- 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
Section
1
:
The
Development
of
Machinery
John
Stuart
Mill
says
in
his
\"Principles
of
Political
Economy\":
\"It
is
questionable
if
all
the
mechanical
inventions
yet
made
have
lightened
the
day's
toil
of
any
human
being.\"
1
That
is,
however,
by
no
means
the
aim
of
the
capitalistic
application
of
machinery.
Like
every
other
increase
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
machinery
is
intended
to
cheapen
commodities,
and,
by
shortening
that
portion
of
the
working
day,
in
which
the
labourer
works
for
himself,
to
lengthen
the
other
portion
that
he
gives,
without
an
equivalent,
to
the
capitalist.
In
short,it
is
a
means
for
producing
surplus-value.
In
manufacture,
the
revolution
in
the
mode
of
production
begins
with
the
labour-power,
in
modern
industry
it
begins
with
the
instruments
of
labour.
Our
first
inquiry
then
is,
how
the
instruments
of
labour
are
converted
from
tools
into
machines,
or
what
is
the
difference
between
a
machine
and
the
implements
of
a
handicraft
We
are
only
concerned
here
with
striking
and
general
characteristics;
for
epochs
in
the
history
of
society
are
no
more
separated
from
each
other
by
hard
and
fast
lines
of
demarcation,
than
are
geological
epochs.
Mathematicians
and
mechanicians,
and
in
this
they
are
followed
by
a
few
English
economists,
call
a
tool
a
simple
machine,
and
a
machine
a
complex
tool.
They
see
no
essential
difference
between
them,
and
even
give
the
name
of
machine
to
the
simple
mechanical
powers,
the
lever,
the
inclined
plane,
the
screw,
the
wedge,
&c.2As
a
matter
of
fact,
every
machine
is
a
combination
of
those
simple
powers,
no
matter
how
they
may
be
disguised.
From
the
economic
standpoint
this
explanation
is
worth
nothing,
because
the
historical
element
is
wanting.
Another
explanation
of
the
difference
between
tool
and
machine
is
that
in
the
case
of
a
tool,
man
is
the
motive
power,
while
the
motive
power
of
a
machine
is
something
different
from
man,
as,
for
instance,
an
animal,
water,
wind,and
so
on.3According
to
this,
a
plough
drawn
by
oxen,which
is
a
contrivance
common
to
the
most
different
epochs,
would
be
a
machine,
while
Claussen's
circular
loom,
which,
worked
by
a
single
labourer,
weaves
96,000
picks
per
minute,
would
be
a
mere
tool.
Nay,this
very
loom,
though
a
tool
when
worked
by
hand,would,
if
worked
by
steam,
be
a
machine.
And
since
the
application
of
animal
power
is
one
of
man's
earliest
inventions,
production
by
machinery
would
have
preceded
production
by
handicrafts.
When
in
1735,
John
Wyatt
brought
out
his
spinning
machine,and
began
the
industrial
revolution
of
the
18th
century,not
a
word
did
he
say
about
an
ass
driving
it
instead
of
a
man,
and
yet
this
part
fell
to
the
ass.
He
described
it
as
a
machine
\"to
spin
without
fingers.\"4
All
fully
developed
machinery
consists
of
three
essentially
different
parts,
the
motor
mechanism,the
transmitting
mechanism,
and
finally
the
tool
or
working
machine.
The
motor
mechanism
is
that
which
puts
the
whole
in
motion.
It
either
generates
its
own
motive
power,
like
the
steam-engine,
the
caloric
engine,
the
electromagnetic
machine,
&c.,
or
it
receives
its
impulse
from
some
already
existing
natural
force,
like
the
water-wheel
from
a
head
of
water,
the
wind-mill
from
wind,
&c.
The
transmitting
mechanism,
composed
of
fly-wheels,
shafting,
toothed
wheels,
pullies,
straps,
ropes,
bands,
pinions,
and
gearing
of
the
most
varied
kinds,
regulates
the
motion,changes
its
form
where
necessary,
as
for
instance,from
linear
to
circular,
and
divides
and
distributes
it
among
the
working
machines.
These
two
first
parts
of
the
whole
mechanism
are
there,
solely
for
putting
the
working
machines
in
motion,
by
means
of
which
motion
the
subject
of
labour
is
seized
upon
and
modified
as
desired.
The
tool
or
working
machine
is
that
part
of
the
machinery
with
which
the
industrial
revolution
of
the
18th
century
started.
And
to
this
day
it
constantly
serves
as
such
a
starting-point,
whenever
a
handicraft,
or
a
manufacture,
is
turned
into
an
industry
carried
on
by
machinery.
On
a
closer
examination
of
the
working
machine
proper,
we
find
in
it,
as
a
general
rule,
though
often,no
doubt,
under
very
altered
forms,
the
apparatus
and
tools
used
by
the
handicraftsman
or
manufacturing
workman;
with
this
difference,
that
instead
of
being
human
implements,
they
are
the
implements
of
a
mechanism,
or
mechanical
implements.
Either
the
entire
machine
is
only
a
more
or
less
altered
mechanical
edition
of
the
old
handicraft
tool,
as,
for
instance,
the
power-loom,5or
the
working
parts
fitted
in
the
frame
of
the
machine
are
old
acquaintances,
as
spindles
are
in
a
mule,
needles
in
a
stocking-loom,saws
in
a
sawing-machine,
and
knives
in
a
chopping
machine.
The
distinction
between
these
tools
and
the
body
proper
of
the
machine,
exists
from
their
very
birth;
for
they
continue
for
the
most
part
to
be
produced
by
handicraft,
or
by
manufacture,
and
are
afterwards
fitted
into
the
body
of
the
machine,
which
is
the
product
of
machinery.6The
machine
proper
is
therefore
a
mechanism
that,
after
being
set
in
motion,performs
with
its
tools
the
same
operations
that
were
formerly
done
by
the
workman
with
similar
tools.Whether
the
motive
power
is
derived
from
man,
or
from
some
other
machine,
makes
no
difference
in
this
respect.
From
the
moment
that
the
tool
proper
is
taken
from
man,
and
fitted
into
a
mechanism,
a
machine
takes
the
place
of
a
mere
implement.
The
difference
strikes
one
at
once,
even
in
those
cases
where
man
himself
continues
to
be
the
prime
mover.The
number
of
implements
that
he
himself
can
use
simultaneously,
is
limited
by
the
number
of
his
own
natural
instruments
of
production,
by
the
number
of
his
bodily
organs.
In
Germany,
they
tried
at
first
to
make
one
spinner
work
two
spinning-wheels,
that
is,
to
work
simultaneously
with
both
hands
and
both
feet.
This
was
too
difficult.
Later,
a
treddle
spinning
wheel
with
two
spindles
was
invented,
but
adepts
in
spinning,
who
could
spin
two
threads
at
once,
were
almost
as
scarce
as
two-headed
men.
The
Jenny,
on
the
other
hand,
even
at
its
very
birth,
spun
with
1218
spindles,
and
the
stocking-loom
knits
with
many
thousand
needles
at
once.
The
number
of
tools
that
a
machine
can
bring
into
play
simultaneously,
is
from
the
very
first
emancipated
from
the
organic
limits
that
hedge
in
the
tools
of
a
handicraftsman.
In
many
manual
implements
the
distinction
between
man
as
mere
motive
power,
and
man
as
the
workman
or
operator
properly
so
called,
is
brought
into
striking
contrast.
For
instance,
the
foot
is
merely
the
prime
mover
of
the
spinning-wheel,
while
the
hand,
working
with
the
spindle,
and
drawing
and
twisting,
performs
the
real
operation
of
spinning.
It
is
this
last
part
of
the
handicraftsman's
implement
that
is
first
seized
upon
by
the
industrial
revolution,
leaving
to
the
workman,
in
addition
to
his
new
labour
of
watching
the
machine
with
his
eyes
and
correcting
its
mistakes
with
his
hands,
the
merely
mechanical
part
of
being
the
moving
power.
On
the
other
hand,
implements,in
regard
to
which
man
has
always
acted
as
a
simple
motive
power,
as,
for
instance,
by
turning
the
crank
of
a
mill,7by
pumping,
by
moving
up
and
down
the
arm
of
a
bellows,
by
pounding
with
a
mortar,
&c.,
such
implements
soon
call
for
the
application
of
animals,water8and
wind
as
motive
powers.
Here
and
there,long
before
the
period
of
manufacture,
and
also,
to
some
extent,
during
that
period,
these
implements
pass
over
into
machines,
but
without
creating
any
revolution
in
the
mode
of
production.
It
becomes
evident,
in
the
period
of
modern
industry,
that
these
implements,
even
under
their
form
of
manual
tools,are
already
machines.
For
instance,
the
pumps
with
which
the
Dutch,
in
1836-7,
emptied
the
Lake
of
Harlem,
were
constructed
on
the
principle
of
ordinary
pumps;
the
only
difference
being,
that
their
pistons
were
driven
by
cyclopean
steam-engines,
instead
of
by
men.
The
common
and
very
imperfect
bellows
of
the
blacksmith
is,
in
England,
occasionally
converted
into
a
blowing-engine,
by
connecting
its
arm
with
a
steam-engine.
The
steam-engine
itself,
such
as
it
was
at
its
invention,
during
the
manufacturing
period
at
the
close
of
the
17th
century,
and
such
as
it
continued
to
be
down
to
1780,9did
not
give
rise
to
any
industrial
revolution.
It
was,
on
the
contrary,
the
invention
of
machines
that
made
a
revolution
in
the
form
of
steam
engines
necessary.
As
soon
as
man,
instead
of
working
with
an
implement
on
the
subject
of
his
labour,becomes
merely
the
motive
power
of
an
implement
machine,
it
is
a
mere
accident
that
motive
power
takes
the
disguise
of
human
muscle;
and
it
may
equally
well
take
the
form
of
wind,
water
or
steam.
Of
course,this
does
not
prevent
such
a
change
of
form
from
producing
great
technical
alterations
in
the
mechanism
that
was
originally
constructed
to
be
driven
by
man
alone.
Now-a-days,
all
machines
that
have
their
way
to
make,
such
as
sewing-machines,
bread-making
machines,
&c.,
are,
unless
from
their
very
nature
their
use
on
a
small
scale
is
excluded,
constructed
to
be
driven
both
by
human
and
by
purely
mechanical
motive
power.
The
machine,
which
is
the
starting-point
of
the
industrial
revolution,
supersedes
the
workman,
who
handles
a
single
tool,
by
a
mechanism
operating
with
a
number
of
similar
tools,
and
set
in
motion
by
a
single
motive
power,
whatever
the
form
of
that
power
may
be.10Here
we
have
the
machine,
but
only
as
an
elementary
factor
of
production
by
machinery.
Increase
in
the
size
of
the
machine,
and
in
the
number
of
its
working
tools,
calls
for
a
more
massive
mechanism
to
drive
it;
and
this
mechanism
requires,in
order
to
overcome
its
resistance,
a
mightier
moving
power
than
that
of
man,
apart
from
the
fact
that
man
is
a
very
imperfect
instrument
for
producing
uniform
continued
motion.
But
assuming
that
he
is
acting
simply
as
a
motor,
that
a
machine
has
taken
the
place
of
his
tool,
it
is
evident
that
he
can
be
replaced
by
natural
forces.
Of
all
the
great
motors
handed
down
from
the
manufacturing
period,
horse-power
is
the
worst,
partly
because
a
horse
has
a
head
of
his
own,partly
because
he
is
costly,
and
the
extent
to
which
he
is
applicable
in
factories
is
very
restricted.11Nevertheless
the
horse
was
extensively
used
during
the
infancy
of
modern
industry.
This
is
proved,
as
well
by
the
complaints
of
contemporary
agriculturists,
as
by
the
term
\"horse-power,\"
which
has
survived
to
this
day
as
an
expression
for
mechanical
force.
Wind
was
too
inconstant
and
uncontrollable,
and
besides,
in
England,
the
birthplace
of
modern
industry,the
use
of
water
power
preponderated
even
during
the
manufacturing
period.
In
the
17th
century
attempts
had
already
been
made
to
turn
two
pairs
of
millstones
with
a
single
water-wheel.
But
the
increased
size
of
the
gearing
was
too
much
for
the
water
power,which
had
now
become
insufficient,
and
this
was
one
of
the
circumstances
that
led
to
a
more
accurate
investigation
of
the
laws
of
friction.
In
the
same
way
the
irregularity
caused
by
the
motive
power
in
mills
that
were
put
in
motion
by
pushing
and
pulling
a
lever,led
to
the
theory,
and
the
application,
of
the
fly-wheel,which
afterwards
plays
so
important
a
part
in
modern
industry.12In
this
way,
during
the
manufacturing
period,
were
developed
the
first
scientific
and
technical
elements
of
Modern
Mechanical
Industry.
Arkwright's
throstle
spinning
mill
was
from
the
very
first
turned
by
water.
But
for
all
that,
the
use
of
water,
as
the
predominant
motive
power,
was
beset
with
difficulties.It
could
not
be
increased
at
will,
it
failed
at
certain
seasons
of
the
year,
and,
above
all,
it
was
essentially
local.13Not
till
the
invention
of
Watt's
second
and
so
called
double-acting
steam-engine,
was
a
prime
mover
found,
that
begot
its
own
force
by
the
consumption
of
coal
and
water,
whose
power
was
entirely
under
man's
control,
that
was
mobile
and
a
means
of
locomotion,that
was
urban
and
not,
like
the
waterwheel,
rural,that
permitted
production
to
be
concentrated
in
towns
instead
of,
like
the
water-wheels,
being
scattered
up
and
down
the
country,14that
was
of
universal
technical
application,
and,
relatively
speaking,
little
affected
in
its
choice
of
residence
by
local
circumstances.The
greatness
of
Watt's
genius
showed
itself
in
the
specification
of
the
patent
that
he
took
out
in
April,
1784.
In
that
specification
his
steam-engine
is
described,
not
as
an
invention
for
a
specific
purpose,but
as
an
agent
universally
applicable
in
Mechanical
Industry.
In
it
he
points
out
applications,
many
of
which,
as
for
instance,
the
steam-hammer,
were
not
introduced
till
half
a
century
later.
Nevertheless
he
doubted
the
use
of
steam-engines
in
navigation.
His
successors,
Boulton
and
Watt,
sent
to
the
exhibition
of
1851
steam-engines
of
colossal
size
for
ocean
steamers.
As
soon
as
tools
had
been
converted
from
being
manual
implements
of
man
into
implements
of
a
mechanical
apparatus,
of
a
machine,
the
motive
mechanism
also
acquired
an
independent
form,entirely
emancipated
from
the
restraints
of
human
strength.
Thereupon
the
individual
machine,
that
we
have
hitherto
been
considering,
sinks
into
a
mere
factor
in
production
by
machinery.
One
motive
mechanism
was
now
able
to
drive
many
machines
at
once.
The
motive
mechanism
grows
with
the
number
of
the
machines
that
are
turned
simultaneously,
and
the
transmitting
mechanism
becomes
a
wide-spreading
apparatus.
We
now
proceed
to
distinguish
the
co-operation
of
a
number
of
machines
of
one
kind
from
a
complex
system
of
machinery.
In
the
one
case,
the
product
is
entirely
made
by
a
single
machine,
which
performs
all
the
various
operations
previously
done
by
one
handicraftsman
with
his
tool;
as,
for
instance,
by
a
weaver
with
his
loom;
or
by
several
handicraftsman
successively,either
separately
or
as
members
of
a
system
of
Manufacture.15For
example,
in
the
manufacture
of
envelopes,
one
man
folded
the
paper
with
the
folder,another
laid
on
the
gum,
a
third
turned
the
flap
over,on
which
the
device
is
impressed,
a
fourth
embossed
the
device,
and
so
on;
and
for
each
of
these
operations
the
envelope
had
to
change
hands.
One
single
envelope
machine
now
performs
all
these
operations
at
once,
and
makes
more
than
3,000
envelopes
in
an
hour.
In
the
London
exhibition
of
1862,
there
was
an
American
machine
for
making
paper
cornets.
It
cut
the
paper,
pasted,
folded,
and
finished
300
in
a
minute.
Here,
the
whole
process,
which,
when
carried
on
as
Manufacture,
was
split
up
into,
and
carried
out
by,
a
series
of
operations,
is
completed
by
a
single
machine,
working
a
combination
of
various
tools.
Now,
whether
such
a
machine
be
merely
a
reproduction
of
a
complicated
manual
implement,
or
a
combination
of
various
simple
implements
specialised
by
Manufacture,
in
either
case,
in
the
factory,
i.e.,
in
the
workshop
in
which
machinery
alone
is
used,
we
meet
again
with
simple
co-operation;
and,
leaving
the
workman
out
of
consideration
for
the
moment,this
co-operation
presents
itself
to
us,
in
the
first
instance,
as
the
conglomeration
in
one
place
of
similar
and
simultaneously
acting
machines.
Thus,
a
weaving
factory
is
constituted
of
a
number
of
power
looms,
working
side
by
side,
and
a
sewing
factory
of
a
number
of
sewing-machines
all
in
the
same
building.
But
there
is
here
a
technical
oneness
in
the
whole
system,
owing
to
all
the
machines
receiving
their
impulse
simultaneously,
and
in
an
equal
degree,from
the
pulsations
of
the
common
prime
mover,
by
the
intermediary
of
the
transmitting
mechanism;
and
this
mechanism,
to
a
certain
extent,
is
also
common
to
them
all,
since
only
particular
ramifications
of
it
branch
off
to
each
machine.
Just
as
a
number
of
tools,then,
form
the
organs
of
a
machine,
so
a
number
of
machines
of
one
kind
constitute
the
organs
of
the
motive
mechanism.
A
real
machinery
system,
however,
does
not
take
the
place
of
these
independent
machines,
until
the
subject
of
labour
goes
through
a
connected
series
of
detail
processes,
that
are
carried
out
by
a
chain
of
machines
of
various
kinds,
the
one
supplementing
the
other.
Here
we
have
again
the
co-operation
by
division
of
labour
that
characterises
Manufacture;only
now,
it
is
a
combination
of
detail
machines.The
special
tools
of
the
various
detail
workmen,such
as
those
of
the
beaters,
cambers,
spinners,
&c.,in
the
woollen
manufacture,
are
now
transformed
into
the
tools
of
specialised
machines,
each
machine
constituting
a
special
organ,
with
a
special
function,in
the
system.
In
those
branches
of
industry
in
which
the
machinery
system
is
first
introduced,
Manufacture
itself
furnishes,
in
a
general
way,
the
natural
basis
for
the
division,
and
consequent
organisation,
of
the
process
of
production.16Nevertheless
an
essential
difference
at
once
manifests
itself.
In
Manufacture
it
is
the
workmen
who,
with
their
manual
implements,must,
either
singly
or
in
groups,
carry
on
each
particular
detail
process.
If,
on
the
one
hand,
the
workman
becomes
adapted
to
the
process,
on
the
other,
the
process
was
previously
made
suitable
to
the
workman.
This
subjective
principle
of
the
division
of
labour
no
longer
exists
in
production
by
machinery.Here,
the
process
as
a
whole
is
examined
objectively,in
itself,
that
is
to
say,
without
regard
to
the
question
of
its
execution
by
human
hands,
it
is
analysed
into
its
constituent
phases;
and
the
problem,
how
to
execute
each
detail
process,
and
bind
them
all
into
a
whole,
is
solved
by
the
aid
of
machines,
chemistry,
&c.17But,of
course,
in
this
case
also,
theory
must
be
perfected
by
accumulated
experience
on
a
large
scale.
Each
detail
machine
supplies
raw
material
to
the
machine
next
in
order;
and
since
they
are
all
working
at
the
same
time,
the
product
is
always
going
through
the
various
stages
of
its
fabrication,
and
is
also
constantly
in
a
state
of
transition,
from
one
phase
to
another.Just
as
in
Manufacture,
the
direct
co-operation
of
the
detail
labourers
establishes
a
numerical
proportion
between
the
special
groups,
so
in
an
organised
system
of
machinery,
where
one
detail
machine
is
constantly
kept
employed
by
another,
a
fixed
relation
is
established
between
their
numbers,
their
size,
and
their
speed.
The
collective
machine,
now
an
organised
system
of
various
kinds
of
single
machines,
and
of
groups
of
single
machines,
becomes
more
and
more
perfect,
the
more
the
process
as
a
whole
becomes
a
continuous
one,
i.e.,
the
less
the
raw
material
is
interrupted
in
its
passage
from
its
first
phase
to
its
last;in
other
words,
the
more
its
passage
from
one
phase
to
another
is
effected,
not
by
the
hand
of
man,
but
by
the
machinery
itself.
In
Manufacture
the
isolation
of
each
detail
process
is
a
condition
imposed
by
the
nature
of
division
of
labour,
but
in
the
fully
developed
factory
the
continuity
of
those
processes
is,
on
the
contrary,imperative.
A
system
of
machinery,
whether
it
reposes
on
the
mere
co-operation
of
similar
machines,
as
in
weaving,
or
on
a
combination
of
different
machines,as
in
spinning,
constitutes
in
itself
a
huge
automaton,whenever
it
is
driven
by
a
self-acting
prime
mover.
But
although
the
factory
as
a
whole
be
driven
by
its
steam
engine,
yet
either
some
of
the
individual
machines
may
require
the
aid
of
the
workman
for
some
of
their
movements
(such
aid
was
necessary
for
the
running
in
of
the
mule
carriage,
before
the
invention
of
the
self
acting
mule,
and
is
still
necessary
in
fine-spinning
mills);
or,
to
enable
a
machine
to
do
its
work,
certain
parts
of
it
may
require
to
be
handled
by
the
workman
like
a
manual
tool;
this
was
the
case
in
machine
makers'
workshops,
before
the
conversion
of
the
slide
rest
into
a
self-actor.
As
soon
as
a
machine
executes,without
man's
help,
all
the
movements
requisite
to
elaborate
the
raw
material,
needing
only
attendance
from
him,
we
have
an
automatic
system
of
machinery,and
one
that
is
susceptible
of
constant
improvement
in
its
details.
Such
improvements
as
the
apparatus
that
stops
a
drawing
frame,
whenever
a
sliver
breaks,and
the
self-acting
stop,
that
stops
the
power-loom
so
soon
as
the
shuttle
bobbin
is
emptied
of
weft,
are
quite
modern
inventions.
As
an
example,
both
of
continuity
of
production,
and
of
the
carrying
out
of
the
automatic
principle,
we
may
take
a
modern
paper
mill.
In
the
paper
industry
generally,
we
may
advantageously
study
in
detail
not
only
the
distinctions
between
modes
of
production
based
on
different
means
of
production,but
also
the
connexion
of
the
social
conditions
of
production
with
those
modes:
for
the
old
German
paper-making
furnishes
us
with
a
sample
of
handicraft
production;
that
of
Holland
in
the
17th
and
of
France
in
the
18th
century
with
a
sample
of
manufacturing
in
the
strict
sense;
and
that
of
modern
England
with
a
sample
of
automatic
fabrication
of
this
article.
Besides
these,
there
still
exist,
in
India
and
China,
two
distinct
antique
Asiatic
forms
of
the
same
industry.
An
organised
system
of
machines,
to
which
motion
is
communicated
by
the
transmitting
mechanism
from
a
central
automaton,
is
the
most
developed
form
of
production
by
machinery.
Here
we
have,
in
the
place
of
the
isolated
machine,
a
mechanical
monster
whose
body
fills
whole
factories,
and
whose
demon
power,at
first
veiled
under
the
slow
and
measured
motions
of
his
giant
limbs,
at
length
breaks
out
into
the
fast
and
furious
whirl
of
his
countless
working
organs.
There
were
mules
and
steam-engines
before
there
were
any
labourers,
whose
exclusive
occupation
it
was
to
make
mules
and
steam-engines;
just
as
men
wore
clothes
before
there
were
such
people
as
tailors.The
inventions
of
Vaucanson,
Arkwright,
Watt,
and
others,
were,
however,
practicable,
only
because
those
inventors
found,
ready
to
hand,
a
considerable
number
of
skilled
mechanical
workmen,
placed
at
their
disposal
by
the
manufacturing
period.
Some
of
these
workmen
were
independent
handicraftsman
of
various
trades,
others
were
grouped
together
in
manufactures,
in
which,
as
before-mentioned,
division
of
labour
was
strictly
carried
out.
As
inventions
increased
in
number,
and
the
demand
for
the
newly
discovered
machines
grew
larger,
the
machine-making
industry
split
up,
more
and
more,
into
numerous
independent
branches,
and
division
of
labour
in
these
manufactures
was
more
and
more
developed.
Here,then,
we
see
in
Manufacture
the
immediate
technical
foundation
of
modern
industry.
Manufacture
produced
the
machinery,
by
means
of
which
modern
industry
abolished
the
handicraft
and
manufacturing
systems
in
those
spheres
of
production
that
it
first
seized
upon.The
factory
system
was
therefore
raised,
in
the
natural
course
of
things,
on
an
inadequate
foundation.
When
the
system
attained
to
a
certain
degree
of
development,
it
had
to
root
up
this
ready-made
foundation,
which
in
the
meantime
had
been
elaborated
on
the
old
lines,and
to
build
up
for
itself
a
basis
that
should
correspond
to
its
methods
of
production.
Just
as
the
individual
machine
retains
a
dwarfish
character,
so
long
as
it
is
worked
by
the
power
of
man
alone,
and
just
as
no
system
of
machinery
could
be
properly
developed
before
the
steam-engine
took
the
place
of
the
earlier
motive
powers,
animals,
wind,
and
even
water;
so,too,
modern
industry
was
crippled
in
its
complete
development,
so
long
as
its
characteristic
instrument
of
production,
the
machine,
owed
its
existence
to
personal
strength
and
personal
skill,
and
depended
on
the
muscular
development,
the
keenness
of
sight,
and
the
cunning
of
hand,
with
which
the
detail
workmen
in
manufactures,
and
the
manual
labourers
in
handicrafts,wielded
their
dwarfish
implements.
Thus,
apart
from
the
dearness
of
the
machines
made
in
this
way,
a
circumstance
that
is
ever
present
to
the
mind
of
the
capitalist,
the
expansion
of
industries
carried
on
by
means
of
machinery,
and
the
invasion
by
machinery
of
fresh
branches
of
production,
were
dependent
on
the
growth
of
a
class
of
workmen,
who,
owing
to
the
almost
artistic
nature
of
their
employment,could
increase
their
numbers
only
gradually,
and
not
by
leaps
and
bounds.
But
besides
this,
at
a
certain
stage
of
its
development,
modern
industry
became
technologically
incompatible
with
the
basis
furnished
for
it
by
handicraft
and
Manufacture.
The
increasing
size
of
the
prime
movers,
of
the
transmitting
mechanism,
and
of
the
machines
proper,
the
greater
complication,
multiformity
and
regularity
of
the
details
of
these
machines,
as
they
more
and
more
departed
from
the
model
of
those
originally
made
by
manual
labour,
and
acquired
a
form,
untrammelled
except
by
the
conditions
under
which
they
worked,18the
perfecting
of
the
automatic
system,
and
the
use,every
day
more
unavoidable,
of
a
more
refractory
material,
such
as
iron
instead
of
wood
鈥?\/p>
the
solution
of
all
these
problems,
which
sprang
up
by
the
force
of
circumstances,
everywhere
met
with
a
stumbling
block
in
the
personal
restrictions,
which
even
the
collective
labourer
of
Manufacture
could
not
break
through,
except
to
a
limited
extent.
Such
machines
as
the
modern
hydraulic
press,
the
modern
power-loom,and
the
modern
carding
engine,
could
never
have
been
furnished
by
Manufacture.
A
radical
change
in
the
mode
of
production
in
one
sphere
of
industry
involves
a
similar
change
in
other
spheres.
This
happens
at
first
in
such
branches
of
industry
as
are
connected
together
by
being
separate
phases
of
a
process,
and
yet
are
isolated
by
the
social
division
of
labour,
in
such
a
way,
that
each
of
them
produces
an
independent
commodity.
Thus
spinning
by
machinery
made
weaving
by
machinery
a
necessity,and
both
together
made
the
mechanical
and
chemical
revolution
that
took
place
in
bleaching,
printing,
and
dyeing,
imperative.
So
too,
on
the
other
hand,
the
revolution
in
cotton-spinning
called
forth
the
invention
of
the
gin,
for
separating
the
seeds
from
the
cotton
fibre;
it
was
only
by
means
of
this
invention,
that
the
production
of
cotton
became
possible
on
the
enormous
scale
at
present
required.19But
more
especially,
the
revolution
in
the
modes
of
production
of
industry
and
agriculture
made
necessary
a
revolution
in
the
general
conditions
of
the
social
process
of
production,
i.e.,in
the
means
of
communication
and
of
transport.
In
a
society
whose
pivot,
to
use
an
expression
of
Fourier,was
agriculture
on
a
small
scale,
with
its
subsidiary
domestic
industries,
and
the
urban
handicrafts,
the
means
of
communication
and
transport
were
so
utterly
inadequate
to
the
productive
requirements
of
the
manufacturing
period,
with
its
extended
division
of
social
labour,
its
concentration
of
the
instruments
of
labour,
and
of
the
workmen,
and
its
colonial
markets,that
they
became
in
fact
revolutionised.
In
the
same
way
the
means
of
communication
and
transport
handed
down
from
the
manufacturing
period
soon
became
unbearable
trammels
on
modern
industry,with
its
feverish
haste
of
production,
its
enormous
extent,
its
constant
flinging
of
capital
and
labour
from
one
sphere
of
production
into
another,
and
its
newly-created
connexions
with
the
markets
of
the
whole
world.
Hence,
apart
from
the
radical
changes
introduced
in
the
construction
of
sailing
vessels,the
means
of
communication
and
transport
became
gradually
adapted
to
the
modes
of
production
of
mechanical
industry,
by
the
creation
of
a
system
of
river
steamers,
railways,
ocean
steamers,
and
telegraphs.
But
the
huge
masses
of
iron
that
had
now
to
be
forged,
to
be
welded,
to
be
cut,
to
be
bored,and
to
be
shaped,
demanded,
on
their
part,
cyclopean
machines,
for
the
construction
of
which
the
methods
of
the
manufacturing
period
were
utterly
inadequate.
Modern
Industry
had
therefore
itself
to
take
in
hand
the
machine,
its
characteristic
instrument
of
production,
and
to
construct
machines
by
machines.It
was
not
till
it
did
this,
that
it
built
up
for
itself
a
fitting
technical
foundation,
and
stood
on
its
own
feet.Machinery,
simultaneously
with
the
increasing
use
of
it,
in
the
first
decades
of
this
century,
appropriated,by
degrees,
the
fabrication
of
machines
proper.
But
it
was
only
during
the
decade
preceding
1866,
that
the
construction
of
railways
and
ocean
steamers
on
a
stupendous
scale
called
into
existence
the
cyclopean
machines
now
employed
in
the
construction
of
prime
movers.
The
most
essential
condition
to
the
production
of
machines
by
machines
was
a
prime
mover
capable
of
exerting
any
amount
of
force,
and
yet
under
perfect
control.
Such
a
condition
was
already
supplied
by
the
steam-engine.
But
at
the
same
time
it
was
necessary
to
produce
the
geometrically
accurate
straight
lines,planes,
circles,
cylinders,
cones,
and
spheres,
required
in
the
detail
parts
of
the
machines.
This
problem
Henry
Maudsley
solved
in
the
first
decade
of
this
century
by
the
invention
of
the
slide
rest,
a
tool
that
was
soon
made
automatic,
and
in
a
modified
form
was
applied
to
other
constructive
machines
besides
the
lathe,
for
which
it
was
originally
intended.
This
mechanical
appliance
replaces,
not
some
particular
tool,
but
the
hand
itself,
which
produces
a
given
form
by
holding
and
guiding
the
cutting
tool
along
the
iron
or
other
material
operated
upon.
Thus
it
became
possible
to
produce
the
forms
of
the
individual
parts
of
machinery
\"with
a
degree
of
ease,
accuracy,
and
speed,
that
no
accumulated
experience
of
the
hand
of
the
most
skilled
workman
could
give.\"20
If
we
now
fix
our
attention
on
that
portion
of
the
machinery
employed
in
the
construction
of
machines,which
constitutes
the
operating
tool,
we
find
the
manual
implements
re-appearing,
but
on
a
cyclopean
scale.
The
operating
part
of
the
boring
machine
is
an
immense
drill
driven
by
a
steam-engine;
without
this
machine,
on
the
other
hand,
the
cylinders
of
large
steam-engines
and
of
hydraulic
presses
could
not
be
made.
The
mechanical
lathe
is
only
a
cyclopean
reproduction
of
the
ordinary
foot-lathe;
the
planing
machine,
an
iron
carpenter,
that
works
on
iron
with
the
same
tools
that
the
human
carpenter
employs
on
wood;the
instrument
that,
on
the
London
wharves,
cuts
the
veneers,
is
a
gigantic
razor;
the
tool
of
the
shearing
machine,
which
shears
iron
as
easily
as
a
tailor's
scissors
cut
cloth,
is
a
monster
pair
of
scissors;
and
the
steam-hammer
works
with
an
ordinary
hammer
head,
but
of
such
a
weight
that
not
Thor
himself
could
wield
it.21These
steam-hammers
are
an
invention
of
Nasmyth,
and
there
is
one
that
weighs
over
6
tons
and
strikes
with
a
vertical
fall
of
7
feet,
on
an
anvil
weighing
36
tons.
It
is
mere
child's-play
for
it
to
crush
a
block
of
granite
into
powder,
yet
it
is
no
less
capable
of
driving,
with
a
succession
of
light
taps,
a
nail
into
a
piece
of
soft
wood.22
The
implements
of
labour,
in
the
form
of
machinery,necessitate
the
substitution
of
natural
forces
for
human
force,
and
the
conscious
application
of
science,
instead
of
rule
of
thumb.
In
Manufacture,
the
organisation
of
the
social
labour-process
is
purely
subjective;
it
is
a
combination
of
detail
labourers;
in
its
machinery
system,
modern
industry
has
a
productive
organism
that
is
purely
objective,
in
which
the
labourer
becomes
a
mere
appendage
to
an
already
existing
material
condition
of
production.
In
simple
co-operation,and
even
in
that
founded
on
division
of
labour,the
suppression
of
the
isolated,
by
the
collective,workman
still
appears
to
be
more
or
less
accidental.Machinery,
with
a
few
exceptions
to
be
mentioned
later,
operates
only
by
means
of
associated
labour,
or
labour
in
common.
Hence
the
co-operative
character
of
the
labour-process
is,
in
the
latter
case,
a
technical
necessity
dictated
by
the
instrument
of
labour
itself.
Section
2:
The
Value
Transferred
by
Machinery
to
the
Product
We
saw
that
the
productive
forces
resulting
from
co-operation
and
division
of
labour
cost
capital
nothing.
They
are
natural
forces
of
social
labour.
So
also
physical
forces,
like
steam,
water,
&c.,
when
appropriated
to
productive
processes,
cost
nothing.But
just
as
a
man
requires
lungs
to
breathe
with,
so
he
requires
something
that
is
work
of
man's
hand,in
order
to
consume
physical
forces
productively.A
water-wheel
is
necessary
to
exploit
the
force
of
water,
and
a
steam-engine
to
exploit
the
elasticity
of
steam.
Once
discovered,
the
law
of
the
deviation
of
the
magnetic
needle
in
the
field
of
an
electric
current,
or
the
law
of
the
magnetisation
of
iron,
around
which
an
electric
current
circulates,
cost
never
a
penny.23But
the
exploitation
of
these
laws
for
the
purposes
of
telegraphy,
&c.,
necessitates
a
costly
and
extensive
apparatus.
The
tool,
as
we
have
seen,
is
not
exterminated
by
the
machine.
From
being
a
dwarf
implement
of
the
human
organism,
it
expands
and
multiplies
into
the
implement
of
a
mechanism
created
by
man.
Capital
now
sets
the
labourer
to
work,
not
with
a
manual
tool,
but
with
a
machine
which
itself
handles
the
tools.
Although,
therefore,
it
is
clear
at
the
first
glance
that,
by
incorporating
both
stupendous
physical
forces,
and
the
natural
sciences,
with
the
process
of
production,
modern
industry
raises
the
productiveness
of
labour
to
an
extraordinary
degree,it
is
by
no
means
equally
clear,
that
this
increased
productive
force
is
not,
on
the
other
hand,
purchased
by
an
increased
expenditure
of
labour.
Machinery,
like
every
other
component
of
constant
capital,
creates
no
new
value,
but
yields
up
its
own
value
to
the
product
that
it
serves
to
beget.
In
so
far
as
the
machine
has
value,
and,
in
consequence,
parts
with
value
to
the
product,
it
forms
an
element
in
the
value
of
that
product.
Instead
of
being
cheapened,
the
product
is
made
dearer
in
proportion
to
the
value
of
the
machine.And
it
is
clear
as
noon-day,
that
machines
and
systems
of
machinery,
the
characteristic
instruments
of
labour
of
Modern
Industry,
are
incomparably
more
loaded
with
value
than
the
implements
used
in
handicrafts
and
manufactures.
In
the
first
place,
it
must
be
observed
that
the
machinery,
while
always
entering
as
a
whole
into
the
labour-process,
enters
into
the
value-begetting
process
only
by
bits.
It
never
adds
more
value
than
it
loses,on
an
average,
by
wear
and
tear.
Hence
there
is
a
great
difference
between
the
value
of
a
machine,
and
the
value
transferred
in
a
given
time
by
that
machine
to
the
product.
The
longer
the
life
of
the
machine
in
the
labour-process,
the
greater
is
that
difference.
It
is
true,
no
doubt,
as
we
have
already
seen,
that
every
instrument
of
labour
enters
as
a
whole
into
the
labour
process,
and
only
piece-meal,
proportionally
to
its
average
daily
loss
by
wear
and
tear,
into
the
value
begetting
process.
But
this
difference
between
the
instrument
as
a
whole
and
its
daily
wear
and
tear,
is
much
greater
in
a
machine
than
in
a
tool,
because
the
machine,
being
made
from
more
durable
material,
has
a
longer
life;
because
its
employment,
being
regulated
by
strictly
scientific
laws,
allows
of
greater
economy
in
the
wear
and
tear
of
its
parts,
and
in
the
materials
it
consumes;
and
lastly,
because
its
field
of
production
is
incomparably
larger
than
that
of
a
tool.
After
making
allowance,
both
in
the
case
of
the
machine
and
of
the
tool,
for
their
average
daily
cost,
that
is
for
the
value
they
transmit
to
the
product
by
their
average
daily
wear
and
tear,
and
for
their
consumption
of
auxiliary
substance,
such
as
oil,
coal,
and
so
on,
they
each
do
their
work
gratuitously,
just
like
the
forces
furnished
by
Nature
without
the
help
of
man.
The
greater
the
productive
power
of
the
machinery
compared
with
that
of
the
tool,
the
greater
is
the
extent
of
its
gratuitous
service
compared
with
that
of
the
tool.
In
modern
industry
man
succeeded
for
the
first
time
in
making
the
product
of
his
past
labour
work
on
a
large
scale
gratuitously,
like
the
forces
of
Nature.24
精選分類
