- 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
The
contest
between
the
capitalist
and
the
wage
labourer
dates
back
to
the
very
origin
of
capital.It
raged
on
throughout
the
whole
manufacturing
period.112But
only
since
the
introduction
of
machinery
has
the
workman
fought
against
the
instrument
of
labour
itself,
the
material
embodiment
of
capital.
He
revolts
against
this
particular
form
of
the
means
of
production,
as
being
the
material
basis
of
the
capitalist
mode
of
production.
In
the
17th
century
nearly
all
Europe
experienced
revolts
of
the
workpeople
against
the
ribbon-loom,
a
machine
for
weaving
ribbons
and
trimmings,
called
in
Germany
Bandmühle,
Schnurmühle,
and
Mühlenstuhl.These
machines
were
invented
in
Germany.
Abbé
Lancellotti,
in
a
work
that
appeared
in
Venice
in
1636,but
which
was
written
in
1579,
says
as
follows:
\"Anthony
Müller
of
Danzig
saw
about
50
years
ago
in
that
town,
a
very
ingenious
machine,
which
weaves
4
to
6
pieces
at
once.
But
the
Mayor
being
apprehensive
that
this
invention
might
throw
a
large
number
of
workmen
on
the
streets,
caused
the
inventor
to
be
secretly
strangled
or
drowned.\"
In
Leyden,
this
machine
was
not
used
till
1629;
there
the
riots
of
the
ribbon-weavers
at
length
compelled
the
Town
Council
to
prohibit
it.
\"In
hac
urbe,\"
says
Boxhorn
(Inst.
Pol.,
1663),referring
to
the
introduction
of
this
machine
into
Leyden,
\"ante
hos
viginti
circiter
annos
instrumentum
quidam
invenerunt
textorium,
quo
solus
plus
panni
et
facilius
conficere
poterat,quan
plures
aequali
tempore.
Hinc
turbae
ortae
et
querulae
textorum,
tandemque
usus
hujus
instrumenti
a
magistratu
prohibitus
est.\"
[In
this
town,
about
twenty
years
ago
certain
people
invented
an
instrument
for
weaving,
with
which
a
single
person
could
weave
more
cloth,
and
more
easily,
than
many
others
in
the
same
length
of
time.
As
a
result
there
arose
disturbances
and
complaints
from
the
weavers,
until
the
Town
Council
finally
prohibited
the
use
of
this
instrument.]
After
making
various
decrees
more
or
less
prohibitive
against
this
loom
in
1632,
1639,
&c.,
the
States
General
of
Holland
at
length
permitted
it
to
be
used,
under
certain
conditions,
by
the
decree
of
the
15th
December,
1661.
It
was
also
prohibited
in
Cologne
in
1676,
at
the
same
time
that
its
introduction
into
England
was
causing
disturbances
among
the
workpeople.
By
an
imperial
Edict
of
19th
Feb.,
1685,its
use
was
forbidden
throughout
all
Germany.
In
Hamburg
it
was
burnt
in
public
by
order
of
the
Senate.The
Emperor
Charles
VI.,
on
9th
Feb.,
1719,
renewed
the
edict
of
1685,
and
not
till
1765
was
its
use
openly
allowed
in
the
Electorate
of
Saxony.
This
machine,which
shook
Europe
to
its
foundations,
was
in
fact
the
precursor
of
the
mule
and
the
power-loom,
and
of
the
industrial
revolution
of
the
18th
century.
It
enabled
a
totally
inexperienced
boy,
to
set
the
whole
loom
with
all
its
shuttles
in
motion,
by
simply
moving
a
rod
backwards
and
forwards,
and
in
its
improved
form
produced
from
40
to
50
pieces
at
once.
About
1630,
a
wind-sawmill,
erected
near
London
by
a
Dutchman,
succumbed
to
the
excesses
of
the
populace.
Even
as
late
as
the
beginning
of
the
18th
century,
sawmills
driven
by
water
overcame
the
opposition
of
the
people,
supported
as
it
was
by
Parliament,
only
with
great
difficulty.
No
sooner
had
Everet
in
1758
erected
the
first
wool-shearing
machine
that
was
driven
by
water-power,
than
it
was
set
on
fire
by
100,000
people
who
had
been
thrown
out
of
work.
Fifty
thousand
workpeople,
who
had
previously
lived
by
carding
wool,
petitioned
Parliament
against
Arkwright's
scribbling
mills
and
carding
engines.The
enormous
destruction
of
machinery
that
occurred
in
the
English
manufacturing
districts
during
the
first
15
years
of
this
century,
chiefly
caused
by
the
employment
of
the
power-loom,
and
known
as
the
Luddite
movement,
gave
the
anti-Jacobin
governments
of
a
Sidmouth,
a
Castlereagh,
and
the
like,
a
pretext
for
the
most
reactionary
and
forcible
measures.
It
took
both
time
and
experience
before
the
workpeople
learnt
to
distinguish
between
machinery
and
its
employment
by
capital,
and
to
direct
their
attacks,
not
against
the
material
instruments
of
production,
but
against
the
mode
in
which
they
are
used.113
The
contests
about
wages
in
Manufacture,
pre
suppose
manufacture,
and
are
in
no
sense
directed
against
its
existence.
The
opposition
against
the
establishment
of
new
manufactures,
proceeds
from
the
guilds
and
privileged
towns,
not
from
the
workpeople.Hence
the
writers
of
the
manufacturing
period
treat
the
division
of
labour
chiefly
as
a
means
of
virtually
supplying
a
deficiency
of
labourers,
and
not
as
a
means
of
actually
displacing
those
in
work.
This
distinction
is
self-evident.
If
it
be
said
that
100
millions
of
people
would
be
required
in
England
to
spin
with
the
old
spinning-wheel
the
cotton
that
is
now
spun
with
mules
by
500,000
people,
this
does
not
mean
that
the
mules
took
the
place
of
those
millions
who
never
existed.It
means
only
this,
that
many
millions
of
workpeople
would
be
required
to
replace
the
spinning
machinery.If,
on
the
other
hand,
we
say,
that
in
England
the
power-loom
threw
800,000
weavers
on
the
streets,
we
do
not
refer
to
existing
machinery,
that
would
have
to
be
replaced
by
a
definite
number
of
workpeople,but
to
a
number
of
weavers
in
existence
who
were
actually
replaced
or
displaced
by
the
looms.
During
the
manufacturing
period,
handicraft
labour,
altered
though
it
was
by
division
of
labour,
was
yet
the
basis.
The
demands
of
the
new
colonial
markets
could
not
be
satisfied
owing
to
the
relatively
small
number
of
town
operatives
handed
down
from
the
middle
ages,and
the
manufactures
proper
opened
out
new
fields
of
production
to
the
rural
population,
driven
from
the
land
by
the
dissolution
of
the
feudal
system.At
that
time,
therefore,
division
of
labour
and
co
operation
in
the
workshops,
were
viewed
more
from
the
positive
aspect,
that
they
made
the
workpeople
more
productive.114Long
before
the
period
of
modern
industry,
co-operation
and
the
concentration
of
the
instruments
of
labour
in
the
hands
of
a
few,
gave
rise,
in
numerous
countries
where
these
methods
were
applied
in
agriculture,
to
great,
sudden
and
forcible
revolutions
in
the
modes
of
production,
and
consequentially,
in
the
conditions
of
existence,
and
the
means
of
employment
of
the
rural
populations.But
this
contest
at
first
takes
place
more
between
the
large
and
the
small
landed
proprietors,
than
between
capital
and
wage
labour;
on
the
other
hand,
when
the
labourers
are
displaced
by
the
instruments
of
labour,by
sheep,
horses,
&c.,
in
this
case
force
is
directly
resorted
to
in
the
first
instance
as
the
prelude
to
the
industrial
revolution.
The
labourers
are
first
driven
from
the
land,
and
then
come
the
sheep.
Land
grabbing
on
a
great
scale,
such
as
was
perpetrated
in
England,
is
the
first
step
in
creating
a
field
for
the
establishment
of
agriculture
on
a
great
scale.115Hence
this
subversion
of
agriculture
puts
on,
at
first,
more
the
appearance
of
a
political
revolution.
The
instrument
of
labour,
when
it
takes
the
form
of
a
machine,
immediately
becomes
a
competitor
of
the
workman
himself.116The
self-expansion
of
capital
by
means
of
machinery
is
thenceforward
directly
proportional
to
the
number
of
the
workpeople,
whose
means
of
livelihood
have
been
destroyed
by
that
machinery.
The
whole
system
of
capitalist
production
is
based
on
the
fact
that
the
workman
sells
his
labourpower
as
a
commodity.
Division
of
labour
specialises
this
labour-power,
by
reducing
it
to
skill
in
handling
a
particular
tool.
So
soon
as
the
handling
of
this
tool
becomes
the
work
of
a
machine,
then,
with
the
use
value,
the
exchange-value
too,
of
the
workman's
labour-power
vanishes;
the
workman
becomes
unsaleable,
like
paper
money
thrown
out
of
currency
by
legal
enactment.
That
portion
of
the
working
class,
thus
by
machinery
rendered
superfluous,
i.e.,
no
longer
immediately
necessary
for
the
self-expansion
of
capital,
either
goes
to
the
wall
in
the
unequal
contest
of
the
old
handicrafts
and
manufactures
with
machinery,or
else
floods
all
the
more
easily
accessible
branches
of
industry,
swamps
the
labour-market,
and
sinks
the
price
of
labour-power
below
its
value.
It
is
impressed
upon
the
workpeople,
as
a
great
consolation,
first,that
their
sufferings
are
only
temporary
(\"a
temporary
inconvenience\"),
secondly,
that
machinery
acquires
the
mastery
over
the
whole
of
a
given
field
of
production,only
by
degrees,
so
that
the
extent
and
intensity
of
its
destructive
effect
is
diminished.
The
first
consolation
neutralises
the
second.
When
machinery
seizes
on
an
industry
by
degrees,
it
produces
chronic
misery
among
the
operatives
who
compete
with
it.
Where
the
transition
is
rapid,
the
effect
is
acute
and
felt
by
great
masses.
History
discloses
no
tragedy
more
horrible
than
the
gradual
extinction
of
the
English
hand-loom
weavers,
an
extinction
that
was
spread
over
several
decades,
and
finally
sealed
in
1838.
Many
of
them
died
of
starvation,
many
with
families
vegetated
for
a
long
time
on
2
d.
a
day.117On
the
other
hand,
the
English
cotton
machinery
produced
an
acute
effect
in
India.
The
Governor
General
reported
1834-35:
\"The
misery
hardly
finds
a
parallel
in
the
history
of
commerce.
The
bones
of
the
cotton-weavers
are
bleaching
the
plains
of
India.\"
No
doubt,
in
turning
them
out
of
this
\"temporal\"
world,the
machinery
caused
them
no
more
than
\"a
temporary
inconvenience.\"
For
the
rest,
since
machinery
is
continually
seizing
upon
new
fields
of
production,its
temporary
effect
is
really
permanent.
Hence,
the
character
of
independence
and
estrangement
which
the
capitalist
mode
of
production
as
a
whole
gives
to
the
instruments
of
labour
and
to
the
product,
as
against
the
workman,
is
developed
by
means
of
machinery
into
a
thorough
antagonism.118Therefore,
it
is
with
the
advent
of
machinery,
that
the
workman
for
the
first
time
brutally
revolts
against
the
instruments
of
labour.The
instrument
of
labour
strikes
down
the
labourer.
This
direct
antagonism
between
the
two
comes
out
most
strongly,
whenever
newly
introduced
machinery
competes
with
handicrafts
or
manufactures,
handed
down
from
former
times.
But
even
in
modern
industry
the
continual
improvement
of
machinery,and
the
development
of
the
automatic
system,
has
an
analogous
effect.
\"The
object
of
improved
machinery
is
to
diminish
manual
labour,
to
provide
for
the
performance
of
a
process
or
the
completion
of
a
link
in
a
manufacture
by
the
aid
of
an
iron
instead
of
the
human
apparatus.\"
119\"The
adaptation
of
power
to
machinery
heretofore
moved
by
hand,
is
almost
of
daily
occurrence
...
the
minor
improvements
in
machinery
having
for
their
object
economy
of
power,
the
production
of
better
work,the
turning
off
more
work
in
the
same
time,
or
in
supplying
the
place
of
a
child,
a
female,
or
a
man,are
constant,
and
although
sometimes
apparently
of
no
great
moment,
have
somewhat
important
results.\"120\"Whenever
a
process
requires
peculiar
dexterity
and
steadiness
of
hand,
it
is
withdrawn,as
soon
as
possible,
from
the
cunning
workman,who
is
prone
to
irregularities
of
many
kinds,
and
it
is
placed
in
charge
of
a
peculiar
mechanism,so
self-regulating
that
a
child
can
superintend
it.\"
121\"On
the
automatic
plan
skilled
labour
gets
progressively
superseded.\"
122\"The
effect
of
improvements
in
machinery,
not
merely
in
superseding
the
necessity
for
the
employment
of
the
same
quantity
of
adult
labour
as
before,
in
order
to
produce
a
given
result,
but
in
substituting
one
description
of
human
labour
for
another,
the
less
skilled
for
the
more
skilled,
juvenile
for
adult,female
for
male,
causes
a
fresh
disturbance
in
the
rate
of
wages.\"123\"The
effect
of
substituting
the
self-acting
mule
for
the
common
mule,
is
to
discharge
the
greater
part
of
the
men
spinners,
and
to
retain
adolescents
and
children.\"124
The
extraordinary
power
of
expansion
of
the
factory
system
owing
to
accumulated
practical
experience,to
the
mechanical
means
at
hand,
and
to
constant
technical
progress,
was
proved
to
us
by
the
giant
strides
of
that
system
under
the
pressure
of
a
shortened
working
day.
But
who,
in
1860,
the
Zenith
year
of
the
English
cotton
industry,
would
have
dreamt
of
the
galloping
improvements
in
machinery,
and
the
corresponding
displacement
of
working
people,called
into
being
during
the
following
3
years,
under
the
stimulus
of
the
American
Civil
War
A
couple
of
examples
from
the
Reports
of
the
Inspectors
of
Factories
will
suffice
on
this
point.
A
Manchester
manufacturer
states:
\"We
formerly
had
75
carding
engines,
now
we
have
12,
doing
the
same
quantity
of
work....
We
are
doing
with
fewer
hands
by
14,
at
a
saving
in
wages
of
￡10
a-week.
Our
estimated
saving
in
waste
is
about
10%
in
the
quantity
of
cotton
consumed.\"
\"In
another
fine-spinning
mill
in
Manchester,
I
was
informed
that
through
increased
speed
and
the
adoption
of
some
self-acting
processes,
a
reduction
had
been
made,
in
number,of
a
fourth
in
one
department,
and
of
above
half
in
another,
and
that
the
introduction
of
the
combing
machine
in
place
of
the
second
carding,
had
considerably
reduced,
the
number
of
hands
formerly
employed
in
the
carding-room.\"
Another
spinning-mill
is
estimated
to
effect
a
saving
of
labour
of
10%.
The
Messrs.
Gilmour,
spinners
at
Manchester,
state:
\"In
our
blowing-room
department
we
consider
our
expense
with
new
machinery
is
fully
one-third
less
in
wages
and
hands
...
in
the
jack-frame
and
drawing-frame
room,
about
one
third
less
in
expense,
and
likewise
one-third
less
in
hands;
in
the
spinning
room
about
one-third
less
in
expenses.
But
this
is
not
all;
when
our
yarn
goes
to
the
manufacturers,
it
is
so
much
better
by
the
application
of
our
new
machinery,
that
they
will
produce
a
greater
quantity
of
cloth,
and
cheaper
than
from
the
yarn
produced
by
old
machinery.\"125Mr.
Redgrave
further
remarks
in
the
same
Report:
\"The
reduction
of
hands
against
increased
production
is,
in
fact,
constantly
taking
place,
in
woollen
mills
the
reduction
commenced
some
time
since,
and
is
continuing;
a
few
days
since,the
master
of
a
school
in
the
neighbourhood
of
Rochdale
said
to
me,
that
the
great
falling
off
in
the
girls'
school
is
not
only
caused
by
the
distress,but
by
the
changes
of
machinery
in
the
woollen
mills,
in
consequence
of
which
a
reduction
of
70
short-timers
had
taken
place.\"
126
The
following
table
shows
the
total
result
of
the
mechanical
improvements
in
the
English
cotton
industry
due
to
the
American
Civil
War.
Hence,
between
1861
and
1868,
338
cotton
factories
disappeared,
in
other
words
more
productive
machinery
on
a
larger
scale
was
concentrated
in
the
hands
of
a
smaller
number
of
capitalists.
The
number
of
power
looms
decreased
by
20,663;
but
since
their
product
increased
in
the
same
period,
an
improved
loom
must
have
yielded
more
than
an
old
one.
Lastly
the
number
of
spindles
increased
by
1,612,541,
while
the
number
of
operatives
decreased
by
50,505.
The
\"temporary\"misery
inflicted
on
the
workpeople
by
the
cotton
crisis,
was
heightened,
and
from
being
temporary
made
permanent,
by
the
rapid
and
persistent
progress
of
machinery.
But
machinery
not
only
acts
as
a
competitor
who
gets
the
better
of
the
workman,
and
is
constantly
on
the
point
of
making
him
superfluous.
It
is
also
a
power
inimical
to
him,
and
as
such
capital
proclaims
it
from
the
roof
tops
and
as
such
makes
use
of
it.
It
is
the
most
powerful
weapon
for
repressing
strikes,those
periodical
revolts
of
the
working-class
against
the
autocracy
of
capital.127According
to
Gaskell,
the
steam-engine
was
from
the
very
first
an
antagonist
of
human
power,
an
antagonist
that
enabled
the
capitalist
to
tread
under
foot
the
growing
claims
of
the
workmen,
who
threatened
the
newly
born
factory
system
with
a
crisis.128It
would
be
possible
to
write
quite
a
history
of
the
inventions,
made
since
1830,
for
the
sole
purpose
of
supplying
capital
with
weapons
against
the
revolts
of
the
working-class.
At
the
head
of
these
in
importance,
stands
the
self-acting
mule,because
it
opened
up
a
new
epoch
in
the
automatic
system.129
Nasmyth,
the
inventor
of
the
steam-hammer,
gives
the
following
evidence
before
the
Trades'
Union
Commission,
with
regard
to
the
improvements
made
by
him
in
machinery
and
introduced
in
consequence
of
the
wide-spread
and
long
strikes
of
the
engineers
in
1851.
\"The
characteristic
feature
of
our
modern
mechanical
improvements,
is
the
introduction
of
self-acting
tool
machinery.
What
every
mechanical
workman
has
now
to
do,
and
what
every
boy
can
do,
is
not
to
work
himself
but
to
superintend
the
beautiful
labour
of
the
machine.
The
whole
class
of
workmen
that
depend
exclusively
on
their
skill,
is
now
done
away
with.
Formerly,
I
employed
four
boys
to
every
mechanic.
Thanks
to
these
new
mechanical
combinations,
I
have
reduced
the
number
of
grown-up
men
from
1,500
to
750.
The
result
was
a
considerable
increase
in
my
profits.\"
Ure
says
of
a
machine
used
in
calico
printing:
\"At
length
capitalists
sought
deliverance
from
this
intolerable
bondage\"
[namely
the,
in
their
eyes,
burdensome
terms
of
their
contracts
with
the
workmen]
\"in
the
resources
of
science,
and
were
speedily
re-instated
in
their
legitimate
rule,
that
of
the
head
over
the
inferior
members.\"
Speaking
of
an
invention
for
dressing
warps:
\"Then
the
combined
malcontents,
who
fancied
themselves
impregnably
entrenched
behind
the
old
lines
of
division
of
labour,
found
their
flanks
turned
and
their
defences
rendered
useless
by
the
new
mechanical
tactics,
and
were
obliged
to
surrender
at
discretion.\"
With
regard
to
the
invention
of
the
self-acting
mule,he
says:
\"A
creation
destined
to
restore
order
among
the
industrious
classes....
This
invention
confirms
the
great
doctrine
already
propounded,
that
when
capital
enlists
science
into
her
service,
the
refractory
hand
of
labour
will
always
be
taught
docility.\"130
Although
Ure's
work
appeared
30
years
ago,
at
a
time
when
the
factory
system
was
comparatively
but
little
developed,
it
still
perfectly
expresses
the
spirit
of
the
factory,
not
only
by
its
undisguised
cynicism,but
also
by
the
naveté
with
which
it
blurts
out
the
stupid
contradictions
of
the
capitalist
brain.
For
instance,
after
propounding
the
\"doctrine\"
stated
above,
that
capital,
with
the
aid
of
science
taken
into
its
pay,
always
reduces
the
refractory
hand
of
labour
to
docility,
he
grows
indignant
because
\"it
(physico-mechanical
science)
has
been
accused
of
lending
itself
to
the
rich
capitalist
as
an
instrument
for
harassing
the
poor.\"
After
preaching
a
long
sermon
to
show
how
advantageous
the
rapid
development
of
machinery
is
to
the
working-classes,
he
warns
them,
that
by
their
obstinacy
and
their
strikes
they
hasten
that
development.
\"Violent
revulsions
of
this
nature,\"
he
says,\"display
short-sighted
man
in
the
contemptible
character
of
a
self-tormentor.\"
A
few
pages
before
he
states
the
contrary.
\"Had
it
not
been
for
the
violent
collisions
and
interruptions
resulting
from
erroneous
views
among
the
factory
operatives,
the
factory
system
would
have
been
developed
still
more
rapidly
and
beneficially
for
all
concerned.\"
Then
he
exclaims
again:
\"Fortunately
for
the
state
of
society
in
the
cotton
districts
of
Great
Britain,
the
improvements
in
machinery
are
gradual.\"
\"It\"
(improvement
in
machinery)
\"is
said
to
lower
the
rate
of
earnings
of
adults
by
displacing
a
portion
of
them,
and
thus
rendering
their
number
superabundant
as
compared
with
the
demand
for
their
labour.
It
certainly
augments
the
demand
for
the
labour
of
children
and
increases
the
rate
of
their
wages.\"
On
the
other
hand,
this
same
dispenser
of
consolation
defends
the
lowness
of
the
children's
wages
on
the
ground
that
it
prevents
parents
from
sending
their
children
at
too
early
an
age
into
the
factory.
The
whole
of
his
book
is
a
vindication
of
a
working
day
of
unrestricted
length;
that
Parliament
should
forbid
children
of
13
years
to
be
exhausted
by
working
12
hours
a
day,
reminds
his
liberal
soul
of
the
darkest
days
of
the
Middle
Ages.
This
does
not
prevent
him
from
calling
upon
the
factory
operatives
to
thank
Providence,
who
by
means
of
machinery
has
given
them
the
leisure
to
think
of
their
\"immortal
interests.\"131
Section
6:
The
Theory
of
Compensation
as
Regards
the
Workpeople
Displaced
by
Machinery
James
Mill,
MacCulloch,
Torrens,
Senior,
John
Stuart
Mill,
and
a
whole
series
besides,
of
bourgeois
political
economists,
insist
that
all
machinery
that
displaces
workmen,
simultaneously
and
necessarily
sets
free
an
amount
of
capital
adequate
to
employ
the
same
identical
workmen.
132
Suppose
a
capitalist
to
employ
100
workmen,
at￡30
a
year
each,
in
a
carpet
factory.
The
variable
capital
annually
laid
out
amounts,
therefore,
to
￡3,000.Suppose,
also,
that
he
discharges
50
of
his
workmen,and
employs
the
remaining
50
with
machinery
that
costs
him
￡1,500.
To
simplify
matters,
we
take
no
account
of
buildings,
coal,
&c.
Further
suppose
that
the
raw
material
annually
consumed
costs
￡3,000,both
before
and
after
the
change.133Is
any
capital
set
free
by
this
metamorphosis
Before
the
change,
the
total
sum
of
￡6,000
consisted
half
of
constant,
and
half
of
variable
capital.
After
the
change
it
consists
of
￡4,500
constant
(
￡3,000
raw
material
and
￡1,500
machinery),
and
￡1,500
variable
capital.
The
variable
capital,
instead
of
being
one
half,
is
only
one
quarter,of
the
total
capital.
Instead
of
being
set
free,
a
part
of
the
capital
is
here
locked
up
in
such
a
way
as
to
cease
to
be
exchanged
against
labour-power:
variable
has
been
changed
into
constant
capital.
Other
things
remaining
unchanged,
the
capital
of
￡6,000,
can,in
future,
employ
no
more
than
50
men.
With
each
improvement
in
the
machinery,
it
will
employ
fewer.If
the
newly
introduced
machinery
had
cost
less
than
did
the
labour-power
and
implements
displaced
by
it,
if,
for
instance,
instead
of
costing
￡1,500,
it
had
cost
only
￡1,000,
a
variable
capital
of
￡1,000
would
have
been
converted
into
constant
capital,
and
locked
up;
and
a
capital
of
￡500
would
have
been
set
free.The
latter
sum,
supposing
wages
unchanged,
would
form
a
fund
sufficient
to
employ
about
16
out
of
the
50
men
discharged;
nay,
less
than
16,
for,
in
order
to
be
employed
as
capital,
a
part
of
this
￡500
must
now
become
constant
capital,
thus
leaving
only
the
remainder
to
be
laid
out
in
labour-power.
But,
suppose,
besides,
that
the
making
of
the
new
machinery
affords
employment
to
a
greater
number
of
mechanics,
can
that
be
called
compensation
to
the
carpet-makers,
thrown
on
the
streets
At
the
best,
its
construction
employs
fewer
men
than
its
employment
displaces.
The
sum
of
￡1,500
that
formerly
represented
the
wages
of
the
discharged
carpet-makers,
now
represents
in
the
shape
of
machinery:
(1)
the
value
of
the
means
of
production
used
in
the
construction
of
that
machinery,
(2)
the
wages
of
the
mechanics
employed
in
its
construction,
and
(3)
the
surplus
value
falling
to
the
share
of
their
\"master.\"
Further,the
machinery
need
not
be
renewed
till
it
is
worn
out.
Hence,
in
order
to
keep
the
increased
number
of
mechanics
in
constant
employment,
one
carpet
manufacturer
after
another
must
displace
workmen
by
machines.
As
a
matter
of
fact
the
apologists
do
not
mean
this
sort
of
setting
free.
They
have
in
their
minds
the
means
of
subsistence
of
the
liberated
work-people.
It
cannot
be
denied,
in
the
above
instance,
that
the
machinery
not
only
liberates
50
men,
thus
placing
them
at
others'
disposal,
but,
at
the
same
time,
it
withdraws
from
their
consumption,and
sets
free,
means
of
subsistence
to
the
value
of￡1,500.
The
simple
fact,
by
no
means
a
new
one,
that
machinery
cuts
off
the
workmen
from
their
means
of
subsistence
is,
therefore,
in
economic
parlance
tantamount
to
this,
that
machinery
liberates
means
of
subsistence
for
the
workman,
or
converts
those
means
into
capital
for
his
employment.
The
mode
of
expression,
you
see,
is
everything.
Nominibus
mollire
licet
mala.
This
theory
implies
that
the
￡1,500
worth
of
means
of
subsistence
was
capital
that
was
being
expanded
by
the
labour
of
the
50
men
discharged.
That,consequently,
this
capital
falls
out
of
employment
so
soon
as
they
commence
their
forced
holidays,
and
never
rests
till
it
has
found
a
fresh
investment,
where
it
can
again
be
productively
consumed
by
these
same
50
men.
That
sooner
or
later,
therefore,
the
capital
and
the
workmen
must
come
together
again,
and
that,
then,the
compensation
is
complete.
That
the
sufferings
of
the
workmen
displaced
by
machinery
are
therefore
as
transient
as
are
the
riches
of
this
world.
In
relation
to
the
discharged
workmen,
the
￡1,500
worth
of
means
of
subsistence
never
was
capital.
What
really
confronted
them
as
capital,
was
the
sum
of￡1,500,
afterwards
laid
out
in
machinery.
On
looking
closer
it
will
be
seen
that
this
sum
represented
part
of
the
carpets
produced
in
a
year
by
the
50
discharged
men,
which
part
they
received
as
wages
from
their
employer
in
money
instead
of
in
kind.
With
the
carpets
in
the
form
of
money,
they
bought
means
of
subsistence
to
the
value
of
￡1,500.
These
means,therefore,
were
to
them,
not
capital,
but
commodities,and
they,
as
regards
these
commodities,
were
not
wage-labourers,
but
buyers.
The
circumstance
that
they
were
\"freed\"
by
the
machinery,
from
the
means
of
purchase,
changed
them
from
buyers
into
non-buyers.Hence
a
lessened
demand
for
those
commodities
–voilà
tout.
If
this
diminution
be
not
compensated
by
an
increase
from
some
other
quarter,
the
market
price
of
the
commodities
falls.
If
this
state
of
things
lasts
for
some
time,
and
extends,
there
follows
a
discharge
of
workmen
employed
in
the
production
of
these
commodities.
Some
of
the
capital
that
was
previously
devoted
to
production
of
necessary
means
of
subsistence,
has
to
become
reproduced
in
another
form.
While
prices
fall,
and
capital
is
being
displaced,the
labourers
employed
in
the
production
of
necessary
means
of
subsistence
are
in
their
turn
\"freed\"
from
a
part
of
their
wages.
Instead,
therefore,
of
proving
that,
when
machinery
frees
the
workman
from
his
means
of
subsistence,
it
simultaneously
converts
those
means
into
capital
for
his
further
employment,
our
apologists,
with
their
cut-and-dried
law
of
supply
and
demand,
prove,
on
the
contrary,
that
machinery
throws
workmen
on
the
streets,
not
only
in
that
branch
of
production
in
which
it
is
introduced,
but
also
in
those
branches
in
which
it
is
not
introduced.
The
real
facts,
which
are
travestied
by
the
optimism
of
economists,
are
as
follows:
The
labourers,
when
driven
out
of
the
workshop
by
the
machinery,
are
thrown
upon
the
labour
market,
and
there
add
to
the
number
of
workmen
at
the
disposal
of
the
capitalists.In
Part
VII
of
this
book
it
will
be
seen
that
this
effect
of
machinery,
which,
as
we
have
seen,
is
represented
to
be
a
compensation
to
the
working
class,
is
on
the
contrary
a
most
frightful
scourge.
For
the
present
I
will
only
say
this:
The
labourers
that
are
thrown
out
of
work
in
any
branch
of
industry,
can
no
doubt
seek
for
employment
in
some
other
branch.
If
they
find
it,
and
thus
renew
the
bond
between
them
and
the
means
of
subsistence,
this
takes
place
only
by
the
intermediary
of
a
new
and
additional
capital
that
is
seeking
investment;
not
at
all
by
the
intermediary
of
the
capital
that
formerly
employed
them
and
was
afterwards
converted
into
machinery.
And
even
should
they
find
employment,
what
a
poor
look-out
is
theirs!Crippled
as
they
are
by
division
of
labour,
these
poor
devils
are
worth
so
little
outside
their
old
trade,that
they
cannot
find
admission
into
any
industries,except
a
few
of
inferior
kind,
that
are
over-supplied
with
underpaid
workmen.134Further,
every
branch
of
industry
attracts
each
year
a
new
stream
of
men,
who
furnish
a
contingent
from
which
to
fill
up
vacancies,and
to
draw
a
supply
for
expansion.
So
soon
as
machinery
sets
free
a
part
of
the
workmen
employed
in
a
given
branch
of
industry,
the
reserve
men
are
also
diverted
into
new
channels
of
employment,
and
become
absorbed
in
other
branches;
meanwhile
the
original
victims,
during
the
period
of
transition,
for
the
most
part
starve
and
perish.
It
is
an
undoubted
fact
that
machinery,
as
such,
is
not
responsible
for
\"setting
free\"
the
workman
from
the
means
of
subsistence.
It
cheapens
and
increases
production
in
that
branch
which
it
seizes
on,
and
at
first
makes
no
change
in
the
mass
of
the
means
of
subsistence
produced
in
other
branches.
Hence,
after
its
introduction,
the
society
possesses
as
much,
if
not
more,
of
the
necessaries
of
life
than
before,
for
the
labourers
thrown
out
of
work;
and
that
quite
apart
from
the
enormous
share
of
the
annual
produce
wasted
by
the
non-workers.
And
this
is
the
point
relied
on
by
our
apologists!
The
contradictions
and
antagonisms
inseparable
from
the
capitalist
employment
of
machinery,
do
not
exist,
they
say,
since
they
do
not
arise
out
of
machinery,
as
such,
but
out
of
its
capitalist
employment!
Since
therefore
machinery,
considered
alone,
shortens
the
hours
of
labour,
but,
when
in
the
service
of
capital,
lengthens
them;
since
in
itself
it
lightens
labour,
but
when
employed
by
capital,heightens
the
intensity
of
labour;
since
in
itself
it
is
a
victory
of
man
over
the
forces
of
Nature,
but
in
the
hands
of
capital,
makes
man
the
slave
of
those
forces;since
in
itself
it
increases
the
wealth
of
the
producers,but
in
the
hands
of
capital,
makes
them
paupers
-
for
all
these
reasons
and
others
besides,
says
the
bourgeois
economist
without
more
ado,
it
is
clear
as
noon-day
that
all
these
contradictions
are
a
mere
semblance
of
the
reality,
and
that,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
they
have
neither
an
actual
nor
a
theoretical
existence.
Thus
he
saves
himself
from
all
further
puzzling
of
the
brain,and
what
is
more,
implicitly
declares
his
opponent
to
be
stupid
enough
to
contend
against,
not
the
capitalistic
employment
of
machinery,
but
machinery
itself.
No
doubt
he
is
far
from
denying
that
temporary
inconvenience
may
result
from
the
capitalist
use
of
machinery.
But
where
is
the
medal
without
its
reverse!Any
employment
of
machinery,
except
by
capital,
is
to
him
an
impossibility.
Exploitation
of
the
workman
by
the
machine
is
therefore,
with
him,
identical
with
exploitation
of
the
machine
by
the
workman.Whoever,
therefore,
exposes
the
real
state
of
things
in
the
capitalistic
employment
of
machinery,
is
against
its
employment
in
any
way,
and
is
an
enemy
of
social
progress!135Exactly
the
reasoning
of
the
celebrated
Bill
Sykes.
\"Gentlemen
of
the
jury,
no
doubt
the
throat
of
this
commercial
traveller
has
been
cut.
But
that
is
not
my
fault,
it
is
the
fault
of
the
knife.
Must
we,
for
such
a
temporary
inconvenience,
abolish
the
use
of
the
knife
Only
consider!
where
would
agriculture
and
trade
be
without
the
knife
Is
it
not
as
salutary
in
surgery,
as
it
is
knowing
in
anatomy
And
in
addition
a
willing
help
at
the
festive
board
If
you
abolish
the
knife
–
you
hurl
us
back
into
the
depths
of
barbarism.\"136
Although
machinery
necessarily
throws
men
out
of
work
in
those
industries
into
which
it
is
introduced,
yet
it
may,
notwithstanding
this,
bring
about
an
increase
of
employment
in
other
industries.
This
effect,
however,has
nothing
in
common
with
the
so-called
theory
of
compensation.
Since
every
article
produced
by
a
machine
is
cheaper
than
a
similar
article
produced
by
hand,
we
deduce
the
following
infallible
law:
If
the
total
quantity
of
the
article
produced
by
machinery,be
equal
to
the
total
quantity
of
the
article
previously
produced
by
a
handicraft
or
by
manufacture,
and
now
made
by
machinery,
then
the
total
labour
expended
is
diminished.
The
new
labour
spent
on
the
instruments
of
labour,
on
the
machinery,
on
the
coal,
and
so
on,must
necessarily
be
less
than
the
labour
displaced
by
the
use
of
the
machinery;
otherwise
the
product
of
the
machine
would
be
as
dear,
or
dearer,
than
the
product
of
the
manual
labour.
But,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
the
total
quantity
of
the
article
produced
by
machinery
with
a
diminished
number
of
workmen,
instead
of
remaining
equal
to,
by
far
exceeds
the
total
quantity
of
the
hand-made
article
that
has
been
displaced.
Suppose
that
400,000
yards
of
cloth
have
been
produced
on
power-looms
by
fewer
weavers
than
could
weave
100,000
yards
by
hand.
In
the
quadrupled
product
there
lies
four
times
as
much
raw
material.
Hence
the
production
of
raw
material
must
be
quadrupled.
But
as
regards
the
instruments
of
labour,
such
as
buildings,coal,
machinery,
and
so
on,
it
is
different;
the
limit
up
to
which
the
additional
labour
required
for
their
production
can
increase,
varies
with
the
difference
between
the
quantity
of
the
machine-made
article,
and
the
quantity
of
the
same
article
that
the
same
number
of
workmen
could
make
by
hand.
Hence,
as
the
use
of
machinery
extends
in
a
given
industry,
the
immediate
effect
is
to
increase
production
in
the
other
industries
that
furnish
the
first
with
means
of
production.
How
far
employment
is
thereby
found
for
an
increased
number
of
men,
depends,
given
the
length
of
the
working
day
and
the
intensity
of
labour,on
the
composition
of
the
capital
employed,
i.e.,
on
the
ratio
of
its
constant
to
its
variable
component.This
ratio,
in
its
turn,
varies
considerably
with
the
extent
to
which
machinery
has
already
seized
on,
or
is
then
seizing
on,
those
trades.
The
number
of
the
men
condemned
to
work
in
coal
and
metal
mines
increased
enormously
owing
to
the
progress
of
the
English
factory
system;
but
during
the
last
few
decades
this
increase
of
number
has
been
less
rapid,
owing
to
the
use
of
new
machinery
in
mining.137A
new
type
of
workman
springs
into
life
along
with
the
machine,namely,
its
maker.
We
have
already
learnt
that
machinery
has
possessed
itself
even
of
this
branch
of
production
on
a
scale
that
grows
greater
every
day.138As
to
raw
material,139there
is
not
the
least
doubt
that
the
rapid
strides
of
cotton
spinning,
not
only
pushed
on
with
tropical
luxuriance
the
growth
of
cotton
in
the
United
States,
and
with
it
the
African
slave
trade,
but
also
made
the
breeding
of
slaves
the
chief
business
of
the
border
slave-states.
When,
in
1790,
the
first
census
of
slaves
was
taken
in
the
United
States,
their
number
was
697,000;
in
1861
it
had
nearly
reached
four
millions.
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
no
less
certain
that
the
rise
of
the
English
woollen
factories,
together
with
the
gradual
conversion
of
arable
land
into
sheep
pasture,
brought,
about
the
superfluity
of
agricultural
labourers
that
led
to
their
being
driven
in
masses
into
the
towns.
Ireland,
having
during
the
last
twenty
years
reduced
its
population
by
nearly
one
half,
is
at
this
moment
undergoing
the
process
of
still
further
reducing
the
number
of
its
inhabitants,
so
as
exactly
to
suit
the
requirements
of
its
landlords
and
of
the
English
woollen
manufacturers.
When
machinery
is
applied
to
any
of
the
preliminary
or
intermediate
stages
through
which
the
subject
of
labour
has
to
pass
on
its
way
to
completion,
there
is
an
increased
yield
of
material
in
those
stages,
and
simultaneously
an
increased
demand
for
labour
in
the
handicrafts
or
manufactures
supplied
by
the
produce
of
the
machines.
Spinning
by
machinery,
for
example,supplied
yarn
so
cheaply
and
so
abundantly
that
the
hand-loom
weavers
were,
at
first,
able
to
work
full
time
without
increased
outlay.
Their
earnings
accordingly
rose.140Hence
a
flow
of
people
into
the
cotton-weaving
trade,
till
at
length
the
800,000
weavers,
called
into
existence
by
the
Jenny,
the
throstle
and
the
mule,
were
overwhelmed
by
the
power-loom.
So
also,
owing
to
the
abundance
of
clothing
materials
produced
by
machinery,
the
number
of
tailors,
seamstresses
and
needlewomen,
went
on
increasing
until
the
appearance
of
the
sewing-machine.
精選分類
