資本論 CHAPTER 13: CO-OPERATION

Capitalist

production

only

then

really

begins,

as

we

have

already

seen,

when

each

individual

capital

employs

simultaneously

a

comparatively

large

number

of

labourers;

when

consequently

the

labour-process

is

carried

on

on

an

extensive

scale

and

yields,

relatively,

large

quantities

of

products.

A

greater

number

of

labourers

working

together,

at

the

same

time,

in

one

place

(or,

if

you

will,

in

the

same

field

of

labour),

in

order

to

produce

the

same

sort

of

commodity

under

the

mastership

of

one

capitalist,constitutes,

both

historically

and

logically,

the

starting

point

of

capitalist

production.

With

regard

to

the

mode

of

production

itself,

manufacture,

in

its

strict

meaning,is

hardly

to

be

distinguished,

in

its

earliest

stages,from

the

handicraft

trades

of

the

guilds,

otherwise

than

by

the

greater

number

of

workmen

simultaneously

employed

by

one

and

the

same

individual

capital.

The

workshop

of

the

medieval

master

handicraftsman

is

simply

enlarged.

At

first,

therefore,

the

difference

is

purely

quantitative.We

have

shown

that

the

surplus-value

produced

by

a

given

capital

is

equal

to

the

surplus-value

produced

by

each

workman

multiplied

by

the

number

of

workmen

simultaneously

employed.

The

number

of

workmen

in

itself

does

nor

affect,

either

the

rate

of

surplus

value,

or

the

degree

of

exploitation

of

labour-power.If

a

working

day

of

12

hours

be

embodied

in

six

shillings,

1,200

such

days

will

be

embodied

in

1,200

times

6

shillings.

In

one

case

12

×

1,200

working

hours,

and

in

the

other

12

such

hours

are

incorporated

in

the

product.

In

the

production

of

value

a

number

of

workmen

rank

merely

as

so

many

individual

workmen;

and

it

therefore

makes

no

difference

in

the

value

produced

whether

the

1,200

men

work

separately,

or

united

under

the

control

of

one

capitalist.

Nevertheless,

within

certain

limits,

a

modification

takes

place.

The

labour

realised

in

value,

is

labour

of

an

average

social

quality;

is

consequently

the

expenditure

of

average

labour-power.

Any

average

magnitude,

however,

is

merely

the

average

of

a

number

of

separate

magnitudes

all

of

one

kind,but

differing

as

to

quantity.

In

every

industry,

each

individual

labourer,

be

he

Peter

or

Paul,

differs

from

the

average

labourer.

These

individual

differences,

or\"errors\"

as

they

are

called

in

mathematics,

compensate

one

another,

and

vanish,

whenever

a

certain

minimum

number

of

workmen

are

employed

together.

The

celebrated

sophist

and

sycophant,

Edmund

Burke,goes

so

far

as

to

make

the

following

assertion,

based

on

his

practical

observations

as

a

farmer;

viz.,

that

\"in

so

small

a

platoon\"

as

that

of

five

farm

labourers,

all

individual

differences

in

the

labour

vanish,

and

that

consequently

any

given

five

adult

farm

labourers

taken

together,

will

in

the

same

time

do

as

much

work

as

any

other

five.1But,

however

that

may

be,

it

is

clear,that

the

collective

working

day

of

a

large

number

of

workmen

simultaneously

employed,

divided

by

the

number

of

these

workmen,

gives

one

day

of

average

social

labour.

For

example,

let

the

working

day

of

each

individual

be

12

hours.

Then

the

collective

working

day

of

12

men

simultaneously

employed,consists

of

144

hours;

and

although

the

labour

of

each

of

the

dozen

men

may

deviate

more

or

less

from

average

social

labour,

each

of

them

requiring

a

different

time

for

the

same

operation,

yet

since

the

working

day

of

each

is

one-twelfth

of

the

collective

working

day

of

144

hours,

it

possesses

the

qualities

of

an

average

social

working

day.

From

the

point

of

view,

however,

of

the

capitalist

who

employs

these

12

men,

the

working

day

is

that

of

the

whole

dozen.Each

individual

man's

day

is

an

aliquot

part

of

the

collective

working

day,

no

matter

whether

the

12

men

assist

one

another

in

their

work,

or

whether

the

connexion

between

their

operations

consists

merely

in

the

fact,

that

the

men

are

all

working

for

the

same

capitalist.

But

if

the

12

men

are

employed

in

six

pairs,by

as

many

different

small

masters,

it

will

be

quite

a

matter

of

chance,

whether

each

of

these

masters

produces

the

same

value,

and

consequently

whether

he

realises

the

general

rate

of

surplus-value.

Deviations

would

occur

in

individual

cases.

If

one

workman

required

considerably

more

time

for

the

production

of

a

commodity

than

is

socially

necessary,

the

duration

of

the

necessary

labour-time

would,

in

his

case,

sensibly

deviate

from

the

labour-time

socially

necessary

on

an

average;

and

consequently

his

labour

would

not

count

as

average

labour,

nor

his

labour-power

as

average

labour-power.

It

would

either

be

not

saleable

at

all,

or

only

at

something

below

the

average

value

of

labour

power.

A

fixed

minimum

of

efficiency

in

all

labour

is

therefore

assumed,

and

we

shall

see,

later

on,

that

capitalist

production

provides

the

means

of

fixing

this

minimum.

Nevertheless,

this

minimum

deviates

from

the

average,

although

on

the

other

hand

the

capitalist

has

to

pay

the

average

value

of

labour-power.

Of

the

six

small

masters,

one

would

therefore

squeeze

out

more

than

the

average

rate

of

surplus-value,

another

less.

The

inequalities

would

be

compensated

for

the

society

at

large,

but

not

for

the

individual

masters.Thus

the

laws

of

the

production

of

value

are

only

fully

realised

for

the

individual

producer,

when

he

produces

as

a

capitalist,

and

employs

a

number

of

workmen

together,

whose

labour,

by

its

collective

nature,

is

at

once

stamped

as

average

social

labour.2

Even

without

an

alteration

in

the

system

of

working,the

simultaneous

employment

of

a

large

number

of

labourers

effects

a

revolution

in

the

material

conditions

of

the

labour-process.

The

buildings

in

which

they

work,

the

store-houses

for

the

raw

material,

the

implements

and

utensils

used

simultaneously

or

in

turns

by

the

workmen;

in

short,

a

portion

of

the

means

of

production,

are

now

consumed

in

common.

On

the

one

hand,

the

exchange-value

of

these

means

of

production

is

not

increased;

for

the

exchange-value

of

a

commodity

is

not

raised

by

its

use-value

being

consumed

more

thoroughly

and

to

greater

advantage.On

the

other

hand,

they

are

used

in

common,

and

therefore

on

a

larger

scale

than

before.

A

room

where

twenty

weavers

work

at

twenty

looms

must

be

larger

than

the

room

of

a

single

weaver

with

two

assistants.But

it

costs

less

labour

to

build

one

workshop

for

twenty

persons

than

to

build

ten

to

accommodate

two

weavers

each;

thus

the

value

of

the

means

of

production

that

are

concentrated

for

use

in

common

on

a

large

scale

does

not

increase

in

direct

proportion

to

the

expansion

and

to

the

increased

useful

effect

of

those

means.

When

consumed

in

common,

they

give

up

a

smaller

part

of

their

value

to

each

single

product;partly

because

the

total

value

they

part

with

is

spread

over

a

greater

quantity

of

products,

and

partly

because

their

value,

though

absolutely

greater,

is,

having

regard

to

their

sphere

of

action

in

the

process,

relatively

less

than

the

value

of

isolated

means

of

production.

Owing

to

this,

the

value

of

a

part

of

the

constant

capital

falls,and

in

proportion

to

the

magnitude

of

the

fall,

the

total

value

of

the

commodity

also

falls.

The

effect

is

the

same

as

if

the

means

of

production

had

cost

less.The

economy

in

their

application

is

entirely

owing

to

their

being

consumed

in

common

by

a

large

number

of

workmen.

Moreover,

this

character

of

being

necessary

conditions

of

social

labour,

a

character

that

distinguishes

them

from

the

dispersed

and

relatively

more

costly

means

of

production

of

isolated,independent

labourers,

or

small

masters,

is

acquired

even

when

the

numerous

workmen

assembled

together

do

not

assist

one

another,

but

merely

work

side

by

side.

A

portion

of

the

instruments

of

labour

acquires

this

social

character

before

the

labour-process

itself

does

so.

Economy

in

the

use

of

the

means

of

production

has

to

be

considered

under

two

aspects.

First,

as

cheapening

commodities,

and

thereby

bringing

about

a

fall

in

the

value

of

labour-power.

Secondly,as

altering

the

ratio

of

the

surplus-value

to

the

total

capital

advanced,

i.e.,

to

the

sum

of

the

values

of

the

constant

and

variable

capital.

The

latter

aspect

will

not

be

considered

until

we

come

to

the

third

book,to

which,

with

the

object

of

treating

them

in

their

proper

connexion,

we

also

relegate

many

other

points

that

relate

to

the

present

question.

The

march

of

our

analysis

compels

this

splitting

up

of

the

subject

matter,

a

splitting

up

that

is

quite

in

keeping

with

the

spirit

of

capitalist

production.

For

since,

in

this

mode

of

production,

the

workman

finds

the

instruments

of

labour

existing

independently

of

him

as

another

man's

property,

economy

in

their

use

appears,

with

regard

to

him,

to

be

a

distinct

operation,

one

that

does

not

concern

him,

and

which,

therefore,

has

no

connexion

with

the

methods

by

which

his

own

personal

productiveness

is

increased.

When

numerous

labourers

work

together

side

by

side,

whether

in

one

and

the

same

process,

or

in

different

but

connected

processes,

they

are

said

to

co

operate,

or

to

work

in

co-operation.3

Just

as

the

offensive

power

of

a

squadron

of

cavalry,or

the

defensive

power

of

a

regiment

of

infantry

is

essentially

different

from

the

sum

of

the

offensive

or

defensive

powers

of

the

individual

cavalry

or

infantry

soldiers

taken

separately,

so

the

sum

total

of

the

mechanical

forces

exerted

by

isolated

workmen

differs

from

the

social

force

that

is

developed,

when

many

hands

take

part

simultaneously

in

one

and

the

same

undivided

operation,

such

as

raising

a

heavy

weight,turning

a

winch,

or

removing

an

obstacle.4In

such

cases

the

effect

of

the

combined

labour

could

either

not

be

produced

at

all

by

isolated

individual

labour,or

it

could

only

be

produced

by

a

great

expenditure

of

time,

or

on

a

very

dwarfed

scale.

Not

only

have

we

here

an

increase

in

the

productive

power

of

the

individual,

by

means

of

co-operation,

but

the

creation

of

a

new

power,

namely,

the

collective

power

of

masses.

5

Apart

from

the

new

power

that

arises

from

the

fusion

of

many

forces

into

one

single

force,

mere

social

contact

begets

in

most

industries

an

emulation

and

a

stimulation

of

the

animal

spirits

that

heighten

the

efficiency

of

each

individual

workman.

Hence

it

is

that

a

dozen

persons

working

together

will,

in

their

collective

working

day

of

144

hours,

produce

far

more

than

twelve

isolated

men

each

working

12

hours,

or

than

one

man

who

works

twelve

days

in

succession.6The

reason

of

this

is

that

man

is,

if

not

as

Aristotle

contends,

a

political,7at

all

events

a

social

animal.

Although

a

number

of

men

may

be

occupied

together

at

the

same

time

on

the

same,

or

the

same

kind

of

work,

yet

the

labour

of

each,

as

a

part

of

the

collective

labour,

may

correspond

to

a

distinct

phase

of

the

labour-process,

through

all

whose

phases,

in

consequence

of

co-operation,

the

subject

of

their

labour

passes

with

greater

speed.

For

instance,

if

a

dozen

masons

place

themselves

in

a

row,

so

as

to

pass

stones

from

the

foot

of

a

ladder

to

its

summit,

each

of

them

does

the

same

thing;

nevertheless,

their

separate

acts

form

connected

parts

of

one

total

operation;

they

are

particular

phases,

which

must

be

gone

through

by

each

stone;

and

the

stones

are

thus

carried

up

quicker

by

the

24

hands

of

the

row

of

men

than

they

could

be

if

each

man

went

separately

up

and

down

the

ladder

with

his

burden.8The

object

is

carried

over

the

same

distance

in

a

shorter

time.

Again,

a

combination

of

labour

occurs

whenever

a

building,

for

instance,is

taken

in

hand

on

different

sides

simultaneously;although

here

also

the

co-operating

masons

are

doing

the

same,

or

the

same

kind

of

work.

The

12

masons,

in

their

collective

working

day

of

144

hours,

make

much

more

progress

with

the

building

than

one

mason

could

make

working

for

12

days,

or

144

hours.

The

reason

is,

that

a

body

of

men

working

in

concert

has

hands

and

eyes

both

before

and

behind,

and

is,

to

a

certain

degree,

omnipresent.

The

various

parts

of

the

work

progress

simultaneously.

In

the

above

instances

we

have

laid

stress

upon

the

point

that

the

men

do

the

same,

or

the

same

kind

of

work,

because

this,

the

most

simple

form

of

labour

in

common,

plays

a

great

part

in

co-operation,

even

in

its

most

fully

developed

stage.

If

the

work

be

complicated,

then

the

mere

number

of

the

men

who

co-operate

allows

of

the

various

operations

being

apportioned

to

different

hands,

and,

consequently,

of

being

carried

on

simultaneously.

The

time

necessary

for

the

completion

of

the

whole

work

is

thereby

shortened.9

In

many

industries,

there

are

critical

periods,determined

by

the

nature

of

the

process,

during

which

certain

definite

results

must

be

obtained.

For

instance,if

a

flock

of

sheep

has

to

be

shorn,

or

a

field

of

wheat

to

be

cut

and

harvested,

the

quantity

and

quality

of

the

product

depends

on

the

work

being

begun

and

ended

within

a

certain

time.

In

these

cases,

the

time

that

ought

to

be

taken

by

the

process

is

prescribed,just

as

it

is

in

herring

fishing.

A

single

person

cannot

carve

a

working

day

of

more

than,

say

12

hours,

out

of

the

natural

day,

but

100

men

co-operating

extend

the

working

day

to

1,200

hours.

The

shortness

of

the

time

allowed

for

the

work

is

compensated

for

by

the

large

mass

of

labour

thrown

upon

the

field

of

production

at

the

decisive

moment.

The

completion

of

the

task

within

the

proper

time

depends

on

the

simultaneous

application

of

numerous

combined

working

days;

the

amount

of

useful

effect

depends

on

the

number

of

labourers;

this

number,

however,

is

always

smaller

than

the

number

of

isolated

labourers

required

to

do

the

same

amount

of

work

in

the

same

period.10It

is

owing

to

the

absence

of

this

kind

of

co-operation

that,in

the

western

part

of

the

United

States,

quantities

of

corn,

and

in

those

parts

of

East

India

where

English

rule

has

destroyed

the

old

communities,

quantities

of

cotton,

are

yearly

wasted.11

On

the

one

hand,

co-operation

allows

of

the

work

being

carried

on

over

an

extended

space;

it

is

consequently

imperatively

called

for

in

certain

undertakings,

such

as

draining,

constructing

dykes,irrigation

works,

and

the

making

of

canals,

roads

and

railways.

On

the

other

hand,

while

extending

the

scale

of

production,

it

renders

possible

a

relative

contraction

of

the

arena.

This

contraction

of

arena

simultaneous

with,

and

arising

from,

extension

of

scale,

whereby

a

number

of

useless

expenses

are

cut

down,

is

owing

to

the

conglomeration

of

labourers,

to

the

aggregation

of

various

processes,

and

to

the

concentration

of

the

means

of

production.12

The

combined

working

day

produces,

relatively

to

an

equal

sum

of

isolated

working

days,

a

greater

quantity

of

use-values,

and,

consequently,

diminishes

the

labour-time

necessary

for

the

production

of

a

given

useful

effect.

Whether

the

combined

working

day,

in

a

given

case,

acquires

this

increased

productive

power,

because

it

heightens

the

mechanical

force

of

labour,

or

extends

its

sphere

of

action

over

a

greater

space,

or

contracts

the

field

of

production

relatively

to

the

scale

of

production,

or

at

the

critical

moment

sets

large

masses

of

labour

to

work,

or

excites

emulation

between

individuals

and

raises

their

animal

spirits,or

impresses

on

the

similar

operations

carried

on

by

a

number

of

men

the

stamp

of

continuity

and

many

sidedness,

or

performs

simultaneously

different

operations,

or

economises

the

means

of

production

by

use

in

common,

or

lends

to

individual

labour

the

character

of

average

social

labour

whichever

of

these

be

the

cause

of

the

increase,

the

special

productive

power

of

the

combined

working

day

is,

under

all

circumstances,

the

social

productive

power

of

labour,or

the

productive

power

of

social

labour.

This

power

is

due

to

co-operation

itself.

When

the

labourer

co

operates

systematically

with

others,

he

strips

off

the

fetters

of

his

individuality,

and

develops

the

capabilities

of

his

species.13

As

a

general

rule,

labourers

cannot

co-operate

without

being

brought

together:

their

assemblage

in

one

place

is

a

necessary

condition

of

their

co

operation.

Hence

wage-labourers

cannot

co-operate,unless

they

are

employed

simultaneously

by

the

same

capital,

the

same

capitalist,

and

unless

therefore

their

labour-powers

are

bought

simultaneously

by

him.

The

total

value

of

these

labour-powers,

or

the

amount

of

the

wages

of

these

labourers

for

a

day,

or

a

week,

as

the

case

may

be,

must

be

ready

in

the

pocket

of

the

capitalist,

before

the

workmen

are

assembled

for

the

process

of

production.

The

payment

of

300

workmen

at

once,

though

only

for

one

day,

requires

a

greater

outlay

of

capital,

than

does

the

payment

of

a

smaller

number

of

men,

week

by

week,

during

a

whole

year.Hence

the

number

of

the

labourers

that

co-operate,

or

the

scale

of

co-operation,

depends,

in

the

first

instance,on

the

amount

of

capital

that

the

individual

capitalist

can

spare

for

the

purchase

of

labour-power;

in

other

words,

on

the

extent

to

which

a

single

capitalist

has

command

over

the

means

of

subsistence

of

a

number

of

labourers.

And

as

with

the

variable,

so

it

is

with

the

constant

capital.

For

example,

the

outlay

on

raw

material

is

30

times

as

great,

for

the

capitalist

who

employs

300

men,

as

it

is

for

each

of

the

30

capitalists

who

employ

10

men.

The

value

and

quantity

of

the

instruments

of

labour

used

in

common

do

not,

it

is

true,

increase

at

the

same

rate

as

the

number

of

workmen,

but

they

do

increase

very

considerably.

Hence,

concentration

of

large

masses

of

the

means

of

production

in

the

hands

of

individual

capitalists,

is

a

material

condition

for

the

co-operation

of

wage-labourers,

and

the

extent

of

the

co-operation

or

the

scale

of

production,

depends

on

the

extent

of

this

concentration.

We

saw

in

a

former

chapter,

that

a

certain

minimum

amount

of

capital

was

necessary,

in

order

that

the

number

of

labourers

simultaneously

employed,

and,consequently,

the

amount

of

surplus-value

produced,might

suffice

to

liberate

the

employer

himself

from

manual

labour,

to

convert

him

from

a

small

master

into

a

capitalist,

and

thus

formally

to

establish

capitalist

production.

We

now

see

that

a

certain

minimum

amount

is

a

necessary

condition

for

the

conversion

of

numerous

isolated

and

independent

processes

into

one

combined

social

process.

We

also

saw

that

at

first,

the

subjection

of

labour

to

capital

was

only

a

formal

result

of

the

fact,

that

the

labourer,

instead

of

working

for

himself,

works

for

and

consequently

under

the

capitalist.

By

the

co-operation

of

numerous

wage-labourers,

the

sway

of

capital

develops

into

a

requisite

for

carrying

on

the

labour

process

itself,

into

a

real

requisite

of

production.That

a

capitalist

should

command

on

the

field

of

production,

is

now

as

indispensable

as

that

a

general

should

command

on

the

field

of

battle.

All

combined

labour

on

a

large

scale

requires,

more

or

less,

a

directing

authority,

in

order

to

secure

the

harmonious

working

of

the

individual

activities,

and

to

perform

the

general

functions

that

have

their

origin

in

the

action

of

the

combined

organism,

as

distinguished

from

the

action

of

its

separate

organs.

A

single

violin

player

is

his

own

conductor;

an

orchestra

requires

a

separate

one.

The

work

of

directing,

superintending,and

adjusting,

becomes

one

of

the

functions

of

capital,from

the

moment

that

the

labour

under

the

control

of

capital,

becomes

co-operative.

Once

a

function

of

capital,

it

acquires

special

characteristics.

The

directing

motive,

the

end

and

aim

of

capitalist

production,

is

to

extract

the

greatest

possible

amount

of

surplus-value,14and

consequently

to

exploit

labour

power

to

the

greatest

possible

extent.

As

the

number

of

the

co-operating

labourers

increases,

so

too

does

their

resistance

to

the

domination

of

capital,

and

with

it,

the

necessity

for

capital

to

overcome

this

resistance

by

counterpressure.

The

control

exercised

by

the

capitalist

is

not

only

a

special

function,

due

to

the

nature

of

the

social

labour-process,

and

peculiar

to

that

process,

but

it

is,

at

the

same

time,

a

function

of

the

exploitation

of

a

social

labour-process,

and

is

consequently

rooted

in

the

unavoidable

antagonism

between

the

exploiter

and

the

living

and

labouring

raw

material

he

exploits.

Again,

in

proportion

to

the

increasing

mass

of

the

means

of

production,

now

no

longer

the

property

of

the

labourer,

but

of

the

capitalist,

the

necessity

increases

for

some

effective

control

over

the

proper

application

of

those

means.15Moreover,

the

co-operation

of

wage

labourers

is

entirely

brought

about

by

the

capital

that

employs

them.

Their

union

into

one

single

productive

body

and

the

establishment

of

a

connexion

between

their

individual

functions,

are

matters

foreign

and

external

to

them,

are

not

their

own

act,

but

the

act

of

the

capital

that

brings

and

keeps

them

together.Hence

the

connexion

existing

between

their

various

labours

appears

to

them,

ideally,

in

the

shape

of

a

preconceived

plan

of

the

capitalist,

and

practically

in

the

shape

of

the

authority

of

the

same

capitalist,in

the

shape

of

the

powerful

will

of

another,

who

subjects

their

activity

to

his

aims.

If,

then,

the

control

of

the

capitalist

is

in

substance

two-fold

by

reason

of

the

two-fold

nature

of

the

process

of

production

itself,

which,

on

the

one

hand,

is

a

social

process

for

producing

use-values,

on

the

other,

a

process

for

creating

surplus-value

in

form

that

control

is

despotic.As

co-operation

extends

its

scale,

this

despotism

takes

forms

peculiar

to

itself.

Just

as

at

first

the

capitalist

is

relieved

from

actual

labour

so

soon

as

his

capital

has

reached

that

minimum

amount

with

which

capitalist

production,

as

such,

begins,

so

now,

he

hands

over

the

work

of

direct

and

constant

supervision

of

the

individual

workmen,

and

groups

of

workmen,

to

a

special

kind

of

wage-labourer.

An

industrial

army

of

workmen,

under

the

command

of

a

capitalist,

requires,like

a

real

army,

officers

(managers),

and

sergeants(foremen,

overlookers),

who,

while

the

work

is

being

done,

command

in

the

name

of

the

capitalist.The

work

of

supervision

becomes

their

established

and

exclusive

function.

When

comparing

the

mode

of

production

of

isolated

peasants

and

artisans

with

production

by

slave-labour,

the

political

economist

counts

this

labour

of

superintendence

among

the

faux

frais

of

production.16But,

when

considering

the

capitalist

mode

of

production,

he,

on

the

contrary,treats

the

work

of

control

made

necessary

by

the

co

operative

character

of

the

labour-process

as

identical

with

the

different

work

of

control,

necessitated

by

the

capitalist

character

of

that

process

and

the

antagonism

of

interests

between

capitalist

and

labourer.17It

is

not

because

he

is

a

leader

of

industry

that

a

man

is

a

capitalist;

on

the

contrary,

he

is

a

leader

of

industry

because

he

is

a

capitalist.

The

leadership

of

industry

is

an

attribute

of

capital,

just

as

in

feudal

times

the

functions

of

general

and

judge,

were

attributes

of

landed

property.18

The

labourer

is

the

owner

of

his

labour-power

until

he

has

done

bargaining

for

its

sale

with

the

capitalist;and

he

can

sell

no

more

than

what

he

has

i.e.,

his

individual,

isolated

labour-power.

This

state

of

things

is

in

no

way

altered

by

the

fact

that

the

capitalist,

instead

of

buying

the

labour-power

of

one

man,

buys

that

of

100,

and

enters

into

separate

contracts

with

100

unconnected

men

instead

of

with

one.

He

is

at

liberty

to

set

the

100

men

to

work,

without

letting

them

co

operate.

He

pays

them

the

value

of

100

independent

labour-powers,

but

he

does

not

pay

for

the

combined

labour-power

of

the

hundred.

Being

independent

of

each

other,

the

labourers

are

isolated

persons,

who

enter

into

relations

with

the

capitalist,

but

not

with

one

another.

This

co-operation

begins

only

with

the

labour-process,

but

they

have

then

ceased

to

belong

to

themselves.

On

entering

that

process,

they

become

incorporated

with

capital.

As

co-operators,

as

members

of

a

working

organism,

they

are

but

special

modes

of

existence

of

capital.

Hence,

the

productive

power

developed

by

the

labourer

when

working

in

co-operation,

is

the

productive

power

of

capital.This

power

is

developed

gratuitously,

whenever

the

workmen

are

placed

under

given

conditions,

and

it

is

capital

that

places

them

under

such

conditions.Because

this

power

costs

capital

nothing,

and

because,on

the

other

hand,

the

labourer

himself

does

not

develop

it

before

his

labour

belongs

to

capital,

it

appears

as

a

power

with

which

capital

is

endowed

by

Nature

—

a

productive

power

that

is

immanent

in

capital.

The

colossal

effects

of

simple

co-operation

are

to

be

seen

in

the

gigantic

structures

of

the

ancient

Asiatics,Egyptians,

Etruscans,

&c.

\"It

has

happened

in

times

past

that

these

Oriental

States,

after

supplying

the

expenses

of

their

civil

and

military

establishments,

have

found

themselves

in

possession

of

a

surplus

which

they

could

apply

to

works

of

magnificence

or

utility

and

in

the

construction

of

these

their

command

over

the

hands

and

arms

of

almost

the

entire

non

agricultural

population

has

produced

stupendous

monuments

which

still

indicate

their

power.

The

teeming

valley

of

the

Nile

...

produced

food

for

a

swarming

non-agricultural

population,

and

this

food,

belonging

to

the

monarch

and

the

priesthood,

afforded

the

means

of

erecting

the

mighty

monuments

which

filled

the

land....

In

moving

the

colossal

statues

and

vast

masses

of

which

the

transport

creates

wonder,

human

labour

almost

alone,

was

prodigally

used....

The

number

of

the

labourers

and

the

concentration

of

their

efforts

sufficed.

We

see

mighty

coral

reefs

rising

from

the

depths

of

the

ocean

into

islands

and

firm

land,

yet

each

individual

depositor

is

puny,

weak,

and

contemptible.

The

non-agricultural

labourers

of

an

Asiatic

monarchy

have

little

but

their

individual

bodily

exertions

to

bring

to

the

task,

but

their

number

is

their

strength,

and

the

power

of

directing

these

masses

gave

rise

to

the

palaces

and

temples,

the

pyramids,

and

the

armies

of

gigantic

statues

of

which

the

remains

astonish

and

perplex

us.

It

is

that

confinement

of

the

revenues

which

feed

them,

to

one

or

a

few

hands,

which

makes

such

undertakings

possible.\"19

This

power

of

Asiatic

and

Egyptian

kings,

Etruscan

theocrats,

&c.,

has

in

modern

society

been

transferred

to

the

capitalist,

whether

he

be

an

isolated,

or

as

in

joint-stock

companies,

a

collective

capitalist.

Co-operation,

such

as

we

find

it

at

the

dawn

of

human

development,

among

races

who

live

by

the

chase,20or,

say,

in

the

agriculture

of

Indian

communities,

is

based,

on

the

one

hand,

on

ownership

in

common

of

the

means

of

production,

and

on

the

other

hand,

on

the

fact,

that

in

those

cases,

each

individual

has

no

more

torn

himself

off

from

the

navel-string

of

his

tribe

or

community,

than

each

bee

has

freed

itself

from

connexion

with

the

hive.Such

co-operation

is

distinguished

from

capitalistic

co-operation

by

both

of

the

above

characteristics.The

sporadic

application

of

co-operation

on

a

large

scale

in

ancient

times,

in

the

middle

ages,

and

in

modern

colonies,

reposes

on

relations

of

dominion

and

servitude,

principally

on

slavery.

The

capitalistic

form,

on

the

contrary,

pre-supposes

from

first

to

last,the

free

wage-labourer,

who

sells

his

labour-power

to

capital.

Historically,

however,

this

form

is

developed

in

opposition

to

peasant

agriculture

and

to

the

carrying

on

of

independent

handicrafts

whether

in

guilds

or

not.21From

the

standpoint

of

these,

capitalistic

co

operation

does

not

manifest

itself

as

a

particular

historical

form

of

co-operation,

but

co-operation

itself

appears

to

be

a

historical

form

peculiar

to,

and

specifically

distinguishing,

the

capitalist

process

of

production.

Just

as

the

social

productive

power

of

labour

that

is

developed

by

co-operation,

appears

to

be

the

productive

power

of

capital,

so

co-operation

itself,contrasted

with

the

process

of

production

carried

on

by

isolated

independent

labourers,

or

even

by

small

employers,

appears

to

be

a

specific

form

of

the

capitalist

process

of

production.

It

is

the

first

change

experienced

by

the

actual

labour-process,when

subjected

to

capital.

This

change

takes

place

spontaneously.

The

simultaneous

employment

of

a

large

number

of

wage-labourers,

in

one

and

the

same

process,

which

is

a

necessary

condition

of

this

change,

also

forms

the

starting-point

of

capitalist

production.

This

point

coincides

with

the

birth

of

capital

itself.

If

then,

on

the

one

hand,

the

capitalist

mode

of

production

presents

itself

to

us

historically,as

a

necessary

condition

to

the

transformation

of

the

labour-process

into

a

social

process,

so,

on

the

other

hand,

this

social

form

of

the

labour-process

presents

itself,

as

a

method

employed

by

capital

for

the

more

profitable

exploitation

of

labour,

by

increasing

that

labour's

productiveness.

In

the

elementary

form,

under

which

we

have

hitherto

viewed

it,

co-operation

is

a

necessary

concomitant

of

all

production

on

a

large

scale,

but

it

does

not,

in

itself,

represent

a

fixed

form

characteristic

of

a

particular

epoch

in

the

development

of

the

capitalist

mode

of

production.

At

the

most

it

appears

to

do

so,

and

that

only

approximately,

in

the

handicraft

like

beginnings

of

manufacture,22and

in

that

kind

of

agriculture

on

a

large

scale,

which

corresponds

to

the

epoch

of

manufacture,

and

is

distinguished

from

peasant

agriculture,

mainly

by

the

number

of

the

labourers

simultaneously

employed,

and

by

the

mass

of

the

means

of

production

concentrated

for

their

use.Simple

co-operation

is

always

the

prevailing

form,

in

those

branches

of

production

in

which

capital

operates

on

a

large

scale,

and

division

of

labour

and

machinery

play

but

a

subordinate

part.

Co-operation

ever

constitutes

the

fundamental

form

of

the

capitalist

mode

of

production,

nevertheless

the

elementary

form

of

co-operation

continues

to

subsist

as

a

particular

form

of

capitalist

production

side

by

side

with

the

more

developed

forms

of

that

mode

of

production.

NOTES:

1\"Unquestionably,

there

is

a

good

deal

of

difference

between

the

value

of

one

man's

labour

and

that

of

another

from

strength,

dexterity,

and

honest

application.

But

I

am

quite

sure,from

my

best

observation,

that

any

given

five

men

will,

in

their

total,

afford

a

proportion

of

labour

equal

to

any

other

five

within

the

periods

of

life

I

have

stated;

that

is,

that

among

such

five

men

there

will

be

one

possessing

all

the

qualifications

of

a

good

workman,

one

bad,

and

the

other

three

middling,

and

approximating

to

the

first,

and

the

last.

So

that

in

so

small

a

platoon

as

that

of

even

five,

you

will

find

the

full

complement

of

all

that

five

men

can

earn.\"

(E.

Burke,

1.

c.,

pp.

15,

16.)

Compare

Quételet

on

the

average

individual.

2Professor

Roscher

claims

to

have

discovered

that

one

needlewoman

employed

by

Mrs.

Roscher

during

two

days,does

more

work

than

two

needlewomen

employed

together

during

one

day.

The

learned

professor

should

not

study

the

capitalist

process

of

production

in

the

nursery,

nor

under

circumstances

where

the

principal

personage,

the

capitalist,

is

wanting.

3\"Concours

de

forces.\"

(Destutt

de

Tracy,

l.c.,

p.

80.)

4\"There

are

numerous

operations

of

so

simple

a

kind

as

not

to

admit

a

division

into

parts,

which

cannot

be

performed

without

the

co-operation

of

many

pairs

of

hands.

I

would

instance

the

lifting

of

a

large

tree

on

to

a

wain

...

everything,in

short,

which

cannot

be

done

unless

a

great

many

pairs

of

hands

help

each

other

in

the

same

undivided

employment

and

at

the

same

time.\"

(E.

G.

Wakefield:

\"A

View

of

the

Art

of

Colonisation.\"

London,

1849,

p.

168.)

5\"As

one

man

cannot,

and

ten

men

must

strain

to

lift

a

ton

of

weight,

yet

100

men

can

do

it

only

by

the

strength

of

a

finger

of

each

of

them.\"

(John

Betters:

\"Proposals

for

Raising

a

Colledge

of

Industry.\"

London,

1696,

p.

21.)

6\"There

is

also\"

(when

the

same

number

of

men

are

employed

by

one

farmer

on

300

acres,

instead

of

by

ten

farmers

with

30

acres

a

piece)

\"an

advantage

in

the

proportion

of

servants,

which

will

not

so

easily

be

understood

but

by

practical

men;

for

it

is

natural

to

say,

as

1

is

to

4,

so

are

3

to

12;

but

this

will

not

hold

good

in

practice;

for

in

harvest

time

and

many

other

operations

which

require

that

kind

of

despatch

by

the

throwing

many

hands

together,

the

work

is

better

and

more

expeditiously

done:

f

i.

in

harvest,

2

drivers,

2

loaders,2

pitchers,

2

rakers,

and

the

rest

at

the

rick,

or

in

the

barn,will

despatch

double

the

work

that

the

same

number

of

hands

would

do

if

divided

into

different

gangs

on

different

farms.\"(\"An

Inquiry

into

the

Connexion

between

the

Present

Price

of

Provisions

and

the

Size

of

Farms.\"

By

a

Farmer.

London,

1773,pp.

7,

8.)

7Strictly,

Aristotle's

definition

is

that

man

is

by

nature

a

town-citizen.

This

is

quite

as

characteristic

of

ancient

classical

society

as

Franklin's

definition

of

man,

as

a

tool-making

animal,

is

characteristic

of

Yankeedom.

8\"On

doit

encore

remarquer

que

cette

division

partielle

de

travail

peut

se

faire

quand

même

les

ouvriers

sont

occupés

d'une

même

besogne.

Des

maons

par

exemple,

occupés

à

faire

passer

de

mains

en

mains

des

briques

à

un

échafaudage

supérieur,

font

tous

la

même

besogne,

et

pourtant

il

existe

parmi

eux

une

espèce

de

division

de

travail,

qui

consiste

en

ce

que

chacun

d'eux

fait

passer

la

brique

par

un

espace

donné,

et

que

tous

ensemble

la

font

parvenir

beaucoup

plus

promptement

à

l'endroit

marqué

qu'ils

ne

le

feraient

si

chacun

d'eux

portait

sa

brique

séparément

jusqu'à

l'échafaudage

supérieur.\"

[It

should

be

noted

further

that

this

partial

division

of

labour

can

occur

even

when

the

workers

are

engaged

in

the

same

task.

Masons,for

example,

engaged

in

passing

bricks

from

hand

to

hand

to

a

higher

stage

of

the

building,

are

all

performing

the

same

task,and

yet

there

does

exist

amongst

them

a

sort

of

division

of

labour.

This

consists

in

the

fact

that

each

of

them

passes

the

brick

through

a

given

space,

and,

taken

together,

they

make

it

arrive

much

more

quickly

at

the

required

spot

than

they

would

do

if

each

of

them

carried

his

brick

separately

to

the

upper

storey]

(F.

Skarbek:

\"Théorie

des

richesses

sociales.\"

Paris,1839,

t.

I,

pp.

97,

98.)

9\"Est-il

question

d'exécuter

un

travail

compliqué,

plusieurs

choses

doivent

être

faites

simultanément.

L'un

en

fait

une

pendant

que

l'autre

en

fait

une

autre,

et

tous

contribuent

à

l'effet

qu'un

seul

homme

n'aurait

pu

produire.

L'un

rame

pendant

que

l'autre

tient

le

gouvernail,

et

qu'un

troisième

jette

le

filet

on

harponne

le

poisson,

et

la

pêche

a

un

succès

impossible

sans

ce

concours.\"

[Is

it

a

question

of

undertaking

a

complex

piece

of

labour

Many

things

must

be

done

simultaneously.

One

person

does

one

thing,

while

another

does

something

else,

and

they

all

contribute

to

an

effect

that

a

single

man

would

be

unable

to

produce.

One

rows

while

the

other

holds

the

rudder,

and

a

third

casts

the

net

or

harpoons

the

fish;

in

this

way

fishing

enjoys

a

success

that

would

be

impossible

without

this

co-operation](Destutt

de

Tracy,

l.c.)

10\"The

doing

of

it

(agricultural

work)

at

the

critical

juncture

is

of

so

much

the

greater

consequence.\"

(\"An

Inquiry

into

the

Connexion

between

the

Present

Price,\"

&c.,

p.

9.)

\"In

agriculture,

there

is

no

more

important

factor

than

that

of

time.\"(Liebig:

\"Ueber

Theorie

und

Praxis

in

der

Landwirtschaft.\"1856,

p.

23.)

11\"The

next

evil

is

one

which

one

would

scarcely

expect

to

find

in

a

country

which

exports

more

labour

than

any

other

in

the

world,

with

the

exception,

perhaps,

of

China

and

England

the

impossibility

of

procuring

a

sufficient

number

of

hands

to

clean

the

cotton.

The

consequence

of

this

is

that

large

quantities

of

the

crop

are

left

unpicked,

while

another

portion

is

gathered

from

the

ground

when

it

has

fallen,

and

is

of

course

discoloured

and

partially

rotted,

so

that

for

want

of

labour

at

the

proper

season

the

cultivator

is

actually

forced

to

submit

to

the

loss

of

a

large

part

of

that

crop

for

which

England

is

so

anxiously

looking.\"

(\"Bengal

Hurkaru.\"

Bi-Monthly

Overland

Summary

of

News,

22nd

July,

1861.)

12In

the

progress

of

culture

\"all,

and

perhaps

more

than

all,

the

capital

and

labour

which

once

loosely

occupied

500

acres,

are

now

concentrated

for

the

more

complete

tillage

of

100.\"

Although

\"relatively

to

the

amount

of

capital

and

labour

employed,

space

is

concentrated,

it

is

an

enlarged

sphere

of

production,

as

compared

to

the

sphere

of

production

formerly

occupied

or

worked

upon

by

one

single

independent

agent

of

production.\"

(R.

Jones:

\"An

Essay

on

the

Distribution

of

Wealth,\"

part

I.

On

Rent.

London,

1831.

p.

191.)

13\"La

forza

di

ciascuno

uomo

è

minima,

ma

la

riunione

delle

minime

forze

forma

una

forza

totale

maggiore

anche

della

somma

delle

forze

medesime

fino

a

che

le

forze

per

essere

riunite

possono

diminuere

il

tempo

ed

accrescere

lo

spazio

della

loro

azione.\"

(G.

R.

Carli,

Note

to

P.

Verri,

l.c.,

t.

xv.,

p.196.)

14\"Profits

...

is

the

sole

end

of

trade.\"

(J.

Vanderlint,

l.c.,

p.11.)

15That

Philistine

paper,

the

Spectator,

states

that

after

the

introduction

of

a

sort

of

partnership

between

capitalist

and

workmen

in

the

\"Wirework

Company

of

Manchester,\"

\"the

first

result

was

a

sudden

decrease

in

waste,

the

men

not

seeing

why

they

should

waste

their

own

property

any

more

than

any

other

master's,

and

waste

is,

perhaps,

next

to

bad

debts,

the

greatest

source

of

manufacturing

loss.\"

The

same

paper

finds

that

the

main

defect

in

the

Rochdale

co-operative

experiments

is

this:\"They

showed

that

associations

of

workmen

could

manage

shops,

mills,

and

almost

all

forms

of

industry

with

success,

and

they

immediately

improved

the

condition

of

the

men;

but

then

they

did

not

leave

a

clear

place

for

masters.\"

Quelle

horreur!

16Professor

Cairnes,

after

stating

that

the

superintendence

of

labour

is

a

leading

feature

of

production

by

slaves

in

the

Southern

States

of

North

America,

continues:

\"The

peasant

proprietor

(of

the

North),

appropriating

the

whole

produce

of

his

toil,

needs

no

other

stimulus

to

exertion.

Superintendence

is

here

completely

dispensed

with.\"

(Cairnes,

l.c.,

pp.

48,

49.)

17Sir

James

Steuart,

a

writer

altogether

remarkable

for

his

quick

eye

for

the

characteristic

social

distinctions

between

different

modes

of

production,

says:

\"Why

do

large

undertakings

in

the

manufacturing

way

ruin

private

industry,but

by

coming

nearer

to

the

simplicity

of

slaves\"

(\"Prin.

of

Pol.

Econ.,\"

London,

1767,

v.

I.,

pp.

167,

168.)

18Auguste

Comte

and

his

school

might

therefore

have

shown

that

feudal

lords

are

an

eternal

necessity

in

the

same

way

that

they

have

done

in

the

case

of

the

lords

of

capital.

19R.

Jones.

\"Textbook

of

Lectures,\"

&c.,

pp.

77,

78.

The

ancient

Assyrian,

Egyptian,

and

other

collections

in

London,and

in

other

European

capitals,

make

us

eye-witnesses

of

the

modes

of

carrying

on

that

co-operative

labour.

20Linguet

is

improbably

right,

when

in

his

\"Théorie

des

Lois

Civiles,\"

he

declares

hunting

to

be

the

first

form

of

co

operation,

and

man-hunting

(war)

one

of

the

earliest

forms

of

hunting.

21Peasant

agriculture

on

a

small

scale,

and

the

carrying

on

of

independent

handicrafts,

which

together

form

the

basis

of

the

feudal

mode

of

production,

and

after

the

dissolution

of

that

system,

continue

side

by

side

with

the

capitalist

mode,

also

form

the

economic

foundation

of

the

classical

communities

at

their

best,

after

the

primitive

form

of

ownership

of

land

in

common

had

disappeared,

and

before

slavery

had

seized

on

production

in

earnest.

22\"Whether

the

united

skill,

industry,

and

emulation

of

many

together

on

the

same

work

be

not

the

way

to

advance

it

And

whether

it

had

been

otherwise

possible

for

England,to

have

carried

on

her

Woollen

Manufacture

to

so

great

a

perfection\"

(Berkeley.

\"The

Querist.\"

London,

1751,

p.

56,par.

521.)