- 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
If,
then,
the
capitalistic
employment
of
machinery,on
the
one
hand,
supplies
new
and
powerful
motives
to
an
excessive
lengthening
of
the
working
day,
and
radically
changes,
as
well
the
methods
of
labour,
as
also
the
character
of
the
social
working
organism,in
such
a
manner
as
to
break
down
all
opposition
to
this
tendency,
on
the
other
hand
it
produces,
partly
by
opening
out
to
the
capitalist
new
strata
of
the
working-class,
previously
inaccessible
to
him,
partly
by
setting
free
the
labourers
it
supplants,
a
surplus
working
population,72which
is
compelled
to
submit
to
the
dictation
of
capital.
Hence
that
remarkable
phenomenon
in
the
history
of
modern
industry,
that
machinery
sweeps
away
every
moral
and
natural
restriction
on
the
length
of
the
working
day.
Hence,too,
the
economic
paradox,
that
the
most
powerful
instrument
for
shortening
labour-time,
becomes
the
most
unfailing
means
for
placing
every
moment
of
the
labourer's
time
and
that
of
his
family,
at
the
disposal
of
the
capitalist
for
the
purpose
of
expanding
the
value
of
his
capital.
\"If,\"
dreamed
Aristotle,
the
greatest
thinker
of
antiquity,
\"if
every
tool,
when
summoned,
or
even
of
its
own
accord,
could
do
the
work
that
befits
it,
just
as
the
creations
of
Daedalus
moved
of
themselves,
or
the
tripods
of
Hephaestos
went
of
their
own
accord
to
their
sacred
work,
if
the
weavers'
shuttles
were
to
weave
of
themselves,
then
there
would
be
no
need
either
of
apprentices
for
the
master
workers,
or
of
slaves
for
the
lords.\"
73And
Antipatros,
a
Greek
poet
of
the
time
of
Cicero,
hailed
the
invention
of
the
water-wheel
for
grinding
corn,
an
invention
that
is
the
elementary
form
of
all
machinery,
as
the
giver
of
freedom
to
female
slaves,
and
the
bringer
back
of
the
golden
age.74Oh!
those
heathens!
They
understood,as
the
learned
Bastiat,
and
before
him
the
still
wiser
MacCulloch
have
discovered,
nothing
of
Political
Economy
and
Christianity.
They
did
not,
for
example,comprehend
that
machinery
is
the
surest
means
of
lengthening
the
working
day.
They
perhaps
excused
the
slavery
of
one
on
the
ground
that
it
was
a
means
to
the
full
development
of
another.
But
to
preach
slavery
of
the
masses,
in
order
that
a
few
crude
and
half
educated
parvenus,
might
become
\"eminent
spinners,\"\"extensive
sausage-makers,\"
and
\"influential
shoe
black
dealers,\"
to
do
this,
they
lacked
the
bump
of
Christianity.
C.
Intensification
of
Labour
The
immoderate
lengthening
of
the
working
day,produced
by
machinery
in
the
hands
of
capital,
leads
to
a
reaction
on
the
part
of
society,
the
very
sources
of
whose
life
are
menaced;
and,
thence,
to
a
normal
working
day
whose
length
is
fixed
by
law.
Thenceforth
a
phenomenon
that
we
have
already
met
with,
namely,the
intensification
of
labour,
develops
into
great
importance.
Our
analysis
of
absolute
surplus-value
had
reference
primarily
to
the
extension
or
duration
of
the
labour,
its
intensity
being
assumed
as
given.We
now
proceed
to
consider
the
substitution
of
a
more
intensified
labour
for
labour
of
more
extensive
duration,
and
the
degree
of
the
former.
It
is
self-evident,
that
in
proportion
as
the
use
of
machinery
spreads,
and
the
experience
of
a
special
class
of
workmen
habituated
to
machinery
accumulates,
the
rapidity
and
intensity
of
labour
increase
as
a
natural
consequence.
Thus
in
England,during
half
a
century,
lengthening
of
the
working
day
went
hand
in
hand
with
increasing
intensity
of
factory
labour.
Nevertheless
the
reader
will
clearly
see,
that
where
we
have
labour,
not
carried
on
by
fits
and
starts,but
repeated
day
after
day
with
unvarying
uniformity,a
point
must
inevitably
be
reached,
where
extension
of
the
working
day
and
intensity
of
the
labour
mutually
exclude
one
another,
in
such
a
way
that
lengthening
of
the
working
day
becomes
compatible
only
with
a
lower
degree
of
intensity,
and
a
higher
degree
of
intensity,
only
with
a
shortening
of
the
working
day.So
soon
as
the
gradually
surging
revolt
of
the
working
class
compelled
Parliament
to
shorten
compulsorily
the
hours
of
labour,
and
to
begin
by
imposing
a
normal
working
day
on
factories
proper,
so
soon
consequently
as
an
increased
production
of
surplus-value
by
the
prolongation
of
the
working
day
was
once
for
all
put
a
stop
to,
from
that
moment
capital
threw
itself
with
all
its
might
into
the
production
of
relative
surplus
value,
by
hastening
on
the
further
improvement
of
machinery.
At
the
same
time
a
change
took
place
in
the
nature
of
relative
surplus-value.
Generally
speaking,the
mode
of
producing
relative
surplus-value
consists
in
raising
the
productive
power
of
the
workman,so
as
to
enable
him
to
produce
more
in
a
given
time
with
the
same
expenditure
of
labour.
Labour
time
continues
to
transmit
as
before
the
same
value
to
the
total
product,
but
this
unchanged
amount
of
exchange-value
is
spread
over
more
use-value;
hence
the
value
of
each
single
commodity
sinks.
Otherwise,however,
so
soon
as
the
compulsory
shortening
of
the
hours
of
labour
takes
place.
The
immense
impetus
it
gives
the
development
of
productive
power,
and
to
economy
in
the
means
of
production,
imposes
on
the
workman
increased
expenditure
of
labour
in
a
given
time,
heightened
tension
of
labour-power,
and
closer
filling
up
of
the
pores
of
the
working
day,
or
condensation
of
labour
to
a
degree
that
is
attainable
only
within
the
limits
of
the
shortened
working
day.This
condensation
of
a
greater
mass
of
labour
into
a
given
period
thenceforward
counts
for
what
it
really
is,
a
greater
quantity
of
labour.
In
addition
to
a
measure
of
its
extension,
i.e.,
duration,
labour
now
acquires
a
measure
of
its
intensity
or
of
the
degree
of
its
condensation
or
density.75The
denser
hour
of
the
ten
hours'
working
day
contains
more
labour,
i.e.,expended
labour-power
than
the
more
porous
hour
of
the
twelve
hours'
working
day.
The
product
therefore
of
one
of
the
former
hours
has
as
much
or
more
value
than
has
the
product
of
1
1\/5
of
the
latter
hours.
Apart
from
the
increased
yield
of
relative
surplus-value
through
the
heightened
productiveness
of
labour,
the
same
mass
of
value
is
now
produced
for
the
capitalist
say
by
3
1\/3
hours
of
surplus
labour,
and
6
2\/3
hours
of
necessary
labour,
as
was
previously
produced
by
four
hours
of
surplus
labour
and
eight
hours
of
necessary
labour.
We
now
come
to
the
question:
How
is
the
labour
intensified
The
first
effect
of
shortening
the
working
day
results
from
the
self-evident
law,
that
the
efficiency
of
labour
power
is
in
an
inverse
ratio
to
the
duration
of
its
expenditure.
Hence,
within
certain
limits
what
is
lost
by
shortening
the
duration
is
gained
by
the
increasing
tension
of
labour-power.
That
the
workman
moreover
really
does
expend
more
labour-power,
is
ensured
by
the
mode
in
which
the
capitalist
pays
him.76In
those
industries,
such
as
potteries,
where
machinery
plays
little
or
no
part,
the
introduction
of
the
Factory
Acts
has
strikingly
shown
that
the
mere
shortening
of
the
working
day
increases
to
a
wonderful
degree
the
regularity,
uniformity,
order,
continuity,
and
energy
of
the
labour.77It
seemed,
however,
doubtful
whether
this
effect
was
produced
in
the
factory
proper,
where
the
dependence
of
the
workman
on
the
continuous
and
uniform
motion
of
the
machinery
had
already
created
the
strictest
discipline.
Hence,
when
in
1844
the
reduction
of
the
working
day
to
less
than
twelve
hours
was
being
debated,
the
masters
almost
unanimously
declared
\"that
their
overlookers
in
the
different
rooms
took
good
care
that
the
hands
lost
no
time,\"
that
\"the
extent
of
vigilance
and
attention
on
the
part
of
the
workmen
was
hardly
capable
of
being
increased,\"
and,
therefore,
that
the
speed
of
the
machinery
and
other
conditions
remaining
unaltered,
\"to
expect
in
a
well-managed
factory
any
important
result
from
increased
attention
of
the
workmen
was
an
absurdity.\"78
This
assertion
was
contradicted
by
experiments.Mr.
Robert
Gardner
reduced
the
hours
of
labour
in
his
two
large
factories
at
Preston,
on
and
after
the
20th
April,
1844,
from
twelve
to
eleven
hours
a
day.
The
result
of
about
a
year's
working
was
that
\"the
same
amount
of
product
for
the
same
cost
was
received,and
the
workpeople
as
a
whole
earned
in
eleven
hours
as
much
wages
as
they
did
before
in
twelve.\"79I
pass
over
the
experiments
made
in
the
spinning
and
carding
rooms,
because
they
were
accompanied
by
an
increase
of
2%
in
the
speed
of
the
machines.
But
in
the
weaving
department,
where,
moreover,
many
sorts
of
figured
fancy
articles
were
woven,
there
was
not
the
slightest
alteration
in
the
conditions
of
the
work.
The
result
was:
\"From
6th
January
to
20th
April,
1844,
with
a
twelve
hours'
day,
average
weekly
wages
of
each
hand
10s.
1d.,
from
20th
April
to
29th
June,
1844,
with
day
of
eleven
hours,
average
weekly
wages
10s.
3d.\"80Here
we
have
more
produced
in
eleven
hours
than
previously
in
twelve,
and
entirely
in
consequence
of
more
steady
application
and
economy
of
time
by
the
workpeople.
While
they
got
the
same
wages
and
gained
one
hour
of
spare
time,
the
capitalist
got
the
same
amount
produced
and
saved
the
cost
of
coal,
gas,
and
other
such
items,
for
one
hour.
Similar
experiments,
and
with
the
like
success,
were
carried
out
in
the
mills
of
Messrs.
Horrocks
and
Jacson.81
The
shortening
of
the
hours
of
labour
creates,to
begin
with,
the
subjective
conditions
for
the
condensation
of
labour,
by
enabling
the
workman
to
exert
more
strength
in
a
given
time.
So
soon
as
that
shortening
becomes
compulsory,
machinery
becomes
in
the
hands
of
capital
the
objective
means,systematically
employed
for
squeezing
out
more
labour
in
a
given
time.
This
is
effected
in
two
ways:by
increasing
the
speed
of
the
machinery,
and
by
giving
the
workman
more
machinery
to
tent.
Improved
construction
of
the
machinery
is
necessary,
partly
because
without
it
greater
pressure
cannot
be
put
on
the
workman,
and
partly
because
the
shortened
hours
of
labour
force
the
capitalist
to
exercise
the
strictest
watch
over
the
cost
of
production.
The
improvements
in
the
steam-engine
have
increased
the
piston
speed,and
at
the
same
time
have
made
it
possible,
by
means
of
a
greater
economy
of
power,
to
drive
with
the
same
or
even
a
smaller
consumption
of
coal
more
machinery
with
the
same
engine.
The
improvements
in
the
transmitting
mechanism
have
lessened
friction,
and,what
so
strikingly
distinguishes
modern
from
the
older
machinery,
have
reduced
the
diameter
and
weight
of
the
shafting
to
a
constantly
decreasing
minimum.Finally,
the
improvements
in
the
operative
machines
have,
while
reducing
their
size,
increased
their
speed
and
efficiency,
as
in
the
modern
power-loom;
or,while
increasing
the
size
of
their
framework,
have
also
increased
the
extent
and
number
of
their
working
parts,
as
in
spinning-mules,
or
have
added
to
the
speed
of
these
working
parts
by
imperceptible
alterations
of
detail,
such
as
those
which
ten
years
ago
increased
the
speed
of
the
spindles
in
self-acting
mules
by
one-fifth.
The
reduction
of
the
working
day
to
12
hours
dates
in
England
from
1832.
In
1836
a
manufacturer
stated:
\"The
labour
now
undergone
in
the
factories
is
much
greater
than
it
used
to
be
...
compared
with
thirty
or
forty
years
ago
...
owing
to
the
greater
attention
and
activity
required
by
the
greatly
increased
speed
which
is
given
to
the
machinery.\"82
In
the
year
1844,
Lord
Ashley,
now
Lord
Shaftesbury,made
in
the
House
of
Commons
the
following
statements,
supported
by
documentary
evidence:
\"The
labour
performed
by
those
engaged
in
the
processes
of
manufacture,
is
three
times
as
great
as
in
the
beginning
of
such
operations.
Machinery
has
executed,
no
doubt,
the
work
that
would
demand
the
sinews
of
millions
of
men;
but
it
has
also
prodigiously
multiplied
the
labour
of
those
who
are
governed
by
its
fearful
movements....
In
1815,the
labour
of
following
a
pair
of
mules
spinning
cotton
of
No.
40
–
reckoning
12
hours
to
the
working
day
–
involved
a
necessity
of
walking
8
miles.
In
1832,
the
distance
travelled
in
following
a
pair
of
mules,
spinning
cotton
yarn
of
the
same
number,
was
20
miles,
and
frequently
more.
In
1835\"
(query
–
1815
or
1825)
\"the
spinner
put
up
daily,
on
each
of
these
mules,
820
stretches,making
a
total
of
1,640
stretches
in
the
course
of
the
day.
In
1832,
the
spinner
put
up
on
each
mule
2,200
stretches,
making
a
total
of
4,400.
In
1844,2,400
stretches,
making
a
total
of
4,800;
and
in
some
cases
the
amount
of
labour
required
is
even
still
greater....
I
have
another
document
sent
to
me
in
1842,
stating
that
the
labour
is
progressively
increasing
—
increasing
not
only
because
the
distance
to
be
travelled
is
greater,
but
because
the
quantity
of
goods
produced
is
multiplied,
while
the
hands
are
fewer
in
proportion
than
before;
and,moreover,
because
an
inferior
species
of
cotton
is
now
often
spun,
which
it
is
more
difficult
to
work....
In
the
carding-room
there
has
also
been
a
great
increase
of
labour.
One
person
there
does
the
work
formerly
divided
between
two.
In
the
weaving-room,
where
a
vast
number
of
persons
are
employed,
and
principally
females
...
the
labour
has
increased
within
the
last
few
years
fully
10
per
cent.,
owing
to
the
increased
speed
of
the
machinery
in
spinning.
In
1838,
the
number
of
hanks
spun
per
week
was
18,000,
in
1843
it
amounted
to
21,000.
In
1819,
the
number
of
picks
in
power-loom-weaving
per
minute
was
60–
in
1842
it
was
140,
showing
a
vast
increase
of
labour.\"83
In
the
face
of
this
remarkable
intensity
of
labour
which
had
already
been
reached
in
1844
under
the
Twelve
Hours'
Act,
there
appeared
to
be
a
justification
for
the
assertion
made
at
that
time
by
the
English
manufacturers,
that
any
further
progress
in
that
direction
was
impossible,
and
therefore
that
every
further
reduction
of
the
hours
of
labour
meant
a
lessened
production.
The
apparent
correctness
of
their
reasons
will
be
best
shown
by
the
following
contemporary
statement
by
Leonard
Horner,
the
factory
inspector,
their
ever
watchful
censor.
\"Now,
as
the
quantity
produced
must,
in
the
main,
be
regulated
by
the
speed
of
the
machinery,it
must
be
the
interest
of
the
mill-owner
to
drive
it
at
the
utmost
rate
of
speed
consistent
with
these
following
conditions,
viz.,
the
preservation
of
the
machinery
from
too
rapid
deterioration;the
preservation
of
the
quality
of
the
article
manufactured;
and
the
capability
of
the
workman
to
follow
the
motion
without
a
greater
exertion
than
he
can
sustain
for
a
constancy.
One
of
the
most
important
problems,
therefore,
which
the
owner
of
a
factory
has
to
solve
is
to
find
out
the
maximum
speed
at
which
he
can
run,
with
a
due
regard
to
the
above
conditions.
It
frequently
happens
that
he
finds
he
has
gone
too
fast,
that
breakages
and
bad
work
more
than
counterbalance
the
increased
speed,
and
that
he
is
obliged
to
slacken
his
pace.
I
therefore
concluded,
that
as
an
active
and
intelligent
mill-owner
would
find
out
the
safe
maximum,
it
would
not
be
possible
to
produce
as
much
in
eleven
hours
as
in
twelve.
I
further
assumed
that
the
operative
paid
by
piecework,
would
exert
himself
to
the
utmost
consistent
with
the
power
of
continuing
at
the
same
rate.\"84
Horner,
therefore,
came
to
the
conclusion
that
a
reduction
of
the
working
hours
below
twelve
would
necessarily
diminish
production.85He
himself,
ten
years
later,
cites
his
opinion
of
1845
in
proof
of
how
much
he
under-estimated
in
that
year
the
elasticity
of
machinery,
and
of
man's
labour-power,
both
of
which
are
simultaneously
stretched
to
an
extreme
by
the
compulsory
shortening
of
the
working
day.
We
now
come
to
the
period
that
follows
the
introduction
of
the
Ten
Hours'
Act
in
1847
into
the
English
cotton,
woollen,
silk,
and
flax
mills.
\"The
speed
of
the
spindles
has
increased
upon
throstles
500,
and
upon
mules
1,000
revolutions
a
minute,
i.e.,
the
speed
of
the
throstle
spindle,which
in
1839
was
4,500
times
a
minute,
is
now(1862)
5,000;
and
of
the
mule
spindle,
that
was
5,000,
is
now
6,000
times
a
minute,
amounting
in
the
former
case
to
one-tenth,
and
in
the
second
case
to
one-fifth
additional
increase.\"
86
James
Nasmyth,
the
eminent
civil
engineer
of
Patricroft,
near
Manchester,
explained
in
a
letter
to
Leonard
Horner,
written
in
1852,
the
nature
of
the
improvements
in
the
steam-engine
that
had
been
made
between
the
years
1848
and
1852.
After
remarking
that
the
horse-power
of
steam-engines,
being
always
estimated
in
the
official
returns
according
to
the
power
of
similar
engines
in
182887,
is
only
nominal,
and
can
serve
only
as
an
index
of
their
real
power,
he
goes
on
to
say:
\"I
am
confident
that
from
the
same
weight
of
steam-engine
machinery,
we
are
now
obtaining
at
least
50
per
cent.
more
duty
or
work
performed
on
the
average,
and
that
in
many
cases
the
identical
steam-engines
which
in
the
days
of
the
restricted
speed
of
220
feet
per
minute,
yielded
50
horsepower,
are
now
yielding
upwards
of
100...\"\"The
modern
steam-engine
of
100
horse-power
is
capable
of
being
driven
at
a
much
greater
force
than
formerly,
arising
from
improvements
in
its
construction,
the
capacity
and
construction
of
the
boilers,
&c....\"
\"Although
the
same
number
of
hands
are
employed
in
proportion
to
the
horse
power
as
at
former
periods,
there
are
fewer
hands
employed
in
proportion
to
the
machinery.\"88\"In
the
year
1850,
the
factories
of
the
United
Kingdom
employed
134,217
nominal
horse-power
to
give
motion
to
25,638,716
spindles
and
301,445
looms.
The
number
of
spindles
and
looms
in
1856
was
respectively
33,503,580
of
the
former,
and
369,205
of
the
latter,
which,
reckoning
the
force
of
the
nominal
horse-power
required
to
be
the
same
as
in
1850,
would
require
a
force
equal
to
175,000
horses,
but
the
actual
power
given
in
the
return
for
1856
is
161,435,
less
by
above
10,000
horses
than,
calculating
upon
the
basis
of
the
return
of
1850,
the
factories
ought
to
have
required
in
1856.\"
89\"The
facts
thus
brought
out
by
the
Return(of
1856)
appear
to
be
that
the
factory
system
is
increasing
rapidly;
that
although
the
same
number
of
hands
are
employed
in
proportion
to
the
horse
power
as
at
former
periods,
there
are
fewer
hands
employed
in
proportion
to
the
machinery;
that
the
steam-engine
is
enabled
to
drive
an
increased
weight
of
machinery
by
economy
of
force
and
other
methods,
and
that
an
increased
quantity
of
work
can
be
turned
off
by
improvements
in
machinery,
and
in
methods
of
manufacture,
by
increase
of
speed
of
the
machinery,
and
by
a
variety
of
other
causes.\"
90
\"The
great
improvements
made
in
machines
of
every
kind
have
raised
their
productive
power
very
much.Without
any
doubt,
the
shortening
of
the
hours
of
labour...
gave
the
impulse
to
these
improvements.
The
latter,
combined
with
the
more
intense
strain
on
the
workman,
have
had
the
effect,
that
at
least
as
much
is
produced
in
the
shortened
(by
two
hours
or
one-sixth)
working
day
as
was
previously
produced
during
the
longer
one.\"91
One
fact
is
sufficient
to
show
how
greatly
the
wealth
of
the
manufacturers
increased
along
with
the
more
intense
exploitation
of
labour-power.
From
1838
to
1850,
the
average
proportional
increase
in
English
cotton
and
other
factories
was
32%,
while
from
1850
to
1856
it
amounted
to
86%.
But
however
great
the
progress
of
English
industry
had
been
during
the
8
years
from
1848
to
1856
under
the
influence
of
a
working
day
of
10
hours,
it
was
far
surpassed
during
the
next
period
of
6
years
from
1856
to
1862.
In
silk
factories,
for
instance,
there
were
in
1856,
spindles
1,093,799;
in
1862,
1,388,544;
in
1856,looms
9,260;
in
1862,
10,709.
But
the
number
of
operatives
was,
in
1856,
56,131;
in
1862,
52,429.
The
increase
in
the
spindles
was
therefore
26.9%
and
in
the
looms
15.6%,
while
the
number
of
the
operatives
decreased
7%.
In
the
year
1850
there
were
employed
in
worsted
mills
875,830
spindles;
in
1856,
1,324,549(increase
51.2%),
and
in
1862,
1,289,172
(decrease
2.7%).
But
if
we
deduct
the
doubling
spindles
that
figure
in
the
numbers
for
1856,
but
not
in
those
for
1862,
it
will
be
found
that
after
1856
the
number
of
spindles
remained
nearly
stationary.
On
the
other
hand,after
1850,
the
speed
of
the
spindles
and
looms
was
in
many
cases
doubled.
The
number
of
power-looms
in
worsted
mills
was,
in
1850,
32,617;
in
1856,
38,956;in
1862,
43,048.
The
number
of
the
operatives
was,in
1850,
79,737;
in
1856,
87,794;
in
1862,
86,063;included
in
these,
however,
the
children
under
14
years
of
age
were,
in
1850,
9,956;
in
1856,
11,228;
in
1862,13,178.
In
spite,
therefore,
of
the
greatly
increased
number
of
looms
in
1862,
compared
with
1856,
the
total
number
of
the
workpeople
employed
decreased,and
that
of
the
children
exploited
increased.92
On
the
27th
April,
1863,
Mr.
Ferrand
said
in
the
House
of
Commons:
\"I
have
been
informed
by
delegates
from
16
districts
of
Lancashire
and
Cheshire,
in
whose
behalf
I
speak,
that
the
work
in
the
factories
is,
in
consequence
of
the
improvements
in
machinery,constantly
on
the
increase.
Instead
of
as
formerly
one
person
with
two
helps
tenting
two
looms,
one
person
now
tents
three
looms
without
helps,
and
it
is
no
uncommon
thing
for
one
person
to
tent
four.
Twelve
hours'
work,
as
is
evident
from
the
facts
adduced,
is
now
compressed
into
less
than
10
hours.
It
is
therefore
self-evident,
to
what
an
enormous
extent
the
toil
of
the
factory
operative
has
increased
during
the
last
10
years.\"93
Although,
therefore,
the
Factory
Inspectors
unceasingly
and
with
justice,
commend
the
results
of
the
Acts
of
1844
and
1850,
yet
they
admit
that
the
shortening
of
the
hours
of
labour
has
already
called
forth
such
an
intensification
of
the
labour
as
is
injurious
to
the
health
of
the
workman
and
to
his
capacity
for
work.
\"In
most
of
the
cotton,
worsted,
and
silk
mills,
an
exhausting
state
of
excitement
necessary
to
enable
the
workers
satisfactorily
to
mind
the
machinery,the
motion
of
which
has
been
greatly
accelerated
within
the
last
few
years,
seems
to
me
not
unlikely
to
be
one
of
the
causes
of
that
excess
of
mortality
from
lung
disease,
which
Dr.
Greenhow
has
pointed
out
in
his
recent
report
on
this
subject.\"94
There
cannot
be
the
slightest
doubt
that
the
tendency
that
urges
capital,
so
soon
as
a
prolongation
of
the
hours
of
labour
is
once
for
all
forbidden,
to
compensate
itself,
by
a
systematic
heightening
of
the
intensity
of
labour,
and
to
convert
every
improvement
in
machinery
into
a
more
perfect
means
of
exhausting
the
workman,
must
soon
lead
to
a
state
of
things
in
which
a
reduction
of
the
hours
of
labour
will
again
be
inevitable.95On
the
other
hand,
the
rapid
advance
of
English
industry
between
1848
and
the
present
time,under
the
influence
of
a
day
of
10
hours,
surpasses
the
advance
made
between
1833
and
1847,
when
the
day
was
12
hours
long,
by
far
more
than
the
latter
surpasses
the
advance
made
during
the
half
century
after
the
first
introduction
of
the
factory
system,
when
the
working
day
was
without
limits.96
Section
4:
The
Factory
At
the
commencement
of
this
chapter
we
considered
that
which
we
may
call
the
body
of
the
factory,
i.e.,machinery
organised
into
a
system.
We
there
saw
how
machinery,
by
annexing
the
labour
of
women
and
children,
augments
the
number
of
human
beings
who
form
the
material
for
capitalistic
exploitation,
how
it
confiscates
the
whole
of
the
workman's
disposable
time,
by
immoderate
extension
of
the
hours
of
labour,
and
how
finally
its
progress,
which
allows
of
enormous
increase
of
production
in
shorter
and
shorter
periods,
serves
as
a
means
of
systematically
getting
more
work
done
in
a
shorter
time,
or
of
exploiting
labour-power
more
intensely.
We
now
turn
to
the
factory
as
a
whole,
and
that
in
its
most
perfect
form.
Dr.
Ure,
the
Pindar
of
the
automatic
factory,describes
it,
on
the
one
hand,
as
\"Combined
co-operation
of
many
orders
of
workpeople,
adult
and
young,
in
tending
with
assiduous
skill,
a
system
of
productive
machines,
continuously
impelled
by
a
central
power\"
(the
prime
mover);
on
the
other
hand,
as
\"a
vast
automaton,
composed
of
various
mechanical
and
intellectual
organs,
acting
in
uninterrupted
concert
for
the
production
of
a
common
object,
all
of
them
being
subordinate
to
a
self-regulated
moving
force.\"
These
two
descriptions
are
far
from
being
identical.In
one,
the
collective
labourer,
or
social
body
of
labour,
appears
as
the
dominant
subject,
and
the
mechanical
automaton
as
the
object;
in
the
other,the
automaton
itself
is
the
subject,
and
the
workmen
are
merely
conscious
organs,
co-ordinate
with
the
unconscious
organs
of
the
automaton,
and
together
with
them,
subordinated
to
the
central
moving-power.The
first
description
is
applicable
to
every
possible
employment
of
machinery
on
a
large
scale,
the
second
is
characteristic
of
its
use
by
capital,
and
therefore
of
the
modern
factory
system.
Ure
prefers
therefore,
to
describe
the
central
machine,
from
which
the
motion
comes,
not
only
as
an
automaton,
but
as
an
autocrat.\"In
these
spacious
halls
the
benignant
power
of
steam
summons
around
him
his
myriads
of
willing
menials.\"97
Along
with
the
tool,
the
skill
of
the
workman
in
handling
it
passes
over
to
the
machine.
The
capabilities
of
the
tool
are
emancipated
from
the
restraints
that
are
inseparable
from
human
labour-power.
Thereby
the
technical
foundation
on
which
is
based
the
division
of
labour
in
Manufacture,
is
swept
away.
Hence,
in
the
place
of
the
hierarchy
of
specialised
workmen
that
characterises
manufacture,
there
steps,
in
the
automatic
factory,
a
tendency
to
equalise
and
reduce
to
one
and
the
same
level
every
kind
of
work
that
has
to
be
done
by
the
minders
of
the
machines;98in
the
place
of
the
artificially
produced
differentiations
of
the
detail
workmen,
step
the
natural
differences
of
age
and
sex.
So
far
as
division
of
labour
re-appears
in
the
factory,it
is
primarily
a
distribution
of
the
workmen
among
the
specialised
machines;
and
of
masses
of
workmen,not
however
organised
into
groups,
among
the
various
departments
of
the
factory,
in
each
of
which
they
work
at
a
number
of
similar
machines
placed
together;
their
co-operation,
therefore,
is
only
simple.
The
organised
group,
peculiar
to
manufacture,
is
replaced
by
the
connexion
between
the
head
workman
and
his
few
assistants.
The
essential
division
is,
into
workmen
who
are
actually
employed
on
the
machines
(among
whom
are
included
a
few
who
look
after
the
engine),
and
into
mere
attendants
(almost
exclusively
children)
of
these
workmen.
Among
the
attendants
are
reckoned
more
or
less
all
\"Feeders\"
who
supply
the
machines
with
the
material
to
be
worked.
In
addition
to
these
two
principal
classes,
there
is
a
numerically
unimportant
class
of
persons,
whose
occupation
it
is
to
look
after
the
whole
of
the
machinery
and
repair
it
from
time
to
time;
such
as
engineers,
mechanics,
joiners,
&c.This
is
a
superior
class
of
workmen,
some
of
them
scientifically
educated,
others
brought
up
to
a
trade;
it
is
distinct
from
the
factory
operative
class,
and
merely
aggregated
to
it.99This
division
of
labour
is
purelytechnical.
To
work
at
a
machine,
the
workman
should
be
taught
from
childhood,
in
order
that
he
may
learn
to
adapt
his
own
movements
to
the
uniform
and
unceasing
motion
of
an
automaton.
When
the
machinery,
as
a
whole,
forms
a
system
of
manifold
machines,
working
simultaneously
and
in
concert,
the
co-operation
based
upon
it,
requires
the
distribution
of
various
groups
of
workmen
among
the
different
kinds
of
machines.But
the
employment
of
machinery
does
away
with
the
necessity
of
crystallising
this
distribution
after
the
manner
of
Manufacture,
by
the
constant
annexation
of
a
particular
man
to
a
particular
function.100Since
the
motion
of
the
whole
system
does
not
proceed
from
the
workman,
but
from
the
machinery,
a
change
of
persons
can
take
place
at
any
time
without
an
interruption
of
the
work.
The
most
striking
proof
of
this
is
afforded
by
the
relays
system,
put
into
operation
by
the
manufacturers
during
their
revolt
from
18481850.
Lastly,
the
quickness
with
which
machine
work
is
learnt
by
young
people,
does
away
with
the
necessity
of
bringing
up
for
exclusive
employment
by
machinery,
a
special
class
of
operatives.101With
regard
to
the
work
of
the
mere
attendants,
it
can,
to
some
extent,
be
replaced
in
the
mill
by
machines,102and
owing
to
its
extreme
simplicity,
it
allows
of
a
rapid
and
constant
change
of
the
individuals
burdened
with
this
drudgery.
Although
then,
technically
speaking,
the
old
system
of
division
of
labour
is
thrown
overboard
by
machinery,
it
hangs
on
in
the
factory,
as
a
traditional
habit
handed
down
from
Manufacture,
and
is
afterwards
systematically
re-moulded
and
established
in
a
more
hideous
form
by
capital,
as
a
means
of
exploiting
labour-power.
The
life-long
speciality
of
handling
one
and
the
same
tool,
now
becomes
the
life-long
speciality
of
serving
one
and
the
same
machine.
Machinery
is
put
to
a
wrong
use,
with
the
object
of
transforming
the
workman,
from
his
very
childhood,
into
a
part
of
a
detail-machine.103In
this
way,
not
only
are
the
expenses
of
his
reproduction
considerably
lessened,
but
at
the
same
time
his
helpless
dependence
upon
the
factory
as
a
whole,
and
therefore
upon
the
capitalist,
is
rendered
complete.Here
as
everywhere
else,
we
must
distinguish
between
the
increased
productiveness
due
to
the
development
of
the
social
process
of
production,
and
that
due
to
the
capitalist
exploitation
of
that
process.
In
handicrafts
and
manufacture,
the
workman
makes
use
of
a
tool,in
the
factory,
the
machine
makes
use
of
him.
There
the
movements
of
the
instrument
of
labour
proceed
from
him,
here
it
is
the
movements
of
the
machine
that
he
must
follow.
In
manufacture
the
workmen
are
parts
of
a
living
mechanism.
In
the
factory
we
have
a
lifeless
mechanism
independent
of
the
workman,
who
becomes
its
mere
living
appendage.
\"The
miserable
routine
of
endless
drudgery
and
toil
in
which
the
same
mechanical
process
is
gone
through
over
and
over
again,
is
like
the
labour
of
Sisyphus.
The
burden
of
labour,
like
the
rock,
keeps
ever
falling
back
on
the
worn-out
labourer.\"104
At
the
same
time
that
factory
work
exhausts
the
nervous
system
to
the
uttermost,
it
does
away
with
the
many-sided
play
of
the
muscles,
and
confiscates
every
atom
of
freedom,
both
in
bodily
and
intellectual
activity.105The
lightening
of
the
labour,
even,
becomes
a
sort
of
torture,
since
the
machine
does
not
free
the
labourer
from
work,
but
deprives
the
work
of
all
interest.
Every
kind
of
capitalist
production,
in
so
far
as
it
is
not
only
a
labour-process,
but
also
a
process
of
creating
surplus-value,
has
this
in
common,
that
it
is
not
the
workman
that
employs
the
instruments
of
labour,
but
the
instruments
of
labour
that
employ
the
workman.
But
it
is
only
in
the
factory
system
that
this
inversion
for
the
first
time
acquires
technical
and
palpable
reality.
By
means
of
its
conversion
into
an
automaton,
the
instrument
of
labour
confronts
the
labourer,
during
the
labour-process,
in
the
shape
of
capital,
of
dead
labour,
that
dominates,
and
pumps
dry,living
labour-power.
The
separation
of
the
intellectual
powers
of
production
from
the
manual
labour,
and
the
conversion
of
those
powers
into
the
might
of
capital
over
labour,
is,
as
we
have
already
shown,finally
completed
by
modern
industry
erected
on
the
foundation
of
machinery.
The
special
skill
of
each
individual
insignificant
factory
operative
vanishes
as
an
infinitesimal
quantity
before
the
science,
the
gigantic
physical
forces,
and
the
mass
of
labour
that
are
embodied
in
the
factory
mechanism
and,
together
with
that
mechanism,
constitute
the
power
of
the\"master.\"
This
\"master,\"
therefore,
in
whose
brain
the
machinery
and
his
monopoly
of
it
are
inseparably
united,
whenever
he
falls
out
with
his
\"hands,\"contemptuously
tells
them:
\"The
factory
operatives
should
keep
in
wholesome
remembrance
the
fact
that
theirs
is
really
a
low
species
of
skilled
labour;
and
that
there
is
none
which
is
more
easily
acquired,
or
of
its
quality
more
amply
remunerated,
or
which
by
a
short
training
of
the
least
expert
can
be
more
quickly,as
well
as
abundantly,
acquired....
The
master's
machinery
really
plays
a
far
more
important
part
in
the
business
of
production
than
the
labour
and
the
skill
of
the
operative,
which
six
months'
education
can
teach,
and
a
common
labourer
can
learn.\"106
The
technical
subordination
of
the
workman
to
the
uniform
motion
of
the
instruments
of
labour,
and
the
peculiar
composition
of
the
body
of
workpeople,consisting
as
it
does
of
individuals
of
both
sexes
and
of
all
ages,
give
rise
to
a
barrack
discipline,
which
is
elaborated
into
a
complete
system
in
the
factory,
and
which
fully
develops
the
before
mentioned
labour
of
overlooking,
thereby
dividing
the
workpeople
into
operatives
and
overlookers,
into
private
soldiers
and
sergeants
of
an
industrial
army.
\"The
main
difficulty[in
the
automatic
factory]
...
lay
...
above
all
in
training
human
beings
to
renounce
their
desultory
habits
of
work,
and
to
identify
themselves
with
the
unvarying
regularity
of
the
complex
automaton.
To
devise
and
administer
a
successful
code
of
factory
discipline,
suited
to
the
necessities
of
factory
diligence,
was
the
Herculean
enterprise,
the
noble
achievement
of
Arkwright!
Even
at
the
present
day,when
the
system
is
perfectly
organised
and
its
labour
lightened
to
the
utmost,
it
is
found
nearly
impossible
to
convert
persons
past
the
age
of
puberty,
into
useful
factory
hands.\"107The
factory
code
in
which
capital
formulates,
like
a
private
legislator,
and
at
his
own
good
will,
his
autocracy
over
his
workpeople,unaccompanied
by
that
division
of
responsibility,
in
other
matters
so
much
approved
of
by
the
bourgeoisie,and
unaccompanied
by
the
still
more
approved
representative
system,
this
code
is
but
the
capitalistic
caricature
of
that
social
regulation
of
the
labour
process
which
becomes
requisite
in
co-operation
on
a
great
scale,
and
in
the
employment
in
common,
of
instruments
of
labour
and
especially
of
machinery.The
place
of
the
slave-driver's
lash
is
taken
by
the
overlooker's
book
of
penalties.
All
punishments
naturally
resolve
themselves
into
fines
and
deductions
from
wages,
and
the
law-giving
talent
of
the
factory
Lycurgus
so
arranges
matters,
that
a
violation
of
his
laws
is,
if
possible,
more
profitable
to
him
than
the
keeping
of
them.108We
shall
here
merely
allude
to
the
material
conditions
under
which
factory
labour
is
carried
on.
Every
organ
of
sense
is
injured
in
an
equal
degree
by
artificial
elevation
of
the
temperature,
by
the
dust-laden
atmosphere,
by
the
deafening
noise,
not
to
mention
danger
to
life
and
limb
among
the
thickly
crowded
machinery,
which,
with
the
regularity
of
the
seasons,
issues
its
list
of
the
killed
and
wounded
in
the
industrial
battle.109Economy
of
the
social
means
of
production,
matured
and
forced
as
in
a
hothouse
by
the
factory
system,
is
turned,
in
the
hands
of
capital,into
systematic
robbery
of
what
is
necessary
for
the
life
of
the
workman
while
he
is
at
work,
robbery
of
space,
light,
air,
and
of
protection
to
his
person
against
the
dangerous
and
unwholesome
accompaniments
of
the
productive
process,
not
to
mention
the
robbery
of
appliances
for
the
comfort
of
the
workman.110Is
Fourier
wrong
when
he
calls
factories
\"tempered
bagnos\"111
Section
5:
The
Strife
Between
Workman
and
Machine
精選分類
