- 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
But,
in
spite
of
the
numerous
analogies
and
links
connecting
them,
division
of
labour
in
the
interior
of
a
society,
and
that
in
the
interior
of
a
workshop,differ
not
only
in
degree,
but
also
in
kind.
The
analogy
appears
most
indisputable
where
there
is
an
invisible
bond
uniting
the
various
branches
of
trade.
For
instance
the
cattle-breeder
produces
hides,
the
tanner
makes
the
hides
into
leather,
and
the
shoemaker,
the
leather
into
boots.
Here
the
thing
produced
by
each
of
them
is
but
a
step
towards
the
final
form,
which
is
the
product
of
all
their
labours
combined.
There
are,
besides,
all
the
various
industries
that
supply
the
cattle-breeder,
the
tanner,
and
the
shoemaker
with
the
means
of
production.
Now
it
is
quite
possible
to
imagine,
with
Adam
Smith,
that
the
difference
between
the
above
social
division
of
labour,
and
the
division
in
manufacture,
is
merely
subjective,
exists
merely
for
the
observer,
who,
in
a
manufacture,
can
see
with
one
glance,
all
the
numerous
operations
being
performed
on
one
spot,
while
in
the
instance
given
above,
the
spreading
out
of
the
work
over
great
areas,and
the
great
number
of
people
employed
in
each
branch
of
labour,
obscure
the
connexion.33But
what
is
it
that
forms
the
bond
between
the
independent
labours
of
the
cattle-breeder,
the
tanner,
and
the
shoemakerIt
is
the
fact
that
their
respective
products
are
commodities.
What,
on
the
other
hand,
characterises
division
of
labour
in
manufactures
The
fact
that
the
detail
labourer
produces
no
commodities.34It
is
only
the
common
product
of
all
the
detail
labourers
that
becomes
a
commodity.35Division
of
labour
in
society
is
brought
about
by
the
purchase
and
sale
of
the
products
of
different
branches
of
industry,
while
the
connexion
between
the
detail
operations
in
a
workshop,
is
due
to
the
sale
of
the
labour-power
of
several
workmen
to
one
capitalist,
who
applies
it
as
combined
labour-power.
The
division
of
labour
in
the
workshop
implies
concentration
of
the
means
of
production
in
the
hands
of
one
capitalist;
the
division
of
labour
in
society
implies
their
dispersion
among
many
independent
producers
of
commodities.
While
within
the
workshop,
the
iron
law
of
proportionality
subjects
definite
numbers
of
workmen
to
definite
functions,
in
the
society
outside
the
workshop,chance
and
caprice
have
full
play
in
distributing
the
producers
and
their
means
of
production
among
the
various
branches
of
industry.
The
different
spheres
of
production,
it
is
true,
constantly
tend
to
an
equilibrium:
for,
on
the
one
hand,
while
each
producer
of
a
commodity
is
bound
to
produce
a
use
value,
to
satisfy
a
particular
social
want,
and
while
the
extent
of
these
wants
differs
quantitatively,
still
there
exists
an
inner
relation
which
settles
their
proportions
into
a
regular
system,
and
that
system
one
of
spontaneous
growth;
and,
on
the
other
hand,
the
law
of
the
value
of
commodities
ultimately
determines
how
much
of
its
disposable
working-time
society
can
expend
on
each
particular
class
of
commodities.But
this
constant
tendency
to
equilibrium,
of
the
various
spheres
of
production,
is
exercised,
only
in
the
shape
of
a
reaction
against
the
constant
upsetting
of
this
equilibrium.
The
a
priori
system
on
which
the
division
of
labour,
within
the
workshop,
is
regularly
carried
out,
becomes
in
the
division
of
labour
within
the
society,
an
a
posteriori,
nature-imposed
necessity,controlling
the
lawless
caprice
of
the
producers,
and
perceptible
in
the
barometrical
fluctuations
of
the
market-prices.
Division
of
labour
within
the
workshop
implies
the
undisputed
authority
of
the
capitalist
over
men,
that
are
but
parts
of
a
mechanism
that
belongs
to
him.
The
division
of
labour
within
the
society
brings
into
contact
independent
commodity
producers,
who
acknowledge
no
other
authority
but
that
of
competition,
of
the
coercion
exerted
by
the
pressure
of
their
mutual
interests;
just
as
in
the
animal
kingdom,
the
bellum
omnium
contra
omnes
[war
ofall
against
all
–
Hobbes]
more
or
less
preserves
the
conditions
of
existence
of
every
species.
The
same
bourgeois
mind
which
praises
division
of
labour
in
the
workshop,
life-long
annexation
of
the
labourer
to
a
partial
operation,
and
his
complete
subjection
to
capital,
as
being
an
organisation
of
labour
that
increases
its
productiveness
—
that
same
bourgeois
mind
denounces
with
equal
vigour
every
conscious
attempt
to
socially
control
and
regulate
the
process
of
production,
as
an
inroad
upon
such
sacred
things
as
the
rights
of
property,
freedom
and
unrestricted
play
for
the
bent
of
the
individual
capitalist.
It
is
very
characteristic
that
the
enthusiastic
apologists
of
the
factory
system
have
nothing
more
damning
to
urge
against
a
general
organisation
of
the
labour
of
society,than
that
it
would
turn
all
society
into
one
immense
factory.
If,
in
a
society
with
capitalist
production,
anarchy
in
the
social
division
of
labour
and
despotism
in
that
of
the
workshop
are
mutual
conditions
the
one
of
the
other,
we
find,
on
the
contrary,
in
those
earlier
forms
of
society
in
which
the
separation
of
trades
has
been
spontaneously
developed,
then
crystallised,
and
finally
made
permanent
by
law,
on
the
one
hand,
a
specimen
of
the
organisation
of
the
labour
of
society,in
accordance
with
an
approved
and
authoritative
plan,
and
on
the
other,
the
entire
exclusion
of
division
of
labour
in
the
workshop,
or
at
all
events
a
mere
dwarflike
or
sporadic
and
accidental
development
of
the
same.36
Those
small
and
extremely
ancient
Indian
communities,some
of
which
have
continued
down
to
this
day,
are
based
on
possession
in
common
of
the
land,
on
the
blending
of
agriculture
and
handicrafts,
and
on
an
unalterable
division
of
labour,
which
serves,
whenever
a
new
community
is
started,
as
a
plan
and
scheme
ready
cut
and
dried.
Occupying
areas
of
from
100
up
to
several
thousand
acres,
each
forms
a
compact
whole
producing
all
it
requires.
The
chief
part
of
the
products
is
destined
for
direct
use
by
the
community
itself,
and
does
not
take
the
form
of
a
commodity.Hence,
production
here
is
independent
of
that
division
of
labour
brought
about,
in
Indian
society
as
a
whole,by
means
of
the
exchange
of
commodities.
It
is
the
surplus
alone
that
becomes
a
commodity,
and
a
portion
of
even
that,
not
until
it
has
reached
the
hands
of
the
State,
into
whose
hands
from
time
immemorial
a
certain
quantity
of
these
products
has
found
its
way
in
the
shape
of
rent
in
kind.
The
constitution
of
these
communities
varies
in
different
parts
of
India.
In
those
of
the
simplest
form,
the
land
is
tilled
in
common,
and
the
produce
divided
among
the
members.
At
the
same
time,
spinning
and
weaving
are
carried
on
in
each
family
as
subsidiary
industries.
Side
by
side
with
the
masses
thus
occupied
with
one
and
the
same
work,
we
find
the
\"chief
inhabitant,\"
who
is
judge,
police,
and
tax-gatherer
in
one;
the
book-keeper,
who
keeps
the
accounts
of
the
tillage
and
registers
everything
relating
thereto;
another
official,
who
prosecutes
criminals,protects
strangers
travelling
through
and
escorts
them
to
the
next
village;
the
boundary
man,
who
guards
the
boundaries
against
neighbouring
communities;the
water-overseer,
who
distributes
the
water
from
the
common
tanks
for
irrigation;
the
Brahmin,
who
conducts
the
religious
services;
the
schoolmaster,
who
on
the
sand
teaches
the
children
reading
and
writing;the
calendar-Brahmin,
or
astrologer,
who
makes
known
the
lucky
or
unlucky
days
for
seed-time
and
harvest,
and
for
every
other
kind
of
agricultural
work;a
smith
and
a
carpenter,
who
make
and
repair
all
the
agricultural
implements;
the
potter,
who
makes
all
the
pottery
of
the
village;
the
barber,
the
washerman,who
washes
clothes,
the
silversmith,
here
and
there
the
poet,
who
in
some
communities
replaces
the
silversmith,
in
others
the
schoolmaster.
This
dozen
of
individuals
is
maintained
at
the
expense
of
the
whole
community.
If
the
population
increases,
a
new
community
is
founded,
on
the
pattern
of
the
old
one,on
unoccupied
land.
The
whole
mechanism
discloses
a
systematic
division
of
labour;
but
a
division
like
that
in
manufactures
is
impossible,
since
the
smith
and
the
carpenter,
&c.,
find
an
unchanging
market,
and
at
the
most
there
occur,
according
to
the
sizes
of
the
villages,two
or
three
of
each,
instead
of
one.37The
law
that
regulates
the
division
of
labour
in
the
community
acts
with
the
irresistible
authority
of
a
law
of
Nature,
at
the
same
time
that
each
individual
artificer,
the
smith,the
carpenter,
and
so
on,
conducts
in
his
workshop
all
the
operations
of
his
handicraft
in
the
traditional
way,
but
independently,
and
without
recognising
any
authority
over
him.
The
simplicity
of
the
organisation
for
production
in
these
self-sufficing
communities
that
constantly
reproduce
themselves
in
the
same
form,and
when
accidentally
destroyed,
spring
up
again
on
the
spot
and
with
the
same
name38—
this
simplicity
supplies
the
key
to
the
secret
of
the
unchangeableness
of
Asiatic
societies,
an
unchangeableness
in
such
striking
contrast
with
the
constant
dissolution
and
refounding
of
Asiatic
States,
and
the
never-ceasing
changes
of
dynasty.
The
structure
of
the
economic
elements
of
society
remains
untouched
by
the
storm
clouds
of
the
political
sky.
The
rules
of
the
guilds,
as
I
have
said
before,
by
limiting
most
strictly
the
number
of
apprentices
and
journeymen
that
a
single
master
could
employ,prevented
him
from
becoming
a
capitalist.
Moreover,he
could
not
employ
his
journeymen
in
many
other
handicrafts
than
the
one
in
which
he
was
a
master.
The
guilds
zealously
repelled
every
encroachment
by
the
capital
of
merchants,
the
only
form
of
free
capital
with
which
they
came
in
contact.
A
merchant
could
buy
every
kind
of
commodity,
but
labour
as
a
commodity
he
could
not
buy.
He
existed
only
on
sufferance,as
a
dealer
in
the
products
of
the
handicrafts.
If
circumstances
called
for
a
further
division
of
labour,the
existing
guilds
split
themselves
up
into
varieties,or
founded
new
guilds
by
the
side
of
the
old
ones;all
this,
however,
without
concentrating
various
handicrafts
in
a
single
workshop.
Hence,
the
guild
organisation,
however
much
it
may
have
contributed
by
separating,
isolating,
and
perfecting
the
handicrafts,to
create
the
material
conditions
for
the
existence
of
manufacture,
excluded
division
of
labour
in
the
workshop.
On
the
whole,
the
labourer
and
his
means
of
production
remained
closely
united,
like
the
snail
with
its
shell,
and
thus
there
was
wanting
the
principal
basis
of
manufacture,
the
separation
of
the
labourer
from
his
means
of
production,
and
the
conversion
of
these
means
into
capital.
While
division
of
labour
in
society
at
large,
whether
such
division
be
brought
about
or
not
by
exchange
of
commodities,
is
common
to
economic
formations
of
society
the
most
diverse,
division
of
labour
in
the
workshop,
as
practised
by
manufacture,
is
a
special
creation
of
the
capitalist
mode
of
production
alone.
Section
5:
The
Capitalistic
Character
of
Manufacture
An
increased
number
of
labourers
under
the
control
of
one
capitalist
is
the
natural
starting-point,
as
well
of
co-operation
generally,
as
of
manufacture
in
particular.
But
the
division
of
labour
in
manufacture
makes
this
increase
in
the
number
of
workmen
a
technical
necessity.
The
minimum
number
that
any
given
capitalist
is
bound
to
employ
is
here
prescribed
by
the
previously
established
division
of
labour.
On
the
other
hand,
the
advantages
of
further
division
are
obtainable
only
by
adding
to
the
number
of
workmen,and
this
can
be
done
only
by
adding
multiples
of
the
various
detail
groups.
But
an
increase
in
the
variable
component
of
the
capital
employed
necessitates
an
increase
in
its
constant
component,
too,
in
the
workshops,
implements,
&c.,
and,
in
particular,
in
the
raw
material,
the
call
for
which
grows
quicker
than
the
number
of
workmen.
The
quantity
of
it
consumed
in
a
given
time,
by
a
given
amount
of
labour,
increases
in
the
same
ratio
as
does
the
productive
power
of
that
labour
in
consequence
of
its
division.
Hence,
it
is
a
law,
based
on
the
very
nature
of
manufacture,
that
the
minimum
amount
of
capital,
which
is
bound
to
be
in
the
hands
of
each
capitalist,
must
keep
increasing;
in
other
words,
that
the
transformation
into
capital
of
the
social
means
of
production
and
subsistence
must
keep
extending.39
In
manufacture,
as
well
as
in
simple
co-operation,the
collective
working
organism
is
a
form
of
existence
of
capital.
The
mechanism
that
is
made
up
of
numerous
individual
detail
labourers
belongs
to
the
capitalist.
Hence,
the
productive
power
resulting
from
a
combination
of
labours
appears
to
be
the
productive
power
of
capital.
Manufacture
proper
not
only
subjects
the
previously
independent
workman
to
the
discipline
and
command
of
capital,
but,
in
addition,creates
a
hierarchic
gradation
of
the
workmen
themselves.
While
simple
co-operation
leaves
the
mode
of
working
by
the
individual
for
the
most
part
unchanged,
manufacture
thoroughly
revolutionises
it,
and
seizes
labour-power
by
its
very
roots.
It
converts
the
labourer
into
a
crippled
monstrosity,
by
forcing
his
detail
dexterity
at
the
expense
of
a
world
of
productive
capabilities
and
instincts;
just
as
in
the
States
of
La
Plata
they
butcher
a
whole
beast
for
the
sake
of
his
hide
or
his
tallow.
Not
only
is
the
detail
work
distributed
to
the
different
individuals,
but
the
individual
himself
is
made
the
automatic
motor
of
a
fractional
operation,40and
the
absurd
fable
of
Menenius
Agrippa,
which
makes
man
a
mere
fragment
of
his
own
body,
becomes
realised.41If,
at
first,
the
workman
sells
his
labour-power
to
capital,
because
the
material
means
of
producing
a
commodity
fail
him,now
his
very
labour-power
refuses
its
services
unless
it
has
been
sold
to
capital.
Its
functions
can
be
exercised
only
in
an
environment
that
exists
in
the
workshop
of
the
capitalist
after
the
sale.
By
nature
unfitted
to
make
anything
independently,
the
manufacturing
labourer
develops
productive
activity
as
a
mere
appendage
of
the
capitalist's
workshop.42As
the
chosen
people
bore
in
their
features
the
sign
manual
of
Jehovah,
so
division
of
labour
brands
the
manufacturing
workman
as
the
property
of
capital.
The
knowledge,
the
judgement,
and
the
will,
which,though
in
ever
so
small
a
degree,
are
practised
by
the
independent
peasant
or
handicraftsman,
in
the
same
way
as
the
savage
makes
the
whole
art
of
war
consist
in
the
exercise
of
his
personal
cunning
these
faculties
are
now
required
only
for
the
workshop
as
a
whole.Intelligence
in
production
expands
in
one
direction,because
it
vanishes
in
many
others.
What
is
lost
by
the
detail
labourers,
is
concentrated
in
the
capital
that
employs
them.43It
is
a
result
of
the
division
of
labour
in
manufactures,
that
the
labourer
is
brought
face
to
face
with
the
intellectual
potencies
of
the
material
process
of
production,
as
the
property
of
another,and
as
a
ruling
power.
This
separation
begins
in
simple
co-operation,
where
the
capitalist
represents
to
the
single
workman,
the
oneness
and
the
will
of
the
associated
labour.
It
is
developed
in
manufacture
which
cuts
down
the
labourer
into
a
detail
labourer.
It
is
completed
in
modern
industry,
which
makes
science
a
productive
force
distinct
from
labour
and
presses
it
into
the
service
of
capital.44
In
manufacture,
in
order
to
make
the
collective
labourer,
and
through
him
capital,
rich
in
social
productive
power,
each
labourer
must
be
made
poor
in
individual
productive
powers.
\"Ignorance
is
the
mother
of
industry
as
well
as
of
superstition.
Reflection
and
fancy
are
subject
to
err;
but
a
habit
of
moving
the
hand
or
the
foot
is
independent
of
either.
Manufactures,
accordingly,prosper
most
where
the
mind
is
least
consulted,
and
where
the
workshop
may
...
be
considered
as
an
engine,
the
parts
of
which
are
men.\"45
As
a
matter
of
fact,
some
few
manufacturers
in
the
middle
of
the
18th
century
preferred,
for
certain
operations
that
were
trade
secrets,
to
employ
half
idiotic
persons.46
\"The
understandings
of
the
greater
part
of
men,\"says
Adam
Smith,
\"are
necessarily
formed
by
their
ordinary
employments.
The
man
whose
whole
life
is
spent
in
performing
a
few
simple
operations
...has
no
occasion
to
exert
his
understanding...
He
generally
becomes
as
stupid
and
ignorant
as
it
is
possible
for
a
human
creature
to
become.\"
After
describing
the
stupidity
of
the
detail
labourer
he
goes
on:
\"The
uniformity
of
his
stationary
life
naturally
corrupts
the
courage
of
his
mind...
It
corrupts
even
the
activity
of
his
body
and
renders
him
incapable
of
exerting
his
strength
with
vigour
and
perseverance
in
any
other
employments
than
that
to
which
he
has
been
bred.
His
dexterity
at
his
own
particular
trade
seems
in
this
manner
to
be
acquired
at
the
expense
of
his
intellectual,social,
and
martial
virtues.
But
in
every
improved
and
civilised
society,
this
is
the
state
into
which
the
labouring
poor,
that
is,
the
great
body
of
the
people,
must
necessarily
fall.\"47
For
preventing
the
complete
deterioration
of
the
great
mass
of
the
people
by
division
of
labour,
A.Smith
recommends
education
of
the
people
by
the
State,
but
prudently,
and
in
homeopathic
doses.
G.Garnier,
his
French
translator
and
commentator,who,
under
the
first
French
Empire,
quite
naturally
developed
into
a
senator,
quite
as
naturally
opposes
him
on
this
point.
Education
of
the
masses,
he
urges,violates
the
first
law
of
the
division
of
labour,
and
with
it
\"our
whole
social
system
would
be
proscribed.\"
\"Like
all
other
divisions
of
labour,\"
he
says,
\"that
between
hand
labour
and
head
labour48is
more
pronounced
and
decided
in
proportion
as
society(he
rightly
uses
this
word,
for
capital,
landed
property
and
their
State)
becomes
richer.
This
division
of
labour,
like
every
other,
is
an
effect
of
past,
and
a
cause
of
future
progress...
ought
the
government
then
to
work
in
opposition
to
this
division
of
labour,
and
to
hinder
its
natural
courseOught
it
to
expend
a
part
of
the
public
money
in
the
attempt
to
confound
and
blend
together
two
classes
of
labour,
which
are
striving
after
division
and
separation\"49
Some
crippling
of
body
and
mind
is
inseparable
even
from
division
of
labour
in
society
as
a
whole.
Since,however,
manufacture
carries
this
social
separation
of
branches
of
labour
much
further,
and
also,
by
its
peculiar
division,
attacks
the
individual
at
the
very
roots
of
his
life50,
it
is
the
first
to
afford
the
materials
for,
and
to
give
a
start
to,
industrial
pathology.
\"To
subdivide
a
man
is
to
execute
him,
if
he
deserves
the
sentence,
to
assassinate
him
if
he
does
not...
The
subdivision
of
labour
is
the
assassination
of
a
people.\"
51
Co-operation
based
on
division
of
labour,
in
other
words,
manufacture,
commences
as
a
spontaneous
formation.
So
soon
as
it
attains
some
consistence
and
extension,
it
becomes
the
recognised
methodical
and
systematic
form
of
capitalist
production.History
shows
how
the
division
of
labour
peculiar
to
manufacture,
strictly
so
called,
acquires
the
best
adapted
form
at
first
by
experience,
as
it
were
behind
the
backs
of
the
actors,
and
then,
like
the
guild
handicrafts,
strives
to
hold
fast
that
form
when
once
found,
and
here
and
there
succeeds
in
keeping
it
for
centuries.
Any
alteration
in
this
form,
except
in
trivial
matters,
is
solely
owing
to
a
revolution
in
the
instruments
of
labour.
Modern
manufacture
wherever
it
arises
—
I
do
not
here
allude
to
modern
industry
based
on
machinery
—
either
finds
the
disjecta
membra
poetae
ready
to
hand,
and
only
waiting
to
be
collected
together,
as
is
the
case
in
the
manufacture
of
clothes
in
large
towns,
or
it
can
easily
apply
the
principle
of
division,
simply
by
exclusively
assigning
the
various
operations
of
a
handicraft
(such
as
book
binding)
to
particular
men.
In
such
cases,
a
week's
experience
is
enough
to
determine
the
proportion
between
the
numbers
of
the
hands
necessary
for
the
various
functions.52
By
decomposition
of
handicrafts,
by
specialisation
of
the
instruments
of
labour,
by
the
formation
of
detail
labourers,
and
by
grouping
and
combining
the
latter
into
a
single
mechanism,
division
of
labour
in
manufacture
creates
a
qualitative
gradation,and
a
quantitative
proportion
in
the
social
process
of
production;
it
consequently
creates
a
definite
organisation
of
the
labour
of
society,
and
thereby
develops
at
the
same
time
new
productive
forces
in
the
society.
In
its
specific
capitalist
form
—
and
under
the
given
conditions,
it
could
take
no
other
form
than
a
capitalistic
one
—
manufacture
is
but
a
particular
method
of
begetting
relative
surplus-value,
or
of
augmenting
at
the
expense
of
the
labourer
the
self
expansion
of
capital
—
usually
called
social
wealth,\"Wealth
of
Nations,\"
&c.
It
increases
the
social
productive
power
of
labour,
not
only
for
the
benefit
of
the
capitalist
instead
of
for
that
of
the
labourer,but
it
does
this
by
crippling
the
individual
labourers.It
creates
new
conditions
for
the
lordship
of
capital
over
labour.
If,
therefore,
on
the
one
hand,
it
presents
itself
historically
as
a
progress
and
as
a
necessary
phase
in
the
economic
development
of
society,
on
the
other
hand,
it
is
a
refined
and
civilised
method
of
exploitation.
Political
Economy,
which
as
an
independent
science,
first
sprang
into
being
during
the
period
of
manufacture,
views
the
social
division
of
labour
only
from
the
standpoint
of
manufacture,53and
sees
in
it
only
the
means
of
producing
more
commodities
with
a
given
quantity
of
labour,
and,
consequently,of
cheapening
commodities
and
hurrying
on
the
accumulation
of
capital.
In
most
striking
contrast
with
this
accentuation
of
quantity
and
exchange-value,is
the
attitude
of
the
writers
of
classical
antiquity,who
hold
exclusively
by
quality
and
use-value.54In
consequence
of
the
separation
of
the
social
branches
of
production,
commodities
are
better
made,
the
various
bents
and
talents
of
men
select
a
suitable
field,55and
without
some
restraint
no
important
results
can
be
obtained
anywhere.56Hence
both
product
and
producer
are
improved
by
division
of
labour.
If
the
growth
of
the
quantity
produced
is
occasionally
mentioned,
this
is
only
done
with
reference
to
the
greater
abundance
of
use-values.
There
is
not
a
word
alluding
to
exchange-value
or
to
the
cheapening
of
commodities.This
aspect,
from
the
standpoint
of
use-value
alone,is
taken
as
well
by
Plato,57who
treats
division
of
labour
as
the
foundation
on
which
the
division
of
society
into
classes
is
based,
as
by
Xenophon58,
who
with
characteristic
bourgeois
instinct,
approaches
more
nearly
to
division
of
labour
within
the
workshop.Plato's
Republic,
in
so
far
as
division
of
labour
is
treated
in
it,
as
the
formative
principle
of
the
State,is
merely
the
Athenian
idealisation
of
the
Egyptian
system
of
castes,
Egypt
having
served
as
the
model
of
an
industrial
country
to
many
of
his
contemporaries
also,
amongst
others
to
Isocrates,59and
it
continued
to
have
this
importance
to
the
Greeks
of
the
Roman
Empire.60
During
the
manufacturing
period
proper,
i.e.,
the
period
during
which
manufacture
is
the
predominant
form
taken
by
capitalist
production,
many
obstacles
are
opposed
to
the
full
development
of
the
peculiar
tendencies
of
manufacture.
Although
manufacture
creates,
as
we
have
already
seen,
a
simple
separation
of
the
labourers
into
skilled
and
unskilled,simultaneously
with
their
hierarchic
arrangement
in
classes,
yet
the
number
of
the
unskilled
labourers,owing
to
the
preponderating
influence
of
the
skilled,remains
very
limited.
Although
it
adapts
the
detail
operations
to
the
various
degrees
of
maturity,
strength,and
development
of
the
living
instruments
of
labour,thus
conducing
to
exploitation
of
women
and
children,yet
this
tendency
as
a
whole
is
wrecked
on
the
habits
and
the
resistance
of
the
male
labourers.
Although
the
splitting
up
of
handicrafts
lowers
the
cost
of
forming
the
workman,
and
thereby
lowers
his
value,
yet
for
the
more
difficult
detail
work,
a
longer
apprenticeship
is
necessary,
and,
even
where
it
would
be
superfluous,
is
jealously
insisted
upon
by
the
workmen.
In
England,for
instance,
we
find
the
laws
of
apprenticeship,
with
their
seven
years'
probation,
in
full
force
down
to
the
end
of
the
manufacturing
period;
and
they
are
not
thrown
on
one
side
till
the
advent
of
Modern
Industry.Since
handicraft
skill
is
the
foundation
of
manufacture,and
since
the
mechanism
of
manufacture
as
a
whole
possesses
no
framework,
apart
from
the
labourers
themselves,
capital
is
constantly
compelled
to
wrestle
with
the
insubordination
of
the
workmen.
\"By
the
infirmity
of
human
nature,\"
says
friend
Ure,
\"it
happens
that
the
more
skilful
the
workman,
the
more
self-willed
and
intractable
he
is
apt
to
become,
and
of
course
the
less
fit
a
component
of
a
mechanical
system
in
which
...
he
may
do
great
damage
to
the
whole\"61
Hence
throughout
the
whole
manufacturing
period
there
runs
the
complaint
of
want
of
discipline
among
the
workmen62.
And
had
we
not
the
testimony
of
contemporary
writers,
the
simple
facts,
that
during
the
period
between
the
16th
century
and
the
epoch
of
Modern
Industry,
capital
failed
to
become
the
master
of
the
whole
disposable
working-time
of
the
manufacturing
labourers,
that
manufactures
are
short
lived,
and
change
their
locality
from
one
country
to
another
with
the
emigrating
or
immigrating
workmen,these
facts
would
speak
volumes.
\"Order
must
in
one
way
or
another
be
established,\"
exclaims
in
1770
the
oft-cited
author
of
the
\"Essay
on
Trade
and
Commerce.\"
\"Order,\"
re-echoes
Dr.
Andrew
Ure
66
years
later,
\"Order\"
was
wanting
in
manufacture
based
on
\"the
scholastic
dogma
of
division
of
labour,\"
and\"Arkwright
created
order.\"
At
the
same
time
manufacture
was
unable,
either
to
seize
upon
the
production
of
society
to
its
full
extent,
or
to
revolutionise
that
production
to
its
very
core.
It
towered
up
as
an
economic
work
of
art,
on
the
broad
foundation
of
the
town
handicrafts,
and
of
the
rural
domestic
industries.
At
a
given
stage
in
its
development,
the
narrow
technical
basis
on
which
manufacture
rested,
came
into
conflict
with
requirements
of
production
that
were
created
by
manufacture
itself.
One
of
its
most
finished
creations
was
the
workshop
for
the
production
of
the
instruments
of
labour
themselves,
including
especially
the
complicated
mechanical
apparatus
then
already
employed.
A
machine-factory,
says
Ure,
\"displayed
the
division
of
labour
in
manifold
gradations
-
the
file,
the
drill,
the
lathe,
having
each
its
different
workman
in
the
order
of
skill.\"
(P.
21.)
This
workshop,
the
product
of
the
division
of
labour
in
manufacture,
produced
in
its
turn
—
machines.
It
is
they
that
sweep
away
the
handicraftsman's
work
as
the
regulating
principle
of
social
production.
Thus,on
the
one
hand,
the
technical
reason
for
the
life-long
annexation
of
the
workman
to
a
detail
function
is
removed.
On
the
other
hand,
the
fetters
that
this
same
principle
laid
on
the
dominion
of
capital,
fall
away.
NOTES:
1To
give
a
more
modern
instance:
The
silk
spinning
and
weaving
of
Lyon
and
Nmes
\"est
toute
patriarcale;
elle
emploie
beaucoup
de
femmes
et
d'enfants,
mais
sans
les
épuiser
ni
les
corrompre;
elle
les
laisse
dans
leur
belles
valises
de
la
Drme,
du
Var,
de
l'Isère,
de
Vaucluse,
pour
y
élever
des
vers
et
dévider
leurs
cocons;
jamais
elle
n'entre
dans
une
véritable
fabrique.
Pour
être
aussi
bien
observé
...
le
principe
de
la
division
du
travail
s'y
revêt
d'un
caractère
spécial.
Il
y
a
bien
des
dévideuses,
des
moulineurs,
des
teinturiers,
des
encolleurs,puis
des
tisserands;
mais
ils
ne
sont
pas
réunis
dans
un
même
établissement,
ne
dépendent
pas
d'un
même
matre,
tous
ils
sont
indépendants\"
[...
is
entirely
patriarchal;
it
employs
a
large
number
of
women
and
children,
but
without
exhausting
or
ruining
them;
it
allows
them
to
stay
in
their
beautiful
valleys
of
the
Drme,
the
Var,
the
Isère,
the
Vaucluse,
cultuvating
their
silkworms
and
unwinding
their
cocoons;
it
never
becomes
a
true
factory
industry.
However,
the
principle
of
the
division
of
labour
takes
on
a
special
character
here.
There
do
indeed
exist
winders,
throwsters.
dyers,
sizers,
and
finally
weavers;but
they
are
not
assembled
in
the
same
workshop,
nor
are
they
dependent
on
a
single
master;
they
are
all
independent]
(A.Blanqui:
\"Cours,
d'Econ.
Industrielle.\"
Recueilli
par
A.
Blaise.Paris,
1838-39,
p.
79.)
Since
Blanqui
wrote
this,
the
various
independent
labourers
have,
to
some
extent,
been
united
in
factories.
[And
since
Marx
wrote
the
above,
the
power
loom
has
invaded
these
factories,
and
is
now
1886
rapidly
superseding
the
hand-loom.
(
Added
in
the
4th
German
edition.The
Krefeld
silk
industry
also
has
its
tale
to
tell
anent
this
subject.)
F.
E.]
2\"The
more
any
manufacture
of
much
variety
shall
be
distributed
and
assigned
to
different
artists,
the
same
must
needs
be
better
done
and
with
greater
expedition,
with
less
loss
of
time
and
labour.\"
(\"The
Advantages
of
the
East
India
Trade,\"
Lond.,
1720,
p.
71.)
3\"Easy
labour
is
transmitted
skill.\"
(Th.
Hodgskin,
\"Popular
Political
Economy,\"
p.
48.)
4\"The
arts
also
have
...
in
Egypt
reached
the
requisite
degree
of
perfection.
For
it
is
the
only
country
where
artificers
may
not
in
any
way
meddle
with
the
affairs
of
another
class
of
citizens,but
must
follow
that
calling
alone
which
by
law
is
hereditary
in
their
clan....
In
other
countries
it
is
found
that
tradesmen
divide
their
attention
between
too
many
objects.
At
one
time
they
try
agriculture,
at
another
they
take
to
commerce,
at
another
they
busy
themselves
with
two
or
three
occupations
at
once.
In
free
countries,
they
mostly
frequent
the
assemblies
of
the
people....In
Egypt,
on
the
contrary,
every
artificer
is
severely
punished
if
he
meddles
with
affairs
of
State,
or
carries
on
several
trades
at
once.
Thus
there
is
nothing
to
disturb
their
application
to
their
calling....
Moreover,
since,
they
inherit
from
their
forefathers
numerous
rules,
they
are
eager
to
discover
fresh
advantages\"(Diodorus
Siculus:
Bibl.
Hist.
I.
1.
c.,
74.)
5\"Historical
and
descriptive
account
of
Brit.
India,
&c.,\"
by
Hugh
Murray
and
James
Wilson,
&c.,
Edinburgh
1832,
v.
II.,p.
449.
The
Indian
loom
is
upright,
i.e.,
the
warp
is
stretched
vertically.
6Darwin
in
his
epoch-making
work
on
the
origin
of
species,remarks,
with
reference
to
the
natural
organs
of
plants
and
animals:
\"So
long
as
one
and
the
same
organ
has
different
kinds
of
work
to
perform,
a
ground
for
its
changeability
may
possibly
be
found
in
this,
that
natural
selection
preserves
or
suppresses
each
small
variation
of
form
less
carefully
than
if
that
organ
were
destined
for
one
special
purpose
alone.
Thus,knives
that
are
adapted
to
cut
all
sorts
of
things,
may,
on
the
whole,
be
of
one
shape;
but
an
implement
destined
to
be
used
exclusively
in
one
way
must
have
a
different
shape
for
every
different
use.\"
7In
the
year
1854
Geneva
produced
80,000
watches,
which
is
not
one-fifth
of
the
production
in
the
Canton
of
Neufchatel.La
Chaux-de-Fond
alone,
which
we
may
look
upon
as
a
huge
watch
manufactory,
produces
yearly
twice
as
many
as
Geneva.From
1850-61
Geneva
produced
720,000
watches.
See
\"Report
from
Geneva
on
the
Watch
Trade\"
in
\"Reports
by
H.
M.'s
Secretaries
of
Embassy
and
Legation
on
the
Manufactures,Commerce,
&c.,
No.
6,
1863.\"
The
want
of
connexion
alone,between
the
processes
into
which
the
production
of
articles
that
merely
consist
of
parts
fitted
together
is
split
up,
makes
it
very
difficult
to
convert
such
a
manufacture
into
a
branch
of
modem
industry
carried
on
by
machinery;
but
in
the
case
of
a
watch
there
are
two
other
impediments
in
addition,
the
minuteness
and
delicacy
of
its
parts,
and
its
character
as
an
article
of
luxury.
Hence
their
variety,
which
is
such,
that
in
the
best
London
houses
scarcely
a
dozen
watches
are
made
alike
in
the
course
of
a
year.
The
watch
manufactory
of
Messrs.
Vacheron&
Constantin,
in
which
machinery
has
been
employed
with
success,
produces
at
the
most
three
or
four
different
varieties
of
size
and
form.
8In
watchmaking,
that
classical
example
of
heterogeneous
manufacture,
we
may
study
with
great
accuracy
the
above
mentioned
differentiation
and
specialisation
of
the
instruments
of
labour
caused
by
the
sub-division
of
handicrafts.
9\"In
so
close
a
cohabitation
of
the
people,
the
carriage
must
needs
be
less.\"
(\"The
Advantages
of
the
East
India
Trade,\"
p.106.)
10\"The
isolation
of
the
different
stages
of
manufacture,consequent
upon
the
employment
of
manual
labour,
adds
immensely
to
the
cost
of
production,
the
loss
mainly
arising
from
the
mere
removals
from
one
process
to
another.\"
(\"The
Industry
of
Nations.\"
Lond.,
1855,
Part
II,
p.
200.)
11\"It
(the
division
of
labour)
produces
also
an
economy
of
time
by
separating
the
work
into
its
different
branches,
all
of
which
may
be
carried
on
into
execution
at
the
same
moment....By
carrying
on
all
the
different
processes
at
once,
which
an
individual
must
have
executed
separately,
it
becomes
possible
to
produce
a
multitude
of
pins
completely
finished
in
the
same
time
as
a
single
pin
might
have
been
either
cut
or
pointed.\"(Dugald
Stewart,
l.c.,
p.
319.)
12\"The
more
variety
of
artists
to
every
manufacture...
the
greater
the
order
and
regularity
of
every
work,
the
same
must
needs
be
done
in
less
time,
the
labour
must
be
less.\"
(\"The
Advantages,\"
&c.,
p.
68.)
13Nevertheless,
the
manufacturing
system,
in
many
branches
of
industry,
attains
this
result
but
very
imperfectly,because
it
knows
not
how
to
control
with
certainty
the
general
chemical
and
physical
conditions
of
the
process
of
production.
14\"When
(from
the
peculiar
nature
of
the
produce
of
each
manufactory),
the
number
of
processes
into
which
it
is
most
advantageous
to
divide
it
is
ascertained,
as
well
as
the
number
of
individuals
to
be
employed,
then
all
other
manufactories
which
do
not
employ
a
direct
multiple
of
this
number
will
produce
the
article
at
a
greater
cost....
Hence
arises
one
of
the
causes
of
the
great
size
of
manufacturing
establishments.\"
(C.Babbage.
\"On
the
Economy
of
Machinery,\"
1st
ed.
London.1832.
Ch.
xxi,
pp.
172-73.)
15In
England,
the
melting-furnace
is
distinct
from
the
glass
furnace
in
which
the
glass
is
manipulated.
In
Belgium,
one
and
the
same
furnace
serves
for
both
processes.
16This
can
be
seen
from
W.
Petty,
John
Bellers,
Andrew
Yarranton,
\"The
Advantages
of
the
East
India
Trade,\"
and
J.Vanderlint,
not
to
mention
others.
17Towards
the
end
of
the
16th
century,
mortars
and
sieves
were
still
used
in
France
for
pounding
and
washing
ores.
18The
whole
history
of
the
development
of
machinery
can
be
traced
in
the
history
of
the
corn
mill.
The
factory
in
England
is
still
a
\"mill.\"
In
German
technological
works
of
the
first
decade
of
this
century,
the
term
\"Mühle\"
is
still
found
in
use,
not
only
for
all
machinery
driven
by
the
forces
of
Nature,but
also
for
all
manufactures
where
apparatus
in
the
nature
of
machinery
is
applied.
19As
will
be
seen
more
in
detail
in
the
fourth
book
of
this
work,
Adam
Smith
has
not
established
a
single
new
proposition
relating
to
division
of
labour.
What,
however,
characterises
him
as
the
political
economist
par
excellence
of
the
period
of
Manufacture,
is
the
stress
he
lays
on
division
of
labour.
The
subordinate
part
which
he
assigns
to
machinery
gave
occasion
in
the
early
days
of
modern
mechanical
industry
to
the
polemic
of
Lauderdale,
and,
at
a
later
period,
to
that
of
Ure.
A.
Smith
also
confounds
differentiation
of
the
instruments
of
labour,
in
which
the
detail
labourers
themselves
took
an
active
part,
with
the
invention
of
machinery;
in
this
latter,
it
is
not
the
workmen
in
manufactories,
but
learned
men,
handicraftsman,
and
even
peasants
(Brindley),
who
play
a
part.
精選分類
