced
by
way
of
excuse,when
persons
are
found
at
work
in
a
factory,
either
at
a
meal
hour,
or
at
some
illegal
time,
that
they
will
not
leave
the
mill
at
the
appointed
hour,
and
that
compulsion
is
necessary
to
force
them
to
cease
work
[cleaning
their
machinery,
&c.],
especially
on
Saturday
afternoons.
But,
if
the
hands
remain
in
a
factory
after
the
machinery
has
ceased
to
revolve
...
they
would
not
have
been
so
employed
if
sufficient
time
had
been
set
apart
specially
for
cleaning,
&c.,
either
before
6
a.m.
[sic.!]
or
before
2
p.m.
on
Saturday
afternoons.\"
22
\"The
profit
to
be
gained
by
it
(over-working
in
violation
of
the
Act)
appears
to
be,
to
many,a
greater
temptation
than
they
can
resist;
they
calculate
upon
the
chance
of
not
being
found
out;
and
when
they
see
the
small
amount
of
penalty
and
costs,
which
those
who
have
been
convicted
have
had
to
pay,
they
find
that
if
they
should
be
detected
there
will
still
be
a
considerable
balance
of
gain....23In
cases
where
the
additional
time
is
gained
by
a
multiplication
of
small
thefts
in
the
course
of
the
day,
there
are
insuperable
difficulties
to
the
inspectors
making
out
a
case.\"24
These
\"small
thefts\"
of
capital
from
the
labourer's
meal
and
recreation
time,
the
factory
inspectors
also
designate
as
\"petty
pilferings
of
minutes,\"25\"snatching
a
few
minutes,\"26or,
as
the
labourers
technically
called
them,
\"nibbling
and
cribbling
at
meal-times.\"27
It
is
evident
that
in
this
atmosphere
the
formation
of
surplus-value
by
surplus
labour,
is
no
secret.
\"If
you
allow
me,\"
said
a
highly
respectable
master
to
me,
\"to
work
only
ten
minutes
in
the
day
over-time,
you
put
one
thousand
a
year
in
my
pocket.\"28\"Moments
are
the
elements
of
profit.\"29
Nothing
is
from
this
point
of
view
more
characteristic
than
the
designation
of
the
workers
who
work
full
time
as
\"full-timers,\"
and
the
children
under
13
who
are
only
allowed
to
work
6
hours
as
\"half-timers.\"
The
worker
is
here
nothing
more
than
personified
labour
time.
All
individual
distinctions
are
merged
in
those
of\"full-timers\"
and
\"half-timers\".30
Section
3:
Branches
of
English
Industry
Without
Legal
Limits
to
Exploitation
We
have
hitherto
considered
the
tendency
to
the
extension
of
the
working
day,
the
were-wolf's
hunger
for
surplus
labour
in
a
department
where
the
monstrous
exactions,
not
surpassed,
says
an
English
bourgeois
economist,
by
the
cruelties
of
the
Spaniards
to
the
American
red-skins31,
caused
capital
at
last
to
be
bound
by
the
chains
of
legal
regulations.
Now,
let
us
cast
a
glance
at
certain
branches
of
production
in
which
the
exploitation
of
labour
is
either
free
from
fetters
to
this
day,
or
was
so
yesterday.
Mr.
Broughton
Charlton,
county
magistrate,declared,
as
chairman
of
a
meeting
held
at
the
Assembly
Rooms,
Nottingham,
on
the
14th
January,
1860,
\"that
there
was
an
amount
of
privation
and
suffering
among
that
portion
of
the
population
connected
with
the
lace
trade,
unknown
in
other
parts
of
the
kingdom,
indeed,
in
the
civilised
world
....
Children
of
nine
or
ten
years
are
dragged
from
their
squalid
beds
at
two,
three,or
four
o'clock
in
the
morning
and
compelled
to
work
for
a
bare
subsistence
until
ten,
eleven,
or
twelve
at
night,
their
limbs
wearing
away,
their
frames
dwindling,
their
faces
whitening,
and
their
humanity
absolutely
sinking
into
a
stone
like
torpor,
utterly
horrible
to
contemplate....
We
are
not
surprised
that
Mr.
Mallett,
or
any
other
manufacturer,
should
stand
forward
and
protest
against
discussion....
The
system,
as
the
Rev.
Montagu
Valpy
describes
it,
is
one
of
unmitigated
slavery,
socially,
physically,
morally,
and
spiritually....
What
can
be
thought
of
a
town
which
holds
a
public
meeting
to
petition
that
the
period
of
labour
for
men
shall
be
diminished
to
eighteen
hours
a
day
....
We
declaim
against
the
Virginian
and
Carolinian
cotton-planters.
Is
their
black-market,
their
lash,
and
their
barter
of
human
flesh
more
detestable
than
this
slow
sacrifice
of
humanity
which
takes
place
in
order
that
veils
and
collars
may
be
fabricated
for
the
benefit
of
capitalists\"32
The
potteries
of
Staffordshire
have,
during
the
last
22
years,
been
the
subject
of
three
parliamentary
inquiries.
The
result
is
embodied
in
Mr.
Scriven's
Report
of
1841
to
the
\"Children's
Employment
Commissioners,\"
in
the
report
of
Dr.
Greenhow
of
1860
published
by
order
of
the
medical
officer
of
the
Privy
Council
(Public
Health,
3rd
Report,
112-113),lastly,
in
the
report
of
Mr.
Longe
of
1862
in
the
\"First
Report
of
the
Children's
Employment
Commission,of
the
13th
June,
1863.\"
For
my
purpose
it
is
enough
to
take,
from
the
reports
of
1860
and
1863,
some
depositions
of
the
exploited
children
themselves.
From
the
children
we
may
form
an
opinion
as
to
the
adults,especially
the
girls
and
women,
and
that
in
a
branch
of
industry
by
the
side
of
which
cotton-spinning
appears
an
agreeable
and
healthful
occupation.
33
William
Wood,
9
years
old,
was
7
years
and
10
months
when
he
began
to
work.
He
\"ran
moulds\"(carried
ready-moulded
articles
into
the
drying-room,afterwards
bringing
back
the
empty
mould)
from
the
beginning.
He
came
to
work
every
day
in
the
week
at
6
a.m.,
and
left
off
about
9
p.m.
\"I
work
till
9
o'clock
at
night
six
days
in
the
week.
I
have
done
so
seven
or
eight
weeks.\"
Fifteen
hours
of
labour
for
a
child
7
years
old!
J.
Murray,
12
years
of
age,
says:
\"I
turn
jigger,
and
run
moulds.
I
come
at
6.
Sometimes
I
come
at
4.
I
worked
all
night
last
night,
till
6
o'clock
this
morning.
I
have
not
been
in
bed
since
the
night
before
last.
There
were
eight
or
nine
other
boys
working
last
night.
All
but
one
have
come
this
morning.
I
get
3
shillings
and
sixpence.
I
do
not
get
any
more
for
working
at
night.
I
worked
two
nights
last
week.\"
Fernyhough,
a
boy
of
ten:
\"I
have
not
always
an
hour
(for
dinner).
I
have
only
half
an
hour
sometimes;
on
Thursday,
Friday,and
Saturday.\"
34
Dr.
Greenhow
states
that
the
average
duration
of
life
in
the
pottery
districts
of
Stoke-on-Trent,
and
Wolstanton
is
extraordinarily
short.
Although
in
the
district
of
Stoke,
only
36.6%
and
in
Wolstanton
only
30.4%
of
the
adult
male
population
above
20
are
employed
in
the
potteries,
among
the
men
of
that
age
in
the
first
district
more
than
half,
in
the
second,
nearly
2\/5
of
the
whole
deaths
are
the
result
of
pulmonary
diseases
among
the
potters.
Dr.
Boothroyd,
a
medical
practitioner
at
Hanley,
says:
\"Each
successive
generation
of
potters
is
more
dwarfed
and
less
robust
than
the
preceding
one.\"
In
like
manner
another
doctor,
Mr.
M'Bean:
\"Since
he
began
to
practice
among
the
potters
25
years
ago,
he
had
observed
a
marked
degeneration
especially
shown
in
diminution
of
stature
and
breadth.\"
Greenhow
in
1860.35
These
statements
are
taken
from
the
report
of
Dr.
From
the
report
of
the
Commissioners
in
1863,
the
following:
Dr.
J.
T.
Arledge,
senior
physician
of
the
North
Staffordshire
Infirmary,
says:
\"The
potters
as
a
class,
both
men
and
women,represent
a
degenerated
population,
both
physically
and
morally.
They
are,
as
a
rule,
stunted
in
growth,ill-shaped,
and
frequently
ill-formed
in
the
chest;they
become
prematurely
old,
and
are
certainly
short-lived;
they
are
phlegmatic
and
bloodless,and
exhibit
their
debility
of
constitution
by
obstinate
attacks
of
dyspepsia,
and
disorders
of
the
liver
and
kidneys,
and
by
rheumatism.
But
of
all
diseases
they
are
especially
prone
to
chest-disease,to
pneumonia,
phthisis,
bronchitis,
and
asthma.One
form
would
appear
peculiar
to
them,
and
is
known
as
potter's
asthma,
or
potter's
consumption.Scrofula
attacking
the
glands,
or
bones,
or
other
parts
of
the
body,
is
a
disease
of
two-thirds
or
more
of
the
potters
....
That
the
'degenerescence'of
the
population
of
this
district
is
not
even
greater
than
it
is,
is
due
to
the
constant
recruiting
from
the
adjacent
country,
and
intermarriages
with
more
healthy
races.\"36
Mr.
Charles
Parsons,
late
house
surgeon
of
the
same
institution,
writes
in
a
letter
to
Commissioner
Longe,amongst
other
things:
\"I
can
only
speak
from
personal
observation
and
not
from
statistical
data,
but
I
do
not
hesitate
to
assert
that
my
indignation
has
been
aroused
again
and
again
at
the
sight
of
poor
children
whose
health
has
been
sacrificed
to
gratify
the
avarice
of
either
parents
or
employers.\"
He
enumerates
the
causes
of
the
diseases
of
the
potters,
and
sums
them
up
in
the
phrase,
\"long
hours.\"
The
report
of
the
Commission
trusts
that
\"a
manufacture
which
has
assumed
so
prominent
a
place
in
the
whole
world,
will
not
long
be
subject
to
the
remark
that
its
great
success
is
accompanied
with
the
physical
deterioration,
widespread
bodily
suffering,
and
early
death
of
the
workpeople
...
by
whose
labour
and
skill
such
great
results
have
been
achieved.\"
37
And
all
that
holds
of
the
potteries
in
England
is
true
of
those
in
Scotland.38
The
manufacture
of
lucifer
matches
dates
from
1833,
from
the
discovery
of
the
method
of
applying
phosphorus
to
the
match
itself.
Since
1845
this
manufacture
has
rapidly
developed
in
England,and
has
extended
especially
amongst
the
thickly
populated
parts
of
London
as
well
as
in
Manchester,Birmingham,
Liverpool,
Bristol,
Norwich,
Newcastle
and
Glasgow.
With
it
has
spread
the
form
of
lockjaw,which
a
Vienna
physician
in
1845
discovered
to
be
a
disease
peculiar
to
lucifer-matchmakers.
Half
the
workers
are
children
under
thirteen,
and
young
persons
under
eighteen.
The
manufacture
is
on
account
of
its
unhealthiness
and
unpleasantness
in
such
bad
odour
that
only
the
most
miserable
part
of
the
labouring
class,
half-starved
widows
and
so
forth,
deliver
up
their
children
to
it,
\"the
ragged,
half-starved,
untaught
children.\"39
Of
the
witnesses
that
Commissioner
White
examined
(1863),
270
were
under
18,
50
under
10,
10
only
8,
and
5
only
6
years
old.
A
range
of
the
working
day
from
12
to
14
or
15
hours,
night-labour,
irregular
meal-times,
meals
for
the
most
part
taken
in
the
very
workrooms
that
are
pestilent
with
phosphorus.
Dante
would
have
found
the
worst
horrors
of
his
Inferno
surpassed
in
this
manufacture.
In
the
manufacture
of
paper-hangings
the
coarser
sorts
are
printed
by
machine;
the
finer
by
hand
(block
printing).
The
most
active
business
months
are
from
the
beginning
of
October
to
the
end
of
April.
During
this
time
the
work
goes
on
fast
and
furious
without
intermission
from
6
a.m.
to
10
p.m.
or
further
into
the
night.
J.
Leach
deposes:
\"Last
winter
six
out
of
nineteen
girls
were
away
from
ill-health
at
one
time
from
over-work.
I
have
to
bawl
at
them
to
keep
them
awake.\"
W.
Duffy:
\"I
have
seen
when
the
children
could
none
of
them
keep
their
eyes
open
for
the
work;
indeed,
none
of
us
could.\"
J.
Lightbourne:
\"Am
13
...
We
worked
last
winter
till
9
(evening),
and
the
winter
before
till
10.
I
used
to
cry
with
sore
feet
every
night
last
winter.\"
G.
Apsden:
\"That
boy
of
mine
when
he
was
7
years
old
I
used
to
carry
him
on
my
back
to
and
fro
through
the
snow,
and
he
used
to
have
16
hours
a
day
...
I
have
often
knelt
down
to
feed
him
as
he
stood
by
the
machine,
for
he
could
not
leave
it
or
stop.\"
Smith,
the
managing
partner
of
a
Manchester
factory:
\"We
(he
means
his
\"hands\"who
work
for
\"us\")
work
on
with
no
stoppage
for
meals,
so
that
day's
work
of
10
hours
is
finished
by
4.30
p.m.,
and
all
after
that
is
over-time.\"40(Does
this
Mr.
Smith
take
no
meals
himself
during
10
hours)
\"We
(this
same
Smith)
seldom
leave
off
working
before
6
p.m.
(he
means
leave
off
the
consumption
of
\"our\"
labour-power
machines),
so
that
we
(iterum
Crispinus)
are
really
working
over
time
the
whole
year
round.
For
all
these,
children
and
adults
alike
(152
children
and
young
persons
and
140
adults),
the
average
work
for
the
last
18
months
has
been
at
the
very
least
7
days,
5
hours,or
78
1\/2
hours
a
week.
For
the
six
weeks
ending
May
2nd
this
year
(1862),
the
average
was
higher–
8
days
or
84
hours
a
week.\"
Still
this
same
Mr.
Smith,
who
is
so
extremely
devoted
to
the
pluralis
majestatis
[the
Royal
\"we,\"
i.e.,speaking
on
behalf
of
his
subjects],
adds
with
a
smile,\"Machine-work
is
not
great.\"
So
the
employers
in
the
block-printing
say:
\"Hand
labour
is
more
healthy
than
machine
work.\"
On
the
whole,
manufacturers
declare
with
indignation
against
the
proposal
\"to
stop
the
machines
at
least
during
meal-times.\"
\"A
clause,\"
says
Mr.
Otley,
manager
of
a
wall
paper
factory
in
the
Borough,
\"which
allowed
work
between,
say
6
a.m.
and
9
p.m.
in
would
suit
us
(!)
very
well,
but
the
factory
hours,
6
a.m.to
6
p.m.,
are
not
suitable.
Our
machine
is
always
stopped
for
dinner.
(What
generosity!)
There
is
no
waste
of
paper
and
colour
to
speak
of.
But,\"
he
adds
sympathetically,
\"I
can
understand
the
loss
of
time
not
being
liked.\"
The
report
of
the
Commission
opines
with
naveté
that
the
fear
of
some
\"leading
firms\"
of
losing
time,i.e.,
the
time
for
appropriating
the
labour
of
others,and
thence
losing
profit
is
not
a
sufficient
reason
for
allowing
children
under
13,
and
young
persons
under
18,
working
12
to
16
hours
per
day,
to
lose
their
dinner,
nor
for
giving
it
to
them
as
coal
and
water
are
supplied
to
the
steam-engine,
soap
to
wool,
oil
to
the
wheel
–
as
merely
auxiliary
material
to
the
instruments
of
labour,
during
the
process
of
production
itself.41
No
branch
of
industry
in
England
(we
do
not
take
into
account
the
making
of
bread
by
machinery
recently
introduced)
has
preserved
up
to
the
present
day
a
method
of
production
so
archaic,
so
–
as
we
see
from
the
poets
of
the
Roman
Empire
–
pre-christian,
as
baking.
But
capital,
as
was
said
earlier,
is
at
first
indifferent
as
to
the
technical
character
of
the
labour
process;
it
begins
by
taking
it
just
as
it
finds
it.
The
incredible
adulteration
of
bread,
especially
in
London,
was
first
revealed
by
the
House
of
Commons
Committee
\"on
the
adulteration
of
articles
of
food\"(1855-56),
and
Dr.
Hassall's
work,
\"Adulterations
detected.\"
42The
consequence
of
these
revelations
was
the
Act
of
August
6th,
1860,
\"for
preventing
the
adulteration
of
articles
of
food
and
drink,\"
an
inoperative
law,
as
it
naturally
shows
the
tenderest
consideration
for
every
Free-trader
who
determines
by
the
buying
or
selling
of
adulterated
commodities\"to
turn
an
honest
penny.\"
43The
Committee
itself
formulated
more
or
less
navely
its
conviction
that
Free-trade
meant
essentially
trade
with
adulterated,or
as
the
English
ingeniously
put
it,
\"sophisticated\"goods.
In
fact
this
kind
of
sophistry
knows
better
than
Protagoras
how
to
make
white
black,
and
black
white,and
better
than
the
Eleatics
how
to
demonstrate
ad
oculos
[before
your
own
eyes]
that
everything
is
only
44appearance.
精選分類