- 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
In
this
chapter,
as
hitherto,
the
value
of
labour
power,
and
therefore
the
part
of
the
working
day
necessary
for
the
reproduction
or
maintenance
of
that
labour-power,
are
supposed
to
be
given,
constant
magnitudes.
This
premised,
with
the
rate,
the
mass
is
at
the
same
time
given
of
the
surplus-value
that
the
individual
labourer
furnishes
to
the
capitalist
in
a
definite
period
of
time.
If,
e.g.,
the
necessary
labour
amounts
to
6
hours
daily,
expressed
in
a
quantum
of
gold
=
3
shillings,
then
3s.
is
the
daily
value
of
one
labour
power
or
the
value
of
the
capital
advanced
in
the
buying
of
one
labour-power.
If,
further,
the
rate
of
surplus-value
be
=
100%,
this
variable
capital
of
3s.
produces
a
mass
of
surplus-value
of
3s.,
or
the
labourer
supplies
daily
a
mass
of
surplus
labour
equal
to
6
hours.
But
the
variable
capital
of
a
capitalist
is
the
expression
in
money
of
the
total
value
of
all
the
labour-powers
that
he
employs
simultaneously.
Its
value
is,
therefore,
equal
to
the
average
value
of
one
labour-power,
multiplied
by
the
number
of
labour
powers
employed.
With
a
given
value
of
labour
power,
therefore,
the
magnitude
of
the
variable
capital
varies
directly
as
the
number
of
labourers
employed
simultaneously.
If
the
daily
value
of
one
labour-power=
3s.,
then
a
capital
of
300s.
must
be
advanced
in
order
to
exploit
daily
100
labour-powers,
of
n
times
3s.,
in
order
to
exploit
daily
n
labour-powers.
In
the
same
way,
if
a
variable
capital
of
3s.,
being
the
daily
value
of
one
labour-power,
produce
a
daily
surplus-value
of
3s.,
a
variable
capital
of
300s.
will
produce
a
daily
surplus-value
of
300s.,
and
one
of
n
times
3s.
a
daily
surplus-value
of
n
×
3s.
The
mass
of
the
surplus-value
produced
is
therefore
equal
to
the
surplus-value
which
the
working
day
of
one
labourer
supplies
multiplied
by
the
number
of
labourers
employed.
But
as
further
the
mass
of
surplus-value
which
a
single
labourer
produces,
the
value
of
labour
power
being
given,
is
determined
by
the
rate
of
the
surplus-value,
this
law
follows:
the
mass
of
the
surplus-value
produced
is
equal
to
the
amount
of
the
variable
capital
advanced,
multiplied
by
the
rate
of
surplus-value,
in
other
words:
it
is
determined
by
the
compound
ratio
between
the
number
of
labour-powers
exploited
simultaneously
by
the
same
capitalist
and
the
degree
of
exploitation
of
each
individual
labour
power.
Let
the
mass
of
the
surplus-value
be
S,
the
surplus
value
supplied
by
the
individual
labourer
in
the
average
day
s
the
variable
capital
daily
advanced
in
the
purchase
of
one
individual
labour-power
v,
the
sum
total
of
the
variable
capital
V,
the
value
of
an
average
labour-power
P,
its
degree
of
exploitation
(a'\/a)
(surplus
labour\/necessary-labour)
and
the
number
of
labourers
employed
n;
we
would
have:
It
is
always
supposed,
not
only
that
the
value
of
an
average
labour-power
is
constant,
but
that
the
labourers
employed
by
a
capitalist
are
reduced
to
average
labourers.
There
are
exceptional
cases
in
which
the
surplus-value
produced
does
not
increase
in
proportion
to
the
number
of
labourers
exploited,
but
then
the
value
of
the
labour-power
does
not
remain
constant.
In
the
production
of
a
definite
mass
of
surplus
value,
therefore
the
decrease
of
one
factor
may
be
compensated
by
the
increase
of
the
other.
If
the
variable
capital
diminishes,
and
at
the
same
time
the
rate
of
surplus-value
increases
in
the
same
ratio,
the
mass
of
surplus-value
produced
remains
unaltered.
If
on
our
earlier
assumption
the
capitalist
must
advance
300s.,
in
order
to
exploit
100
labourers
a
day,
and
if
the
rate
of
surplus-value
amounts
to
50%,
this
variable
capital
of
300s.
yields
a
surplus-value
of
150s.
or
of
100
×
3
working
hours.
If
the
rate
of
surplus
value
doubles,
or
the
working
day,
instead
of
being
extended
from
6
to
9,
is
extended
from
6
to
12
hours
and
at
the
same
time
variable
capital
is
lessened
by
half,
and
reduced
to
150s.,
it
yields
also
a
surplus
value
of
150s.
or
50
×
6
working
hours.
Diminution
of
the
variable
capital
may
therefore
be
compensated
by
a
proportionate
rise
in
the
degree
of
exploitation
of
labour-power,
or
the
decrease
in
the
number
of
the
labourers
employed
by
a
proportionate
extension
of
the
working
day.
Within
certain
limits
therefore
the
supply
of
labour
exploitable
by
capital
is
independent
of
the
supply
of
labourers.1On
the
contrary,
a
fall
in
the
rate
of
surplus-value
leaves
unaltered
the
mass
of
the
surplus-value
produced,
if
the
amount
of
the
variable
capital,
or
number
of
the
labourers
employed,increases
in
the
same
proportion.
Nevertheless,
the
compensation
of
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
labourers
employed,
or
of
the
amount
of
variable
capital
advanced
by
a
rise
in
the
rate
of
surplus-value,
or
by
the
lengthening
of
the
working
day,
has
impassable
limits.
Whatever
the
value
of
labour-power
may
be,
whether
the
working
time
necessary
for
the
maintenance
of
the
labourer
is
2
or
10
hours,
the
total
value
that
a
labourer
can
produce,
day
in,
day
out,
is
always
less
than
the
value
in
which
24
hours
of
labour
are
embodied,
less
than
12s.,
if
12s.
is
the
money
expression
for
24
hours
of
realised
labour.
In
our
former
assumption,
according
to
which
6
working
hours
are
daily
necessary
in
order
to
reproduce
the
labour-power
itself
or
to
replace
the
value
of
the
capital
advanced
in
its
purchase,
a
variable
capital
of
1,500s.,
that
employs
500
labourers
at
a
rate
of
surplus-value
of
100%
with
a
12
hours'working
day,
produces
daily
a
surplus-value
of
1,500s.or
of
6
×
500
working
hours.
A
capital
of
300s.
that
employs
100
labourers
a
day
with
a
rate
of
surplus
value
of
200%
or
with
a
working
day
of
18
hours,produces
only
a
mass
of
surplus-value
of
600s.
or
12×
100
working
hours;
and
its
total
value-product,
the
equivalent
of
the
variable
capital
advanced
plus
the
surplus-value,
can,
day
in,
day
out,
never
reach
the
sum
of
1,200s.
or
24
×
100
working
hours.
The
absolute
limit
of
the
average
working
day
–
this
being
by
nature
always
less
than
24
hours
–
sets
an
absolute
limit
to
the
compensation
of
a
reduction
of
variable
capital
by
a
higher
rate
of
surplus-value,
or
of
the
decrease
of
the
number
of
labourers
exploited
by
a
higher
degree
of
exploitation
of
labour-power.
This
palpable
law
is
of
importance
for
the
clearing
up
of
many
phenomena,arising
from
a
tendency
(to
be
worked
out
later
on)
of
capital
to
reduce
as
much
as
possible
the
number
of
labourers
employed
by
it,
or
its
variable
constituent
transformed
into
labour-power,
in
contradiction
to
its
other
tendency
to
produce
the
greatest
possible
mass
of
surplus-value.
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
mass
of
labour-power
employed,
or
the
amount
of
variable
capital,
increases,
but
not
in
proportion
to
the
fall
in
the
rate
of
surplus-value,
the
mass
of
the
surplus-value
produced,
falls.
A
third
law
results
from
the
determination,
of
the
mass
of
the
surplus-value
produced,
by
the
two
factors:
rate
of
surplus-value
and
amount
of
variable
capital
advanced.
The
rate
of
surplus-value,
or
the
degree
of
exploitation
of
labour-power,
and
the
value
of
labour-power,
or
the
amount
of
necessary
working
time
being
given,
it
is
self
evident
that
the
greater
the
variable
capital,
the
greater
would
be
the
mass
of
the
value
produced
and
of
the
surplus-value.
If
the
limit
of
the
working
day
is
given,
and
also
the
limit
of
its
necessary
constituent,
the
mass
of
value
and
surplus
value
that
an
individual
capitalist
produces,
is
clearly
exclusively
dependent
on
the
mass
of
labour
that
he
sets
in
motion.
But
this,
under
the
conditions
supposed
above,
depends
on
the
mass
of
labour-power,
or
the
number
of
labourers
whom
he
exploits,
and
this
number
in
its
turn
is
determined
by
the
amount
of
the
variable
capital
advanced.
With
a
given
rate
of
surplus-value,
and
a
given
value
of
labour-power,therefore,
the
masses
of
surplus-value
produced
vary
directly
as
the
amounts
of
the
variable
capitals
advanced.
Now
we
know
that
the
capitalist
divides
his
capital
into
two
parts.
One
part
he
lays
out
in
means
of
production.
This
is
the
constant
part
of
his
capital.
The
other
part
he
lays
out
in
living
labour-power.
This
part
forms
his
variable
capital.
On
the
basis
of
the
same
mode
of
social
production,
the
division
of
capital
into
constant
and
variable
differs
in
different
branches
of
production,
and
within
the
same
branch
of
production,too,
this
relation
changes
with
changes
in
the
technical
conditions
and
in
the
social
combinations
of
the
processes
of
production.
But
in
whatever
proportion
a
given
capital
breaks
up
into
a
constant
and
a
variable
part,
whether
the
latter
is
to
the
former
as
1:2
or
1:10
or
1:x,
the
law
just
laid
down
is
not
affected
by
this.For,
according
to
our
previous
analysis,
the
value
of
the
constant
capital
reappears
in
the
value
of
the
product,
but
does
not
enter
into
the
newly
produced
value,
the
newly
created
value
product.
To
employ
1,000
spinners,
more
raw
material,
spindles,
&c.,
are,of
course,
required,
than
to
employ
100.
The
value
of
these
additional
means
of
production
however
may
rise,
fall,
remain
unaltered,
be
large
or
small;it
has
no
influence
on
the
process
of
creation
of
surplus-value
by
means
of
the
labour-powers
that
put
them
in
motion.
The
law
demonstrated
above
now,therefore,
takes
this
form:
the
masses
of
value
and
of
surplus-value
produced
by
different
capitals
–
the
value
of
labour-power
being
given
and
its
degree
of
exploitation
being
equal
–
vary
directly
as
the
amounts
of
the
variable
constituents
of
these
capitals,
i.e.,as
their
constituents
transformed
into
living
labour
power.
This
law
clearly
contradicts
all
experience
based
on
appearance.
Everyone
knows
that
a
cotton
spinner,who,
reckoning
the
percentage
on
the
whole
of
his
applied
capital,
employs
much
constant
and
little
variable
capital,
does
not,
on
account
of
this,
less
profit
or
surplus-value
than
a
baker,
who
relatively
sets
in
motion
much
variable
and
little
constant
capital.For
the
solution
of
this
apparent
contradiction,
many
intermediate
terms
are
as
yet
wanted,
as
from
the
standpoint
of
elementary
algebra
many
intermediate
terms
are
wanted
to
understand
that
0\/0
may
represent
an
actual
magnitude.
Classical
economy,
although
not
formulating
the
law,
holds
instinctively
to
it,
because
it
is
a
necessary
consequence
of
the
general
law
of
value.
It
tries
to
rescue
the
law
from
collision
with
contradictory
phenomena
by
a
violent
abstraction.
It
will
be
seen
later2how
the
school
of
Ricardo
has
come
to
grief
over
this
stumbling
block.
Vulgar
economy
which,
indeed,
\"has
really
learnt
nothing,\"
here
as
everywhere
sticks
to
appearances
in
opposition
to
the
law
which
regulates
and
explains
them.
In
opposition
to
Spinoza,
it
believes
that
\"ignorance
is
a
sufficient
reason.\"
The
labour
which
is
set
in
motion
by
the
total
capital
of
a
society,
day
in,
day
out,
may
be
regarded
as
a
single
collective
working
day.
If,
e.g.,
the
number
of
labourers
is
a
million,
and
the
average
working
day
of
a
labourer
is
10
hours,
the
social
working
day
consists
of
ten
million
hours.
With
a
given
length
of
this
working
day,
whether
its
limits
are
fixed
physically
or
socially,
the
mass
of
surplus-value
can
only
be
increased
by
increasing
the
number
of
labourers,
i.e.,of
the
labouring
population.
The
growth
of
population
here
forms
the
mathematical
limit
to
the
production
of
surplus-value
by
the
total
social
capital.
On
the
contrary,
with
a
given
amount
of
population,
this
limit
is
formed
by
the
possible
lengthening
of
the
workingday.3It
will,
however,
be
seen
in
the
followingchapter
that
this
law
only
holds
for
the
form
of
surplus-value
dealt
with
up
to
the
present.
From
the
treatment
of
the
production
of
surplus
value,
so
far,
it
follows
that
not
every
sum
of
money,or
of
value,
is
at
pleasure
transformable
into
capital.To
effect
this
transformation,
in
fact,
a
certain
minimum
of
money
or
of
exchange-value
must
be
presupposed
in
the
hands
of
the
individual
possessor
of
money
or
commodities.
The
minimum
of
variable
capital
is
the
cost
price
of
a
single
labour-power,employed
the
whole
year
through,
day
in,
day
out,for
the
production
of
surplus-value.
If
this
labourer
were
in
possession
of
his
own
means
of
production,and
were
satisfied
to
live
as
a
labourer,
he
need
not
work
beyond
the
time
necessary
for
the
reproduction
of
his
means
of
subsistence,
say
8
hours
a
day.
He
would,
besides,
only
require
the
means
of
production
sufficient
for
8
working
hours.
The
capitalist,
on
the
other
hand,
who
makes
him
do,
besides
these
8
hours,say
4
hours'
surplus
labour,
requires
an
additional
sum
of
money
for
furnishing
the
additional
means
of
production.
On
our
supposition,
however,
he
would
have
to
employ
two
labourers
in
order
to
live,
on
the
surplus-value
appropriated
daily,
as
well
as,
and
no
better
than
a
labourer,
i.e.,
to
be
able
to
satisfy
his
necessary
wants.
In
this
case
the
mere
maintenance
of
life
would
be
the
end
of
his
production,
not
the
increase
of
wealth;
but
this
latter
is
implied
in
capitalist
production.
That
he
may
live
only
twice
as
well
as
an
ordinary
labourer,
and
besides
turn
half
of
the
surplus-value
produced
into
capital,
he
would
have
to
raise,
with
the
number
of
labourers,
the
minimum
of
the
capital
advanced
8
times.
Of
course
he
can,
like
his
labourer,
take
to
work
himself,
participate
directly
in
the
process
of
production,
but
he
is
then
only
a
hybrid
between
capitalist
and
labourer,
a
\"small
master.\"A
certain
stage
of
capitalist
production
necessitates
that
the
capitalist
be
able
to
devote
the
whole
of
the
time
during
which
he
functions
as
a
capitalist,
i.e.,
as
personified
capital,
to
the
appropriation
and
therefore
control
of
the
labour
of
others,
and
to
the
selling
of
the
products
of
this
labour.4The
guilds
of
the
middle
ages
therefore
tried
to
prevent
by
force
the
transformation
of
the
master
of
a
trade
into
a
capitalist,
by
limiting
the
number
of
labourers
that
could
be
employed
by
one
master
within
a
very
small
maximum.
The
possessor
of
money
or
commodities
actually
turns
into
a
capitalist
in
such
cases
only
where
the
minimum
sum
advanced
for
production
greatly
exceeds
the
maximum
of
the
middle
ages.
Here,
as
in
natural
science,
is
shown
the
correctness
of
the
law
discovered
by
Hegel(in
his
\"Logic\"),
that
merely
quantitative
differences
beyond
a
certain
point
pass
into
qualitative
changes.5
The
minimum
of
the
sum
of
value
that
the
individual
possessor
of
money
or
commodities
must
command,in
order
to
metamorphose
himself
into
a
capitalist,changes
with
the
different
stages
of
development
of
capitalist
production,
and
is
at
given
stages
different
in
different
spheres
of
production,
according
to
their
special
and
technical
conditions.
Certain
spheres
of
production
demand,
even
at
the
very
outset
of
capitalist
production,
a
minimum
of
capital
that
is
not
as
yet
found
in
the
hands
of
single
individuals.This
gives
rise
partly
to
state
subsidies
to
private
persons,
as
in
France
in
the
time
of
Clobber,
and
as
in
many
German
states
up
to
our
own
epoch,
partly
to
the
formation
of
societies
with
legal
monopoly
for
the
exploitation
of
certain
branches
of
industry
and
commerce,
the
forerunners
of
our
modern
joint
stock
companies.6
Within
the
process
of
production,
as
we
have
seen,capital
acquired
the
command
over
labour,
i.e.,
over
functioning
labour-power
or
the
labourer
himself.Personified
capital,
the
capitalist
takes
care
that
the
labourer
does
his
work
regularly
and
with
the
proper
degree
of
intensity.
Capital
further
developed
into
a
coercive
relation,which
compels
the
working
class
to
do
more
work
than
the
narrow
round
of
its
own
life-wants
prescribes.As
a
producer
of
the
activity
of
others,
as
a
pumper
out
of
surplus
labour
and
exploiter
of
labour-power,
it
surpasses
in
energy,
disregard
of
bounds,
recklessness
and
efficiency,
all
earlier
systems
of
production
based
on
directly
compulsory
labour.
At
first,
capital
subordinates
labour
on
the
basis
of
the
technical
conditions
in
which
it
historically
finds
it.
It
does
not,
therefore,
change
immediately
the
mode
of
production.
The
production
of
surplus-value
–
in
the
form
hitherto
considered
by
us
–
by
means
of
simple
extension
of
the
working
day,
proved,
therefore,
to
be
independent
of
any
change
in
the
mode
of
production
itself.
It
was
not
less
active
in
the
old-fashioned
bakeries
than
in
the
modern
cotton
factories.
If
we
consider
the
process
of
production
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
simple
labour
process,
the
labourer
stands
in
relation
to
the
means
of
production,not
in
their
quality
as
capital,
but
as
the
mere
means
and
material
of
his
own
intelligent
productive
activity.In
tanning,
e.g.,
he
deals
with
the
skins
as
his
simple
object
of
labour.
It
is
not
the
capitalist
whose
skin
he
tans.
But
it
is
different
as
soon
as
we
deal
with
the
process
of
production
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
process
of
creation
of
surplus-value.
The
means
of
production
are
at
once
changed
into
means
for
the
absorption
of
the
labour
of
others.
It
is
now
no
longer
the
labourer
that
employs
the
means
of
production,
but
the
means
of
production
that
employ
the
labourer.
Instead
of
being
consumed
by
him
as
material
elements
of
his
productive
activity,
they
consume
him
as
the
ferment
necessary
to
their
own
life-process,
and
the
life-process
of
capital
consists
only
in
its
movement
as
value
constantly
expanding,constantly
multiplying
itself.
Furnaces
and
workshops
that
stand
idle
by
night,
and
absorb
no
living
labour,are
\"a
mere
loss\"
to
the
capitalist.
Hence,
furnaces
and
workshops
constitute
lawful
claims
upon
the
night
labour
of
the
work-people.
The
simple
transformation
of
money
into
the
material
factors
of
the
process
of
production,
into
means
of
production,
transforms
the
latter
into
a
title
and
a
right
to
the
labour
and
surplus
labour
of
others.
An
example
will
show,
in
conclusion,how
this
sophistication,
peculiar
to
and
characteristic
of
capitalist
production,
this
complete
inversion
of
the
relation
between
dead
and
living
labour,
between
value
and
the
force
that
creates
value,
mirrors
itself
in
the
consciousness
of
capitalists.
During
the
revolt
of
the
English
factory
lords
between
1848
and
1850,\"the
head
of
one
of
the
oldest
and
most
respectable
houses
in
the
West
of
Scotland,
Messrs.
Carlile
Sons
&
Co.,
of
the
linen
and
cotton
thread
factory
at
Paisley,
a
company
which
has
now
existed
for
about
a
century,
which
was
in
operation
in
1752,
and
four
generations
of
the
same
family
have
conducted
it\"
...this
\"very
intelligent
gentleman\"
then
wrote
a
letter7in
the
Glasgow
Daily
of
April
25th,
1849,
with
the
title,
\"The
relay
system,\"
in
which
among
other
things
the
following
grotesquely
nave
passage
occurs:
\"Let
us
now
...
see
what
evils
will
attend
the
limiting
to
10
hours
the
working
of
the
factory....
They
amount
to
the
most
serious
damage
to
the
millowner's
prospects
and
property.
If
he
(i.e.,
his
\"hands\")
worked
12
hours
before,
and
is
limited
to
10,
then
every
12
machines
or
spindles
in
his
establishment
shrink
to
10,
and
should
the
works
be
disposed
of,
they
will
be
valued
only
as
10,
so
that
a
sixth
part
would
thus
be
deducted
from
the
value
of
every
factory
in
the
country.\"8
To
this
West
of
Scotland
bourgeois
brain,
inheriting
the
accumulated
capitalistic
qualities
of
\"four
generations,\"
the
value
of
the
means
of
production,spindles,
&c.,
is
so
inseparably
mixed
up
with
their
property,
as
capital,
to
expand
their
own
value,
and
to
swallow
up
daily
a
definite
quantity
of
the
unpaid
labour
of
others,
that
the
head
of
the
firm
of
Carlile&
Co.
actually
imagines
that
if
he
sells
his
factory,not
only
will
the
value
of
the
spindles
be
paid
to
him,but,
in
addition,
their
power
of
annexing
surplus
value,
not
only
the
labour
which
is
embodied
in
them,and
is
necessary
to
the
production
of
spindles
of
this
kind,
but
also
the
surplus
labour
which
they
help
to
pump
out
daily
from
the
brave
Scots
of
Paisley,
and
for
that
very
reason
he
thinks
that
with
the
shortening
of
the
working
day
by
2
hours,
the
selling-price
of
12
spinning
machines
dwindles
to
that
of
10!
NOTES:
1This
elementary
law
appears
to
be
unknown
to
the
vulgar
economists,
who,
upside-down
Archimedes,
in
the
determination
of
the
market-price
of
labour
by
supply
and
demand,
imagine
they
have
found
the
fulcrum
by
means
of
which,
not
to
move
the
world,
but
to
stop
its
motion.
2Further
particulars
will
be
given
in
Book
IV.
3\"The
Labour,
that
is
the
economic
time,
of
society,
is
a
given
portion,
say
ten
hours
a
day
of
a
million
of
people,or
ten
million
hours....
Capital
has
its
boundary
of
increase.This
boundary
may,
at
any
given
period,
be
attained
in
the
actual
extent
of
economic
time
employed.\"
(\"An
Essay
on
the
Political
Economy
of
Nations.\"
London,
1821,
pp.
47,
49.)
4\"The
farmer
cannot
rely
on
his
own
labour,
and
if
he
does,
I
will
maintain
that
he
is
a
loser
by
it.
His
employment
should
be
a
general
attention
to
the
whole:
his
thresher
must
be
watched,
or
he
will
soon
lose
his
wages
in
corn
not
threshed
out,
his
mowers,
reapers,
&c.,
must
be
looked
after;
he
must
constantly
go
round
his
fences;
he
must
see
there
is
no
neglect;which
would
be
the
case
if
he
was
confined
to
any
one
spot.\"(\"An
Inquiry
into
the
Connexion
between
the
Present
Price
of
Provisions
and
the
Size
of
Farms,
&c.
By
a
Farmer.\"
London,1773,
p.
12.)
This
book
is
very
interesting.
In
it
the
genesis
of
the
\"capitalist
farmer\"
or
\"merchant
farmer,\"
as
he
is
explicitly
called,
may
be
studied,
and
his
self-glorification
at
the
expense
of
the
small
farmer
who
has
only
to
do
with
bare
subsistence,be
noted.
\"The
class
of
capitalists
are
from
the
first
partially,and
they
become
ultimately
completely,
discharged
from
the
necessity
of
the
manual
labour.\"
(\"Textbook
of
Lectures
on
the
Political
Economy
of
Nations.
By
the
Rev.
Richard
Jones.\"Hertford
1852.
Lecture
III.,
p.
39.)
5The
molecular
theory
of
modern
chemistry
first
scientifically
worked
out
by
Laurent
and
Gerhardt
rests
on
no
other
law.
(Addition
to
3rd
Edition.)
For
the
explanation
of
this
statement,
which
is
not
very
clear
to
non-chemists,
we
remark
that
the
author
speaks
here
of
the
homologous
series
of
carbon
compounds,
first
so
named
by
C.
Gerhardt
in
1843,each
series
of
which
has
its
own
general
algebraic
formula.Thus
the
series
of
paraffins:
CnH2n 2,
that
of
the
normal
alcohols:
CnH2n 2O;
of
the
normal
fatty
acids:
CnH2nO2
and
many
others.
In
the
above
examples,
by
the
simply
quantitative
addition
of
CH2
to
the
molecular
formula,
a
qualitatively
different
body
is
each
time
formed.
On
the
share
(overestimated
by
Marx)
of
Laurent
and
Gerhardt
in
the
determination
of
this
important
fact
see
Kopp,
\"Entwicklung
der
Chemie.\"Munchen,
1873,
pp.
709,
716,
and
Schorkmmer,
\"The
Rise
and
Development
of
Organic
Chemistry.\"
London,
1879,
p.
54.
—
F.
E..
See
Letter
from
Marx
to
Engels,
22
June
1867
For
Hegel's
formulation
of
the
idea
in
the
Logic,
see
Remark:Examples
of
Such
Nodal
Lines;
the
Maxim,
'Nature
Does
Not
Make
Leaps'.
6Martin
Luther
calls
these
kinds
of
institutions:
\"The
Company
Monopolia.\"
7Reports
of
Insp.
of
Fact.,
April
30th,
1849,
p.
59.
8l.c.,
p.
60.
Factory
Inspector
Stuart,
himself
a
Scotchman,and
in
contrast
to
the
English
Factory
Inspectors,
quite
taken
captive
by
the
capitalistic
method
of
thinking,
remarks
expressly
on
this
letter
which
he
incorporates
in
his
report
that
it
is
\"the
most
useful
of
the
communications
which
any
of
the
factory-owners
working
with
relays
have
given
to
those
engaged
in
the
same
trade,
and
which
is
the
most
calculated
to
remove
the
prejudices
of
such
of
them
as
have
scruples
respecting
any
change
of
the
arrangement
of
the
hours
of
work.\"
精選分類
