資本論 CHAPTER 15: MACHINERY AND MODERN INDUSTRY011

229John

Bellers,

a

very

phenomenon

in

the

history

of

Political

Economy,

saw

most

clearly

at

the

end

of

the

17th

century,

the

necessity

for

abolishing

the

present

system

of

education

and

division

of

labour,

which

beget

hypertrophy

and

atrophy

at

the

two

opposite

extremities

of

society.

Amongst

other

things

he

says

this:

\"An

idle

learning

being

little

better

than

the

learning

of

idleness....

Bodily

labour,

it's

a

primitive

institution

of

God....

Labour

being

as

proper

for

the

bodies'health

as

eating

is

for

its

living;

for

what

pains

a

man

saves

by

ease,

he

will

find

in

disease....

Labour

adds

oil

to

the

lamp

of

life,

when

thinking

inflames

it....

A

childish

silly

employ\"(a

warning

this,

by

presentiment,

against

the

Basedows

and

their

modern

imitators)

\"leaves

the

children's

minds

silly,\"(\"Proposals

for

Raising

a

Colledge

of

Industry

of

all

Useful

Trades

and

Husbandry.\"

Lond.,

1696,

pp.

12,

14,

18.)

230This

sort

of

labour

goes

on

mostly

in

small

workshops,as

we

have

seen

in

the

lacemaking

and

straw-plaiting

trades,

and

as

could

be

shown

more

in

detail

from

the

metal

trades

of

Sheffield,

Birmingham,

&c.

231\"Ch.

Empl.

Comm.,

V.

Rep.,\"

p.

xxv.,

n.

162,

and

II.Rep.,

p.

xxxviii.,

n,

285,

289,

p.

xxv.,

xxvi.,

n.

191.

232\"Factory

labour

may

be

as

pure

and

as

excellent

as

domestic

labour,

and

perhaps

more

so.\"

(\"Rep.

Insp.

of

Fact.,31st

October,

1865,\"

p.

129.)

233\"Rep.

Insp.

of

Fact.,

31st

October,

1865,\"

pp.

27-32.

234Numerous

instances

will

be

found

in

\"Rep.

of

Insp.

of

Fact.\"

235\"Ch.

Empl.

Comm.,

V.

Rep.,\"

p.

x.,

n.

35.

236\"Ch.

Empl.

Comm.,

V.

Rep.,\"

p.

ix.,

n.

28.

237l.c.,

p.

xxv.,

n.

165-167.

As

to

the

advantages

of

large

scale,

compared

with

small

scale,

industries,

see

\"Ch.

Empl.Comm.,

III.

Rep.,\"

p.

13,

n.

144,

p.

25,

n.

121,

p.

26,

n.

125,

p.27,

n.

140,

&c.

238The

trades

proposed

to

be

brought

under

the

Act

were

the

following:

Lace-making,

stocking-weaving,

straw-plaiting,the

manufacture

of

wearing

apparel

with

its

numerous

sub

divisions,

artificial

flower-making,

shoemaking,

hat-making,glove-making,

tailoring,

all

metal

works,

from

blast

furnaces

down

to

needleworks,

&c.,

paper-mills,

glassworks,

tobacco

factories,

India-rubber

works,

braid-making

(for

weaving),hand-carpetmaking,

umbrella

and

parasol

making,

the

manufacture

of

spindles

and

spools,

letterpress

printing,

book

binding,

manufacture

of

stationery

(including

paper

bags,cards,

coloured

paper,

&c.),

rope-making,

manufacture

of

jet

ornaments,

brick-making,

silk

manufacture

by

hand,

Coventry

weaving,

salt

works,

tallow

chandlers,

cement

works,

sugar

refineries,

biscuit-making,

various

industries

connected

with

timber,

and

other

mixed

trades.

239l.c.,

p.

xxv.,

n.

169.

240Here

(from

\"The

Tory

Cabinet......

to

\"Nassau

W.Senior\")

the

English

text

has

been

altered

in

conformity

with

the

4th

German

edition.

—

Ed.

241The

Factory

Acts

Extension

Act

was

passed

on

August

12,

1867.

It

regulates

all

foundries,

smithies,

and

metal

manufactories,

including

machine

shops;

furthermore

glassworks,

paper

mills,

gutta-percha

and

India-rubber

works,tobacco

manufactories,

letter-press

printing

and

book-binding

works,

and,

lastly,

all

workshops

in

which

more

than

50

persons

are

employed.

The

Hours

of

Labour

Regulation

Act,passed

on

August

17,

1867,

regulates

the

smaller

workshops

and

the

so-called

domestic

industries.

I

shall

revert

to

these

Acts

and

to

the

new

Mining

Act

of

1872

in

Volume

II.

242Senior,

\"Social

Science

Congress,\"

pp.

55-58.

243The

\"personnel\"

of

this

staff

consisted

of

2

inspectors,2

assistant

inspectors

and

41

sub-inspectors.

Eight

additional

sub-inspectors

were

appointed

in

1871.

The

total

cost

of

administering

the

Acts

in

England,

Scotland,

and

Ireland

amounted

for

the

year

1871-72

to

no

more

than

￡25,347,inclusive

of

the

law

expenses

incurred

by

prosecutions

of

offending

masters.

244Robert

Owen,

the

father

of

Co-operative

Factories

and

Stores,

but

who,

as

before

remarked,

in

no

way

shared

the

illusions

of

his

followers

with

regard

to

the

bearing

of

these

isolated

elements

of

transformation,

not

only

practically

made

the

factory

system

the

sole

foundation

of

his

experiments,but

also

declared

that

system

to

be

theoretically

the

starting

point

of

the

social

revolution.

Herr

Vissering,

Professor

of

Political

Economy

in

the

University

of

Leyden,

appears

to

have

a

suspicion

of

this

when,

in

his

\"Handboek

van

Practische

Staatshuishoudkunde,

1860-62,\"

which

reproduces

all

the

platitudes

of

vulgar

economy,

he

strongly

supports

handicrafts

against

the

factory

system.

[Added

in

the

4th

German

edition

—

The

\"hopelesslybewildering

tangle

of

contradictory

enactments\"

(S.

314)(present

volume,

p.

284)

which

English

legislation

called

into

life

by

means

of

the

mutually

conflicting

Factory

Acts,

the

Factory

Acts

Extension

Act

and

the

Workshops'

Act,

finally

became

intolerable,

and

thus

all

legislative

enactments

on

this

subject

were

codified

in

the

Factory

and

Workshop

Act

of

1878.

Of

course

no

detailed

critique

of

this

English

industrial

code

now

in

effect

can

be

presented

here.

The

following

remarks

will

have

to

suffice.

The

Act

comprises:

1)Textile

Mills.

Here

everything

remains

about

as

it

was:

children

more

than

10

years

of

age

may

work

5

hours

a

day;or

6

hours

and

Saturday

off;

young

persons

and

women,

10

hours

on

5

days,

and

at

most

6

on

Saturday.

2)Non-Textile

Factories.

Here

the

regulations

are

brought

closer

than

before

to

those

of

No.

1,

but

there

are

still

several

exceptions

which

favour

the

capitalists

and

which

in

certain

cases

may

be

expanded

by

special

permission

of

the

Home

Secretary.

3)Workshops,

defined

approximately

as

in

the

former

Act;as

for

the

children,

young

workers

and

women

employed

there,the

workshops

are

about

on

a

par

with

the

non-textile

factories,but

again

conditions

are

easier

in

details.

4)Workshops

in

which

no

children

or

young

workers

are

employed,

but

only

persons

of

both

sexes

above

the

age

of

18;this

category

enjoy

still

easier

conditions.

5)Domestic

Workshops,

where

only

members

of

the

family

are

employed,

in

the

family

dwelling:

still

more

elastic

regulations

and

simultaneously

the

restriction

that

the

inspector

may,

without

special

permission

of

the

ministry

or

a

court,enter

only

rooms

not

used

also

for

dwelling

purposes;

and

lastly

unrestricted

freedom

for

straw-plaiting

and

lace

and

glove-making

by

members

of

the

family.

With

all

its

defects

this

Act,

together

with

the

Swiss

Federal

Factory

Law

of

March

23,

1877,

is

still

by

far

the

best

piece

of

legislation

in

this

field.

A

comparison

of

it

with

the

said

Swiss

federal

law

is

of

particular

interest

because

it

clearly

demonstrates

the

merits

and

demerits

of

the

two

legislative

methods

—

the

English,\"historical\"

method,

which

intervenes

when

occasion

requires,and

the

continental

method,

which

is

built

up

on

the

traditions

of

the

French

Revolution

and

generalises

more.

Unfortunately,due

to

insufficient

inspection

personnel,

the

English

code

is

still

largely

a

dead

letter

with

regard

to

its

application

to

workshops.

—

F.

E.]

245\"You

divide

the

people

into

two

hostile

camps

of

clownish

boors

and

emasculated

dwarfs.

Good

heavens!

a

nation

divided

into

agricultural

and

commercial

interests,calling

itself

sane;

nay,

styling

itself

enlightened

and

civilised,not

only

in

spite

of,

but

in

consequence

of

this

monstrous

and

unnatural

division.\"

(David

Urquhart,

l.c.,

p.

119.)

This

passage

shows,

at

one

and

the

same

time,

the

strength

and

the

weakness

of

that

kind

of

criticism

which

knows

how

to

judge

and

condemn

the

present,

but

not

how

to

comprehend

it.

246See

Liebig:

\"Die

Chemie

in

ihrer

Anwendung

auf

Agricultur

und

Physiologie,\"

7.

Auflage,

1862,

and

especially

the

\"Einleitung

in

die

Naturgesetze

des

Feldbaus,\"

in

the

1st

Volume.

To

have

developed

from

the

point

of

view

of

natural

science,

the

negative,

i.e.,

destructive

side

of

modern

agriculture,

is

one

of

Liebig's

immortal

merits.

His

summary,too,

of

the

history

of

agriculture,

although

not

free

from

gross

errors,

contains

flashes

of

light.

It

is,

however,

to

be

regretted

that

he

ventures

on

such

haphazard

assertions

as

the

following:\"By

greater

pulverising

and

more

frequent

ploughing,

the

circulation

of

air

in

the

interior

of

porous

soil

is

aided,

and

the

surface

exposed

to

the

action

of

the

atmosphere

is

increased

and

renewed;

but

it

is

easily

seen

that

the

increased

yield

of

the

land

cannot

be

proportional

to

the

labour

spent

on

that

land,

but

increases

in

a

much

smaller

proportion.

This

law,\"

adds

Liebig,\"was

first

enunciated

by

John

Stuart

Mill

in

his

'Principles

of

Pol.

Econ.,'

Vol.

1,

p.

17,

as

follows:

'That

the

produce

of

land

increases,

caeteris

paribus,

in

a

diminishing

ratio

to

the

increase

of

the

labourers

employed'

(Mill

here

introduces

in

an

erroneous

form

the

law

enunciated

by

Ricardo's

school,

for

since

the

'decrease

of

the

labourers

employed,'

kept

even

pace

in

England

with

the

advance

of

agriculture,

the

law

discovered

in,

and

applied

to,

England,

could

have

no

application

to

that

country,

at

all

events),

'is

the

universal

law

of

agricultural

industry.'

This

is

very

remarkable,

since

Mill

was

ignorant

of

the

reason

for

this

law.\"

(Liebig,

l.c.,

Bd.

I.,

p.

143

and

Note.)

Apart

from

Liebig's

wrong

interpretation

of

the

word

\"labour,\"by

which

word

he

understands

something

quite

different

from

what

Political

Economy

does,

it

is,

in

any

case,

\"very

remarkable\"

that

he

should

make

Mr.

John

Stuart

Mill

the

first

propounder

of

a

theory

which

was

first

published

by

James

Anderson

in

A.

Smith's

days,

and

was

repeated

in

various

works

down

to

the

beginning

of

the

19th

century;

a

theory

which

Malthus,

that

master

in

plagiarism

(the

whole

of

his

population

theory

is

a

shameless

plagiarism),

appropriated

to

himself

in

1815;

which

West

developed

at

the

same

time

as,and

independently

of,

Anderson;

which

in

the

year

1817

was

connected

by

Ricardo

with

the

general

theory

of

value,

then

made

the

round

of

the

world

as

Ricardo's

theory,

and

in

1820

was

vulgarised

by

James

Mill,

the

father

of

John

Stuart

Mill;and

which,

finally,

was

reproduced

by

John

Stuart

Mill

and

others,

as

a

dogma

already

quite

commonplace,

and

known

to

every

schoolboy.

It

cannot

be

denied

that

John

Stuart

Mill

owes

his,

at

all

events,

\"remarkable\"

authority

almost

entirely

to

such

quid-pro-quos.