- 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
CHAPTER
12:
THE
CONCEPT
OF
RELATIVE
SURPLUS-VALUE
That
portion
of
the
working
day
which
merely
produces
an
equivalent
for
the
value
paid
by
the
capitalist
for
his
labour-power,
has,
up
to
this
point,
been
treated
by
us
as
a
constant
magnitude,
and
such
in
fact
it
is,
under
given
conditions
of
production
and
at
a
given
stage
in
the
economic
development
of
society.
Beyond
this,
his
necessary
labour-time,
the
labourer,
we
saw,
could
continue
to
work
for
2,
3,
4,6,
&c.,
hours.
The
rate
of
surplus-value
and
the
length
of
the
working
day
depended
on
the
magnitude
of
this
prolongation.
Though
the
necessary
labour-time
was
constant,
we
saw,
on
the
other
hand,
that
the
total
working
day
was
variable.
Now
suppose
we
have
a
working
day
whose
length,
and
whose
apportionment
between
necessary
labour
and
surplus
labour,
are
given.
Let
the
whole
line
a
c,
a–b–c
represent,
for
example,
a
working
day
of
12
hours;
the
portion
of
a
b
10
hours
of
necessary
labour,
and
the
portion
b
c
2
hours
of
surplus
labour.
How
now
can
the
production
of
surplus-value
be
increased,
i.e.,
how
can
the
surplus
labour
be
prolonged,
without,
or
independently
of,
any
prolongation
of
a
c
Although
the
length
of
a
c
is
given,
b
c
appears
to
be
capable
of
prolongation,
if
not
by
extension
beyond
its
end
c,
which
is
also
the
end
of
the
working
day
a
c,yet,
at
all
events,
by
pushing
back
its
starting-point
b
in
the
direction
of
a.
Assume
that
b'–b
in
the
line
ab'bc
is
equal
to
half
of
b
c
a–––b'–b––c
or
to
one
hour's
labour-time.
If
now,
in
a
c,
the
working
day
of
12
hours,
we
move
the
point
b
to
b',b
c
becomes
b'
c;
the
surplus
labour
increases
by
one
half,
from
2
hours
to
3
hours,
although
the
working
day
remains
as
before
at
12
hours.
This
extension
of
the
surplus
labour-time
from
b
c
to
b'
c,
from
2
hours
to
3
hours,
is,
however,
evidently
impossible,
without
a
simultaneous
contraction
of
the
necessary
labour
time
from
a
b
into
a
b',
from
10
hours
to
9
hours.
The
prolongation
of
the
surplus
labour
would
correspond
to
a
shortening
of
the
necessary
labour;
or
a
portion
of
the
labour-time
previously
consumed,
in
reality,for
the
labourer's
own
benefit,
would
be
converted
into
labour-time
for
the
benefit
of
the
capitalist.There
would
be
an
alteration,
not
in
the
length
of
the
working
day,
but
in
its
division
into
necessary
labour
time
and
surplus
labour-time.
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
evident
that
the
duration
of
the
surplus
labour
is
given,
when
the
length
of
the
working
day,
and
the
value
of
labour-power,
are
given.
The
value
of
labour-power,
i.e.,
the
labour
time
requisite
to
produce
labour-power,
determines
the
labour-time
necessary
for
the
reproduction
of
that
value.
If
one
working-hour
be
embodied
in
sixpence,and
the
value
of
a
day's
labour-power
be
five
shillings,the
labourer
must
work
10
hours
a
day,
in
order
to
replace
the
value
paid
by
capital
for
his
labour-power,or
to
produce
an
equivalent
for
the
value
of
his
daily
necessary
means
of
subsistence.
Given
the
value
of
these
means
of
subsistence,
the
value
of
his
labour
power
is
given;1and
given
the
value
of
his
labour
power,
the
duration
of
his
necessary
labour-time
is
given.
The
duration
of
the
surplus
labour,
however,is
arrived
at,
by
subtracting
the
necessary
labour
time
from
the
total
working
day.
Ten
hours
subtracted
from
twelve,
leave
two,
and
it
is
not
easy
to
see,
how,
under
the
given
conditions,
the
surplus
labour
can
possibly
be
prolonged
beyond
two
hours.
No
doubt,the
capitalist
can,
instead
of
five
shillings,
pay
the
labourer
four
shillings
and
sixpence
or
even
less.
For
the
reproduction
of
this
value
of
four
shillings
and
sixpence,
nine
hours'
labour-time
would
suffice;
and
consequently
three
hours
of
surplus
labour,
instead
of
two,
would
accrue
to
the
capitalist,
and
the
surplus
value
would
rise
from
one
shilling
to
eighteen-pence.This
result,
however,
would
be
obtained
only
by
lowering
the
wages
of
the
labourer
below
the
value
of
his
labour-power.
With
the
four
shillings
and
sixpence
which
he
produces
in
nine
hours,
he
commands
one
tenth
less
of
the
necessaries
of
life
than
before,
and
consequently
the
proper
reproduction
of
his
labour
power
is
crippled.
The
surplus
labour
would
in
this
case
be
prolonged
only
by
an
overstepping
of
its
normal
limits;
its
domain
would
be
extended
only
by
a
usurpation
of
part
of
the
domain
of
necessary
labour-time.
Despite
the
important
part
which
this
method
plays
in
actual
practice,
we
are
excluded
from
considering
it
in
this
place,
by
our
assumption,
that
all
commodities,
including
labour-power,
are
bought
and
sold
at
their
full
value.
Granted
this,
it
follows
that
the
labour-time
necessary
for
the
production
of
labour-power,
or
for
the
reproduction
of
its
value,cannot
be
lessened
by
a
fall
in
the
labourer's
wages
below
the
value
of
his
labour-power,
but
only
by
a
fall
in
this
value
itself.
Given
the
length
of
the
working
day,
the
prolongation
of
the
surplus
labour
must
of
necessity
originate
in
the
curtailment
of
the
necessary
labour-time;
the
latter
cannot
arise
from
the
former.In
the
example
we
have
taken,
it
is
necessary
that
the
value
of
labour-power
should
actually
fall
by
one
tenth,
in
order
that
the
necessary
labour-time
may
be
diminished
by
one-tenth,
i.e.,
from
ten
hours
to
nine,and
in
order
that
the
surplus
labour
may
consequently
be
prolonged
from
two
hours
to
three.
Such
a
fall
in
the
value
of
labour-power
implies,however,
that
the
same
necessaries
of
life
which
were
formerly
produced
in
ten
hours,
can
now
be
produced
in
nine
hours.
But
this
is
impossible
without
an
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour.
For
example,
suppose
a
shoe-maker,
with
given
tools,makes
in
one
working
day
of
twelve
hours,
one
pair
of
boots.
If
he
must
make
two
pairs
in
the
same
time,the
productiveness
of
his
labour
must
be
doubled;and
this
cannot
be
done,
except
by
an
alteration
in
his
tools
or
in
his
mode
of
working,
or
in
both.
Hence,
the
conditions
of
production,
i.e.,
his
mode
of
production,and
the
labour-process
itself,
must
be
revolutionised.By
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
we
mean,
generally,
an
alteration
in
the
labour-process,of
such
a
kind
as
to
shorten
the
labour-time
socially
necessary
for
the
production
of
a
commodity,
and
to
endow
a
given
quantity
of
labour
with
the
power
of
producing
a
greater
quantity
of
use-value.2Hitherto
in
treating
of
surplus-value,
arising
from
a
simple
prolongation
of
the
working
day,
we
have
assumed
the
mode
of
production
to
be
given
and
invariable.But
when
surplus-value
has
to
be
produced
by
the
conversion
of
necessary
labour
into
surplus
labour,it
by
no
means
suffices
for
capital
to
take
over
the
labour-process
in
the
form
under
which
it
has
been
historically
handed
down,
and
then
simply
to
prolong
the
duration
of
that
process.
The
technical
and
social
conditions
of
the
process,
and
consequently
the
very
mode
of
production
must
be
revolutionised,
before
the
productiveness
of
labour
can
be
increased.
By
that
means
alone
can
the
value
of
labour-power
be
made
to
sink,
and
the
portion
of
the
working
day
necessary
for
the
reproduction
of
that
value,
be
shortened.
The
surplus-value
produced
by
prolongation
of
the
working
day,
I
call
absolute
surplus-value.
On
the
other
hand,
the
surplus-value
arising
from
the
curtailment
of
the
necessary
labour-time,
and
from
the
corresponding
alteration
in
the
respective
lengths
of
the
two
components
of
the
working
day,
I
call
relative
surplus-value.
In
order
to
effect
a
fall
in
the
value
of
labour
power,
the
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour
must
seize
upon
those
branches
of
industry
whose
products
determine
the
value
of
labour-power,
and
consequently
either
belong
to
the
class
of
customary
means
of
subsistence,
or
are
capable
of
supplying
the
place
of
those
means.
But
the
value
of
a
commodity
is
determined,
not
only
by
the
quantity
of
labour
which
the
labourer
directly
bestows
upon
that
commodity,but
also
by
the
labour
contained
in
the
means
of
production.
For
instance,
the
value
of
a
pair
of
boots
depends
not
only
on
the
cobbler's
labour,
but
also
on
the
value
of
the
leather,
wax,
thread,
&c.
Hence,
a
fall
in
the
value
of
labour-power
is
also
brought
about
by
an
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
and
by
a
corresponding
cheapening
of
commodities
in
those
industries
which
supply
the
instruments
of
labour
and
the
raw
material,
that
form
the
material
elements
of
the
constant
capital
required
for
producing
the
necessaries
of
life.
But
an
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour
in
those
branches
of
industry
which
supply
neither
the
necessaries
of
life,
nor
the
means
of
production
for
such
necessaries,
leaves
the
value
of
labour-power
undisturbed.
The
cheapened
commodity,
of
course,
causes
only
a
pro
tanto
fall
in
the
value
of
labour-power,
a
fall
proportional
to
the
extent
of
that
commodity's
employment
in
the
reproduction
of
labour-power.Shirts,
for
instance,
are
a
necessary
means
of
subsistence,
but
are
only
one
out
of
many.
The
totality
of
the
necessaries
of
life
consists,
however,
of
various
commodities,
each
the
product
of
a
distinct
industry;and
the
value
of
each
of
those
commodities
enters
as
a
component
part
into
the
value
of
labour-power.
This
latter
value
decreases
with
the
decrease
of
the
labourtime
necessary
for
its
reproduction;
the
total
decrease
being
the
sum
of
all
the
different
curtailments
of
labour-time
effected
in
those
various
and
distinct
industries.
This
general
result
is
treated,
here,
as
if
it
were
the
immediate
result
directly
aimed
at
in
each
individual
case.
Whenever
an
individual
capitalist
cheapens
shirts,
for
instance,
by
increasing
the
productiveness
of
labour
he
by
no
means
necessarily
aims
at
reducing
the
value
of
labour-power
and
shortening,
pro
tanto
the
necessary
labour-time.
But
it
is
only
in
so
far
as
he
ultimately
contributes
to
this
result,
that
he
assists
in
raising
the
general
rate
of
surplus-value.3The
general
and
necessary
tendencies
of
capital
must
be
distinguished
from
their
forms
of
manifestation.
It
is
not
our
intention
to
consider,
here,
the
way
in
which
the
laws,
immanent
in
capitalist
production,manifest
themselves
in
the
movements
of
individual
masses
of
capital,
where
they
assert
themselves
as
coercive
laws
of
competition,
and
are
brought
home
to
the
mind
and
consciousness
of
the
individual
capitalist
as
the
directing
motives
of
his
operations.
But
this
much
is
clear;
a
scientific
analysis
of
competition
is
not
possible,
before
we
have
a
conception
of
the
inner
nature
of
capital,
just
as
the
apparent
motions
of
the
heavenly
bodies
are
not
intelligible
to
any
but
him,who
is
acquainted
with
their
real
motions,
motions
which
are
not
directly
perceptible
by
the
senses.Nevertheless,
for
the
better
comprehension
of
the
production
of
relative
surplus-value,
we
may
add
the
following
remarks,
in
which
we
assume
nothing
more
than
the
results
we
have
already
obtained.
If
one
hour's
labour
is
embodied
in
sixpence,
a
value
of
six
shillings
will
be
produced
in
a
working
day
of
12
hours.
Suppose,
that
with
the
prevailing
productiveness
of
labour,
12
articles
are
produced
in
these
12
hours.
Let
the
value
of
the
means
of
production
used
up
in
each
article
be
sixpence.
Under
these
circumstances,
each
article
costs
one
shilling:sixpence
for
the
value
of
the
means
of
production,
and
sixpence
for
the
value
newly
added
in
working
with
those
means.
Now
let
some
one
capitalist
contrive
to
double
the
productiveness
of
labour,
and
to
produce
in
the
working
day
of
12
hours,
24
instead
of
12
such
articles.
The
value
of
the
means
of
production
remaining
the
same,
the
value
of
each
article
will
fall
to
ninepence,
made
up
of
sixpence
for
the
value
of
the
means
of
production
and
threepence
for
the
value
newly
added
by
the
labour.
Despite
the
doubled
productiveness
of
labour,
the
day's
labour
creates,as
before,
a
new
value
of
six
shillings
and
no
more,which,
however,
is
now
spread
over
twice
as
many
articles.
Of
this
value
each
article
now
has
embodied
in
it
1\/24th,
instead
of
1\/12th,
threepence
instead
of
sixpence;
or,
what
amounts
to
the
same
thing,
only
half
an
hour's
instead
of
a
whole
hour's
labour-time,is
now
added
to
the
means
of
production
while
they
are
being
transformed
into
each
article.
The
individual
value
of
these
articles
is
now
below
their
social
value;in
other
words,
they
have
cost
less
labour-time
than
the
great
bulk
of
the
same
article
produced
under
the
average
social
conditions.
Each
article
costs,
on
an
average,
one
shilling,
and
represents
2
hours
of
social
labour;
but
under
the
altered
mode
of
production
it
costs
only
ninepence,
or
contains
only
1
hours'labour.
The
real
value
of
a
commodity
is,
however,not
its
individual
value,
but
its
social
value;
that
is
to
say,
the
real
value
is
not
measured
by
the
labour
time
that
the
article
in
each
individual
case
costs
the
producer,
but
by
the
labour-time
socially
required
for
its
production.
If
therefore,
the
capitalist
who
applies
the
new
method,
sells
his
commodity
at
its
social
value
of
one
shilling,
he
sells
it
for
threepence
above
its
individual
value,
and
thus
realises
an
extra
surplus
value
of
threepence.
On
the
other
hand,
the
working
day
of
12
hours
is,
as
regards
him,
now
represented
by
24
articles
instead
of
12.
Hence,
in
order
to
get
rid
of
the
product
of
one
working
day,
the
demand
must
be
double
what
it
was,
i.e.,
the
market
must
become
twice
as
extensive.
Other
things
being
equal,
his
commodities
can
command
a
more
extended
market
only
by
a
diminution
of
their
prices.
He
will
therefore
sell
them
above
their
individual
but
under
their
social
value,
say
at
tenpence
each.
By
this
means
he
still
squeezes
an
extra
surplus-value
of
one
penny
out
of
each.
This
augmentation
of
surplus-value
is
pocketed
by
him,
whether
his
commodities
belong
or
not
to
the
class
of
necessary
means
of
subsistence
that
participate
in
determining
the
general
value
of
labour-power.Hence,
independently
of
this
latter
circumstance,
there
is
a
motive
for
each
individual
capitalist
to
cheapen
his
commodities,
by
increasing
the
productiveness
of
labour.
Nevertheless,
even
in
this
case,
the
increased
production
of
surplus-value
arises
from
the
curtailment
of
the
necessary
labour-time,
and
from
the
corresponding
prolongation
of
the
surplus
labour.4Let
the
necessary
labour-time
amount
to
10
hours,
the
value
of
a
day's
labour-power
to
five
shillings,
the
surplus
labour
time
to
2
hours,
and
the
daily
surplus-value
to
one
shilling.
But
the
capitalist
now
produces
24
articles,which
he
sells
at
tenpence
a-piece,
making
twenty
shillings
in
all.
Since
the
value
of
the
means
of
production
is
twelve
shillings,
14
2\/5
of
these
articles
merely
replace
the
constant
capital
advanced.
The
labour
of
the
12
hours'
working
day
is
represented
by
the
remaining
9
3\/5
articles.
Since
the
price
of
the
labour-power
is
five
shillings,
6
articles
represent
the
necessary
labour-time,
and
3
3\/5
articles
the
surplus
labour.
The
ratio
of
the
necessary
labour
to
the
surplus
labour,
which
under
average
social
conditions
was
5:1,is
now
only
5:3.
The
same
result
may
be
arrived
at
in
the
following
way.
The
value
of
the
product
of
the
working
day
of
12
hours
is
twenty
shillings.
Of
this
sum,
twelve
shillings
belong
to
the
value
of
the
means
of
production,
a
value
that
merely
re-appears.
There
remain
eight
shillings,
which
are
the
expression
in
money,
of
the
value
newly
created
during
the
working
day.
This
sum
is
greater
than
the
sum
in
which
average
social
labour
of
the
same
kind
is
expressed:
twelve
hours
of
the
latter
labour
are
expressed
by
six
shillings
only.
The
exceptionally
productive
labour
operates
as
intensified
labour;
it
creates
in
equal
periods
of
time
greater
values
than
average
social
labour
of
the
same
kind.
(See
Ch.
I.
Sect
2.
p.
44.)
But
our
capitalist
still
continues
to
pay
as
before
only
five
shillings
as
the
value
of
a
day's
labour-power.
Hence,
instead
of
10
hours,
the
labourer
need
now
work
only
7
hours,in
order
to
reproduce
this
value.
His
surplus
labour
is,
therefore,
increased
by
2
hours,
and
the
surplus
value
he
produces
grows
from
one,
into
three
shillings.Hence,
the
capitalist
who
applies
the
improved
method
of
production,
appropriates
to
surplus
labour
a
greater
portion
of
the
working
day,
than
the
other
capitalists
in
the
same
trade.
He
does
individually,
what
the
whole
body
of
capitalists
engaged
in
producing
relative
surplus-value,
do
collectively.
On
the
other
hand,however,
this
extra
surplus-value
vanishes,
so
soon
as
the
new
method
of
production
has
become
general,and
has
consequently
caused
the
difference
between
the
individual
value
of
the
cheapened
commodity
and
its
social
value
to
vanish.
The
law
of
the
determination
of
value
by
labour-time,
a
law
which
brings
under
its
sway
the
individual
capitalist
who
applies
the
new
method
of
production,
by
compelling
him
to
sell
his
goods
under
their
social
value,
this
same
law,
acting
as
a
coercive
law
of
competition,
forces
his
competitors
to
adopt
the
new
method.5The
general
rate
of
surplus
value
is,
therefore,
ultimately
affected
by
the
whole
process,
only
when
the
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
has
seized
upon
those
branches
of
production
that
are
connected
with,
and
has
cheapened
those
commodities
that
form
part
of,
the
necessary
means
of
subsistence,
and
are
therefore
elements
of
the
value
of
labour-power.
The
value
of
commodities
is
in
inverse
ratio
to
the
productiveness
of
labour.
And
so,
too,
is
the
value
of
labour-power,
because
it
depends
on
the
values
of
commodities.
Relative
surplus-value
is,
on
the
contrary,
directly
proportional
to
that
productiveness.
It
rises
with
rising
and
falls
with
falling
productiveness.The
value
of
money
being
assumed
to
be
constant,an
average
social
working
day
of
12
hours
always
produces
the
same
new
value,
six
shillings,
no
matter
how
this
sum
may
be
apportioned
between
surplus
value
and
wages.
But
if,
in
consequence
of
increased
productiveness,
the
value
of
the
necessaries
of
life
fall,
and
the
value
of
a
day's
labour-power
be
thereby
reduced
from
five
shillings
to
three,
the
surplus-value
increases
from
one
shilling
to
three.
Ten
hours
were
necessary
for
the
reproduction
of
the
value
of
the
labour-power;
now
only
six
are
required.
Four
hours
have
been
set
free,
and
can
be
annexed
to
the
domain
of
surplus
labour.
Hence
there
is
immanent
in
capital
an
inclination
and
constant
tendency,
to
heighten
the
productiveness
of
labour,
in
order
to
cheapen
commodities,
and
by
such
cheapening
to
cheapen
the
labourer
himself.6
The
value
of
a
commodity
is,
in
itself,
of
no
interest
to
the
capitalist.
What
alone
interests
him,
is
the
surplus-value
that
dwells
in
it,
and
is
realisable
by
sale.Realisation
of
the
surplus-value
necessarily
carries
with
it
the
refunding
of
the
value
that
was
advanced.Now,
since
relative
surplus-value
increases
in
direct
proportion
to
the
development
of
the
productiveness
of
labour,
while,
on
the
other
hand,
the
value
of
commodities
diminishes
in
the
same
proportion;
since
one
and
the
same
process
cheapens
commodities,and
augments
the
surplus-value
contained
in
them;we
have
here
the
solution
of
the
riddle:
why
does
the
capitalist,
whose
sole
concern
is
the
production
of
exchange-value,
continually
strive
to
depress
the
exchange-value
of
commodities
A
riddle
with
which
Quesnay,
one
of
the
founders
of
Political
Economy,tormented
his
opponents,
and
to
which
they
could
give
him
no
answer.
\"You
acknowledge,\"
he
says,
\"that
the
more
expenses
and
the
cost
of
labour
can,
in
the
manufacture
of
industrial
products,
be
reduced
without
injury
to
production,
the
more
advantageous
is
such
reduction,because
it
diminishes
the
price
of
the
finished
article.And
yet,
you
believe
that
the
production
of
wealth,which
arises
from
the
labour
of
the
workpeople,consists
in
the
augmentation
of
the
exchange-value
of
their
products.\"7
The
shortening
of
the
working
day
is,
therefore,
by
no
means
what
is
aimed
at,
in
capitalist
production,when
labour
is
economised
by
increasing
its
productiveness.8It
is
only
the
shortening
of
the
labour-time,
necessary
for
the
production
of
a
definite
quantity
of
commodities,
that
is
aimed
at.
The
fact
that
the
workman,
when
the
productiveness
of
his
labour
has
been
increased,
produces,
say
10
times
as
many
commodities
as
before,
and
thus
spends
one-tenth
as
much
labour-time
on
each,
by
no
means
prevents
him
from
continuing
to
work
12
hours
as
before,
nor
from
producing
in
those
12
hours
1,200
articles
instead
of
120.
Nay,
more,
his
working
day
may
be
prolonged
at
the
same
time,
so
as
to
make
him
produce,
say
1,400
articles
in
14
hours.
In
the
treatises,
therefore,of
economists
of
the
stamp
of
MacCulloch,
Ure,Senior,
and
tutti
quanti
[the
like],
we
may
read
upon
one
page,
that
the
labourer
owes
a
debt
of
gratitude
to
capital
for
developing
his
productiveness,
because
the
necessary
labour-time
is
thereby
shortened,
and
on
the
next
page,
that
he
must
prove
his
gratitude
by
working
in
future
for
15
hours
instead
of
10.
The
object
of
all
development
of
the
productiveness
of
labour,
within
the
limits
of
capitalist
production,
is
to
shorten
that
part
of
the
working
day,
during
which
the
workman
must
labour
for
his
own
benefit,
and
by
that
very
shortening,
to
lengthen
the
other
part
of
the
day,
during
which
he
is
at
liberty
to
work
gratis
for
the
capitalist.
How
far
this
result
is
also
attainable,without
cheapening
commodities,
will
appear
from
an
examination
of
the
particular
modes
of
producing
relative
surplus-value,
to
which
examination
we
now
proceed.
NOTES:
1The
value
of
his
average
daily
wages
is
determined
by
what
the
labourer
requires
\"so
as
to
live,
labour,
and
generate.\"(Wm.
Petty:
\"Political
Anatomy
of
Ireland,\"
1672,
p.
64.)
\"The
price
of
Labour
is
always
constituted
of
the
price
of
necessaries...
whenever
...
the
labouring
man's
wages
will
not,
suitably
to
his
low
rank
and
station,
as
a
labouring
man,
support
such
a
family
as
is
often
the
lot
of
many
of
them
to
have,\"
he
does
not
receive
proper
wages.
(J.
Vanderlint,
l.c.,
p.
15.)
\"Le
simple
ouvrier,
qui
n'a
que
ses
bras
et
son
industrie,
n'a
rien
qu'autant
qu'il
parvient
à
vendre
à
d'autres
sa
peine...
En
tout
genre
de
travail
il
doit
arriver,
et
il
arrive
en
effet,
que
le
salaire
de
l'ouvrier
se
borne
à
ce
qui
lui
est
nécessaire
pour
lui
procurer
sa
subsistance.\"
[The
mere
workman,
who
has
only
his
arms
and
his
industry,
has
nothing
unless
he
succeeds
in
selling
his
labour
to
others
...
In
every
kind
of
work
it
cannot
fail
to
happen,
as
a
matter
of
fact
it
does
happen,
that
the
wages
of
the
workman
are
limited
to
what
is
necessary
to
procure
him
his
subsistence.]
(Turgot,
\"Réflexions,
&c.,\"
Oeuvres,
éd.
Daire
t.
I,
p.
10.)
\"The
price
of
the
necessaries
of
life
is,
in
fact,
the
cost
of
producing
labour.\"
(Malthus,
\"Inquiry
into,
&c.,
Rent,\"London,
1815,
p.
48,
note.)
2Quando
si
perfezionano
le
arti,
che
non
è
altro
che
la
scoperta
di
nuove
vie,
onde
si
possa
compiere
una
manufattura
con
meno
gente
o
(che
è
lo
stesso)
in
minor
tempo
di
prima.\"
(Galiani,
l.c.,
p.
159.)
\"L'économie
sur
les
frais
de
production
ne
peut
donc
être
autre
chose
que
l'économie
sur
la
quantité
de
travail
employé
pour
produire.\"
[Perfection
of
the
crafts
means
nothing
other
than
the
discovery
of
new
ways
of
making
a
product
with
fewer
people,
or
(which
is
the
same
thing)
in
less
time
than
previously]
(Sismondi,
\"études,\"
t.
I.
p.
22.)
3\"Let
us
suppose
...
the
products
...
of
the
manufacturer
are
doubled
by
improvement
in
machinery
...
he
will
be
able
to
clothe
his
workmen
by
means
of
a
smaller
proportion
of
the
entire
return
...
and
thus
his
profit
will
be
raised.
But
in
no
other
way
will
it
be
influenced.\"
(Ramsay,
l.c.,
pp.
168,
169.)
4\"A
man's
profit
does
not
depend
upon
his
command
of
the
produce
of
other
men's
labour,
but
upon
his
command
of
labour
itself.
If
he
can
sell
his
goods
at
a
higher
price,
while
his
workmen's
wages
remain
unaltered,
he
is
clearly
benefited....A
smaller
proportion
of
what
he
produces
is
sufficient
to
put
that
labour
into
motion,
and
a
larger
proportion
consequently
remains
for
himself.\"
(\"Outlines
of
Pol.
Econ.\"
London,
1832,pp.
49,
50.)
5\"If
my
neighbour
by
doing
much
with
little
labour,
can
sell
cheap,
I
must
contrive
to
sell
as
cheap
as
he.
So
that
every
art,trade,
or
engine,
doing
work
with
labour
of
fewer
hands,
and
consequently
cheaper,
begets
in
others
a
kind
of
necessity
and
emulation,
either
of
using
the
same
art,
trade,
or
engine,
or
of
inventing
something
like
it,
that
every
man
may
be
upon
the
square,
that
no
man
may
be
able
to
undersell
his
neighbour.\"(\"The
Advantages
of
the
East
India
Trade
to
England,\"
London,1720,
p.
67.)
6\"In
whatever
proportion
the
expenses
of
a
labourer
are
diminished,
in
the
same
proportion
will
his
wages
be
diminished,
if
the
restraints
upon
industry
are
at
the
same
time
taken
off.\"
(\"Considerations
Concerning
Taking
off
the
Bounty
on
Corn
Exported,\"
&c.,
London,
1753,
p.
7.)
\"The
interest
of
trade
requires,
that
corn
and
all
provisions
should
be
as
cheap
as
possible;
for
whatever
makes
them
dear,
must
make
labour
dear
also
...
in
all
countries,
where
industry
is
not
restrained,the
price
of
provisions
must
affect
the
price
of
labour.
This
will
always
be
diminished
when
the
necessaries
of
life
grow
cheaper.\"
(I.
c.,
p.
3.)
\"Wages
are
decreased
in
the
same
proportion
as
the
powers
of
production
increase.
Machinery,it
is
true,
cheapens
the
necessaries
of
life,
but
it
also
cheapens
the
labourer.\"
(\"A
Prize
Essay
on
the
Comparative
Merits
of
Competition
and
Co-operation.\"
London,
1834,
p.
27.)
7\"Ils
conviennent
que
plus
on
peut,
sans
préjudice,
épargner
de
frais
ou
de
travaux
dispendieux
dans
la
fabrication
des
ouvrages
des
artisans,
plus
cette
épargne
est
profitable
par
la
diminution
des
prix
de
ces
ouvrages.
Cependant
ils
croient
que
la
production
de
richesse
qui
résulte
des
travaux
des
artisans
consiste
dans
l'augmentation
de
la
valeur
vénale
de
leurs
ouvrages.\"
(Quesnay:
\"Dialogues
sur
le
Commerce
et
les
Travaux
des
Artisans.\"
pp.
188,
189.)
8\"Ces
spéculateurs
si
économes
du
travail
des
ouvriers
qu'il
faudrait
qu'ils
payassent.\"
[These
speculators,
who
are
so
economical
of
the
labour
of
workers
they
would
have
to
pay]
(J.
N.
Bidaut:
\"Du
Monopole
qui
s'établit
dans
les
arts
industriels
et
le
commerce.\"
Paris,
1828,
p.
13.)
\"The
employer
will
be
always
on
the
stretch
to
economise
time
and
labour.\"
(Dugald
Stewart:
Works
ed.
by
Sir
W.
Hamilton,Edinburgh,
v.,
viii.,
1855.
\"Lectures
on
Polit.
Econ.,\"
p.
318.)\"Their
(the
capitalists')
interest
is
that
the
productive
powers
of
the
labourers
they
employ
should
be
the
greatest
possible.On
promoting
that
power
their
attention
is
fixed
and
almost
exclusively
fixed.\"
(R.
Jones:
l.c.,
Lecture
III.)
精選分類
