- 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
CHAPTER
16:
ABSOLUTE
AND
RELATIVE
SURPLUS-VALUE
In
considering
the
labour-process,
we
began
(see
Chapter
VII.)
by
treating
it
in
the
abstract,
apart
from
its
historical
forms,
as
a
process
between
man
and
Nature.
We
there
stated,
\"If
we
examine
the
whole
labour-process,
from
the
point
of
view
of
its
result,
it
is
plain
that
both
the
instruments
and
the
subject
of
labour
are
means
of
production,
and
that
the
labour
itself
is
productive
labour.\"
And
in
Note
2,
same
page,we
further
added:
\"This
method
of
determining,
from
the
standpoint
of
the
labour-process
alone,
what
is
productive
labour,
is
by
no
means
directly
applicable
to
the
case
of
the
capitalist
process
of
production.\"We
now
proceed
to
the
further
development
of
this
subject.
So
far
as
the
labour-process
is
purely
individual,one
and
the
same
labourer
unites
in
himself
all
the
functions,
that
later
on
become
separated.
When
an
individual
appropriates
natural
objects
for
his
livelihood,
no
one
controls
him
but
himself.Afterwards
he
is
controlled
by
others.
A
single
man
cannot
operate
upon
Nature
without
calling
his
own
muscles
into
play
under
the
control
of
his
own
brain.As
in
the
natural
body
head
and
hand
wait
upon
each
other,
so
the
labour-process
unites
the
labour
of
the
hand
with
that
of
the
head.
Later
on
they
part
company
and
even
become
deadly
foes.
The
product
ceases
to
be
the
direct
product
of
the
individual,
and
becomes
a
social
product,
produced
in
common
by
a
collective
labourer,
i.e.,
by
a
combination
of
workmen,
each
of
whom
takes
only
a
part,
greater
or
less,
in
the
manipulation
of
the
subject
of
their
labour.As
the
co-operative
character
of
the
labour-process
becomes
more
and
more
marked,
so,
as
a
necessary
consequence,
does
our
notion
of
productive
labour,and
of
its
agent
the
productive
labourer,
become
extended.
In
order
to
labour
productively,
it
is
no
longer
necessary
for
you
to
do
manual
work
yourself;enough,
if
you
are
an
organ
of
the
collective
labourer,and
perform
one
of
its
subordinate
functions.
The
first
definition
given
above
of
productive
labour,a
definition
deduced
from
the
very
nature
of
the
production
of
material
objects,
still
remains
correct
for
the
collective
labourer,
considered
as
a
whole.But
it
no
longer
holds
good
for
each
member
taken
individually.
On
the
other
hand,
however,
our
notion
of
productive
labour
becomes
narrowed.
Capitalist
production
is
not
merely
the
production
of
commodities,
it
is
essentially
the
production
of
surplus-value.
The
labourer
produces,
not
for
himself,
but
for
capital.
It
no
longer
suffices,
therefore,
that
he
should
simply
produce.
He
must
produce
surplus-value.
That
labourer
alone
is
productive,
who
produces
surplus
value
for
the
capitalist,
and
thus
works
for
the
self
expansion
of
capital.
If
we
may
take
an
example
from
outside
the
sphere
of
production
of
material
objects,a
schoolmaster
is
a
productive
labourer
when,
in
addition
to
belabouring
the
heads
of
his
scholars,
he
works
like
a
horse
to
enrich
the
school
proprietor.That
the
latter
has
laid
out
his
capital
in
a
teaching
factory,
instead
of
in
a
sausage
factory,
does
not
alter
the
relation.
Hence
the
notion
of
a
productive
labourer
implies
not
merely
a
relation
between
work
and
useful
effect,
between
labourer
and
product
of
labour,but
also
a
specific,
social
relation
of
production,
a
relation
that
has
sprung
up
historically
and
stamps
the
labourer
as
the
direct
means
of
creating
surplus-value.To
be
a
productive
labourer
is,
therefore,
not
a
piece
of
luck,
but
a
misfortune.
In
Book
IV.
which
treats
of
the
history
of
the
theory,
it
will
be
more
clearly
seen,
that
the
production
of
surplus-value
has
at
all
times
been
made,
by
classical
political
economists,the
distinguishing
characteristic
of
the
productive
labourer.
Hence
their
definition
of
a
productive
labourer
changes
with
their
comprehension
of
the
nature
of
surplus-value.
Thus
the
Physiocrats
insist
that
only
agricultural
labour
is
productive,
since
that
alone,
they
say,
yields
a
surplus-value.
And
they
say
so
because,
with
them,
surplus-value
has
no
existence
except
in
the
form
of
rent.
The
prolongation
of
the
working
day
beyond
the
point
at
which
the
labourer
would
have
produced
just
an
equivalent
for
the
value
of
his
labour-power,
and
the
appropriation
of
that
surplus
labour
by
capital,
this
is
production
of
absolute
surplus-value.
It
forms
the
general
groundwork
of
the
capitalist
system,
and
the
starting-point
for
the
production
of
relative
surplus
value.
The
latter
pre-supposes
that
the
working
day
is
already
divided
into
two
parts,
necessary
labour,and
surplus
labour.
In
order
to
prolong
the
surplus
labour,
the
necessary
labour
is
shortened
by
methods
whereby
the
equivalent
for
the
wages
is
produced
in
less
time.
The
production
of
absolute
surplus-value
turns
exclusively
upon
the
length
of
the
working
day;the
production
of
relative
surplus-value,
revolutionises
out
and
out
the
technical
processes
of
labour,
and
the
composition
of
society.
It
therefore
pre-supposes
a
specific
mode,
the
capitalist
mode
of
production,a
mode
which,
along
with
its
methods,
means,
and
conditions,
arises
and
develops
itself
spontaneously
on
the
foundation
afforded
by
the
formal
subjection
of
labour
to
capital.
In
the
course
of
this
development,the
formal
subjection
is
replaced
by
the
real
subjection
of
labour
to
capital.
It
will
suffice
merely
to
refer
to
certain
intermediate
forms,
in
which
surplus
labour
is
not
extorted
by
direct
compulsion
from
the
producer,
nor
the
producer
himself
yet
formally
subjected
to
capital.
In
such
forms
capital
has
not
yet
acquired
the
direct
control
of
the
labour-process.
By
the
side
of
independent
producers
who
carry
on
their
handicrafts
and
agriculture
in
the
traditional
old-fashioned
way,
there
stands
the
usurer
or
the
merchant,
with
his
usurer's
capital
or
merchant's
capital,
feeding
on
them
like
a
parasite.
The
predominance,
in
a
society,
of
this
form
of
exploitation
excludes
the
capitalist
mode
of
production;
to
which
mode,
however,
this
form
may
serve
as
a
transition,
as
it
did
towards
the
close
of
the
Middle
Ages.
Finally,
as
is
shown
by
modern\"domestic
industry,\"
some
intermediate
forms
are
here
and
there
reproduced
in
the
background
of
Modern
Industry,
though
their
physiognomy
is
totally
changed.
If,
on
the
one
hand,
the
mere
formal
subjection
of
labour
to
capital
suffices
for
the
production
of
absolute
surplus-value,
if,
e.g.,
it
is
sufficient
that
handicraftsmen
who
previously
worked
on
their
own
account,
or
as
apprentices
of
a
master,
should
become
wage
labourers
under
the
direct
control
of
a
capitalist;so,
on
the
other
hand,
we
have
seen,
how
the
methods
of
producing
relative
surplus-value,
are,
at
the
same
time,
methods
of
producing
absolute
surplus-value.Nay,
more,
the
excessive
prolongation
of
the
working
day
turned
out
to
be
the
peculiar
product
of
Modern
Industry.
Generally
speaking,
the
specifically
capitalist
mode
of
production
ceases
to
be
a
mere
means
of
producing
relative
surplus-value,
so
soon
as
that
mode
has
conquered
an
entire
branch
of
production;and
still
more
so,
so
soon
as
it
has
conquered
all
the
important
branches.
It
then
becomes
the
general,socially
predominant
form
of
production.
As
a
special
method
of
producing
relative
surplus-value,
it
remains
effective
only,
first,
in
so
far
as
it
seizes
upon
industries
that
previously
were
only
formally
subject
to
capital,
that
is,
so
far
as
it
is
propagandist;
secondly,in
so
far
as
the
industries
that
have
been
taken
over
by
it,
continue
to
be
revolutionised
by
changes
in
the
methods
of
production.
From
one
standpoint,
any
distinction
between
absolute
and
relative
surplus-value
appears
illusory.Relative
surplus-value
is
absolute,
since
it
compels
the
absolute
prolongation
of
the
working
day
beyond
the
labour-time
necessary
to
the
existence
of
the
labourer
himself.
Absolute
surplus-value
is
relative,since
it
makes
necessary
such
a
development
of
the
productiveness
of
labour,
as
will
allow
of
the
necessary
labour-time
being
confined
to
a
portion
of
the
working
day.
But
if
we
keep
in
mind
the
behaviour
of
surplus-value,
this
appearance
of
identity
vanishes.Once
the
capitalist
mode
of
production
is
established
and
become
general,
the
difference
between
absolute
and
relative
surplus-value
makes
itself
felt,
whenever
there
is
a
question
of
raising
the
rate
of
surplus
value.
Assuming
that
labour-power
is
paid
for
at
its
value,
we
are
confronted
by
this
alternative:
given
the
productiveness
of
labour
and
its
normal
intensity,
the
rate
of
surplus-value
can
be
raised
only
by
the
actual
prolongation
of
the
working
day;
on
the
other
hand,given
the
length
of
the
working
day,
that
rise
can
be
effected
only
by
a
change
in
the
relative
magnitudes
of
the
components
of
the
working
day,
viz.,
necessary
labour
and
surplus
labour;
a
change
which,
if
the
wages
are
not
to
fall
below
the
value
of
labour-power,presupposes
a
change
either
in
the
productiveness
or
in
the
intensity
of
the
labour.
If
the
labourer
wants
all
his
time
to
produce
the
necessary
means
of
subsistence
for
himself
and
his
race,
he
has
no
time
left
in
which
to
work
gratis
for
others.
Without
a
certain
degree
of
productiveness
in
his
labour,
he
has
no
such
superfluous
time
at
his
disposal;
without
such
superfluous
time,
no
surplus
labour,
and
therefore
no
capitalists,
no
slave-owners,no
feudal
lords,
in
one
word,
no
class
of
large
proprietors.1
Thus
we
may
say
that
surplus-value
rests
on
a
natural
basis;
but
this
is
permissible
only
in
the
very
general
sense,
that
there
is
no
natural
obstacle
absolutely
preventing
one
man
from
disburdening
himself
of
the
labour
requisite
for
his
own
existence,and
burdening
another
with
it,
any
more,
for
instance,than
unconquerable
natural
obstacle
prevent
one
man
from
eating
the
flesh
of
another.2No
mystical
ideas
must
in
any
way
be
connected,
as
sometimes
happens,with
this
historically
developed
productiveness
of
labour.
It
is
only
after
men
have
raised
themselves
above
the
rank
of
animals,
when
therefore
their
labour
has
been
to
some
extent
socialised,
that
a
state
of
things
arises
in
which
the
surplus
labour
of
the
one
becomes
a
condition
of
existence
for
the
other.
At
the
dawn
of
civilisation
the
productiveness
acquired
by
labour
is
small,
but
so
too
are
the
wants
which
develop
with
and
by
the
means
of
satisfying
them.
Further,
at
that
early
period,
the
portion
of
society
that
lives
on
the
labour
of
others
is
infinitely
small
compared
with
the
mass
of
direct
producers.
Along
with
the
progress
in
the
productiveness
of
labour,
that
small
portion
of
society
increases
both
absolutely
and
relatively.3Besides,
capital
with
its
accompanying
relations
springs
up
from
an
economic
soil
that
is
the
product
of
a
long
process
of
development.
The
productiveness
of
labour
that
serves
as
its
foundation
and
starting-point,is
a
gift,
not
of
nature,
but
of
a
history
embracing
thousands
of
centuries.
Apart
from
the
degree
of
development,
greater
or
less,
in
the
form
of
social
production,
the
productiveness
of
labour
is
fettered
by
physical
conditions.
These
are
all
referable
to
the
constitution
of
man
himself
(race,
&c.),
and
to
surrounding
nature.
The
external
physical
conditions
fall
into
two
great
economic
classes,
(1)
Natural
wealth
in
means
of
subsistence,
i.e.,
a
fruitful
soil,
waters
teeming
with
fish,
&c.,
and
(2),
natural
wealth
in
the
instruments
of
labour,
such
as
waterfalls,
navigable
rivers,
wood,metal,
coal,
&c.
At
the
dawn
of
civilisation,
it
is
the
first
class
that
turns
the
scale;
at
a
higher
stage
of
development,
it
is
the
second.
Compare,
for
example,England
with
India,
or
in
ancient
times,
Athens
and
Corinth
with
the
shores
of
the
Black
Sea.
The
fewer
the
number
of
natural
wants
imperatively
calling
for
satisfaction,
and
the
greater
the
natural
fertility
of
the
soil
and
the
favourableness
of
the
climate,
so
much
less
is
the
labour-time
necessary
for
the
maintenance
and
reproduction
of
the
producer.
So
much
greater
therefore
can
be
the
excess
of
his
labours
for
others
over
his
labour
for
himself.
Diodorus
long
ago
remarked
this
in
relation
to
the
ancient
Egyptians.
\"It
is
altogether
incredible
how
little
trouble
and
expense
the
bringing
up
of
their
children
causes
them.
They
cook
for
them
the
first
simple
food
at
hand;
they
also
give
them
the
lower
part
of
the
papyrus
stem
to
eat,
so
far
as
it
can
be
roasted
in
the
fire,
and
the
roots
and
stalks
of
marsh
plants,
some
raw,
some
boiled
and
roasted.
Most
of
the
children
go
without
shoes
and
unclothed,
for
the
air
is
so
mild.
Hence
a
child,
until
he
is
grown
up,
costs
his
parents
not
more,
on
the
whole,
than
twenty
drachmas.
It
is
this,
chiefly,
which
explains
why
the
population
of
Egypt
is
so
numerous,
and,
therefore,
why
so
many
great
works
can
be
undertaken.\"4
Nevertheless
the
grand
structures
of
ancient
Egypt
are
less
due
to
the
extent
of
its
population
than
to
the
large
proportion
of
it
that
was
freely
disposable.
Just
as
the
individual
labourer
can
do
more
surplus
labour
in
proportion
as
his
necessary
labour-time
is
less,
so
with
regard
to
the
working
population.
The
smaller
the
part
of
it
which
is
required
for
the
production
of
the
necessary
means
of
subsistence,
so
much
the
greater
is
the
part
that
can
be
set
to
do
other
work.
Capitalist
production
once
assumed,
then,
all
other
circumstances
remaining
the
same,
and
given
the
length
of
the
working
day,
the
quantity
of
surplus
labour
will
vary
with
the
physical
conditions
of
labour,
especially
with
the
fertility
of
the
soil.
But
it
by
no
means
follows
from
this
that
the
most
fruitful
soil
is
the
most
fitted
for
the
growth
of
the
capitalist
mode
of
production.
This
mode
is
based
on
the
dominion
of
man
over
nature.
Where
nature
is
too
lavish,
she
\"keeps
him
in
hand,
like
a
child
in
leading
strings.\"
She
does
not
impose
upon
him
any
necessity
to
develop
himself.5It
is
not
the
tropics
with
their
luxuriant
vegetation,
but
the
temperate
zone,
that
is
the
mother-country
of
capital.
It
is
not
the
mere
fertility
of
the
soil,
but
the
differentiation
of
the
soil,
the
variety
of
its
natural
products,
the
changes
of
the
seasons,which
form
the
physical
basis
for
the
social
division
of
labour,
and
which,
by
changes
in
the
natural
surroundings,
spur
man
on
to
the
multiplication
of
his
wants,
his
capabilities,
his
means
and
modes
of
labour.It
is
the
necessity
of
bringing
a
natural
force
under
the
control
of
society,
of
economising,
of
appropriating
or
subduing
it
on
a
large
scale
by
the
work
of
man's
hand,
that
first
plays
the
decisive
part
in
the
history
of
industry.
Examples
are,
the
irrigation
works
in
Egypt,6Lombardy,
Holland,
or
in
India
and
Persia
where
irrigation
by
means
of
artificial
canals,
not
only
supplies
the
soil
with
the
water
indispensable
to
it,but
also
carries
down
to
it,
in
the
shape
of
sediment
from
the
hills,
mineral
fertilisers.
The
secret
of
the
flourishing
state
of
industry
in
Spain
and
Sicily
under
the
dominion
of
the
Arabs
lay
in
their
irrigation
works.7
Favourable
natural
conditions
alone,
give
us
only
the
possibility,
never
the
reality,
of
surplus
labour,
nor,
consequently,
of
surplus-value
and
a
surplus-product.The
result
of
difference
in
the
natural
conditions
of
labour
is
this,
that
the
same
quantity
of
labour
satisfies,
in
different
countries,
a
different
mass
of
requirements,8consequently,
that
under
circumstances
in
other
respects
analogous,
the
necessary
labour-time
is
different.
These
conditions
affect
surplus
labour
only
as
natural
limits,
i.e.,
by
fixing
the
points
at
which
labour
for
others
can
begin.
In
proportion
as
industry
advances,
these
natural
limits
recede.
In
the
midst
of
our
West
European
society,
where
the
labourer
purchases
the
right
to
work
for
his
own
livelihood
only
by
paying
for
it
in
surplus
labour,
the
idea
easily
takes
root
that
it
is
an
inherent
quality
of
human
labour
to
furnish
a
surplus-product.9But
consider,
for
example,an
inhabitant
of
the
eastern
islands
of
the
Asiatic
Archipelago,
where
sago
grows
wild
in
the
forests.
\"When
the
inhabitants
have
convinced
themselves,
by
boring
a
hole
in
the
tree,
that
the
pith
is
ripe,
the
trunk
is
cut
down
and
divided
into
several
pieces,
the
pith
is
extracted,
mixed
with
water
and
filtered:
it
is
then
quite
fit
for
use
as
sago.
One
tree
commonly
yields
300
lbs.,
and
occasionally
500
to
600
lbs.
There,
then,
people
go
into
the
forests,
and
cut
bread
for
themselves,
just
as
with
us
they
cut
fire-wood.\"
10
Suppose
now
such
an
eastern
bread-cutter
requires
12
working
hours
a
week
for
the
satisfaction
of
all
his
wants.
Nature's
direct
gift
to
him
is
plenty
of
leisure
time.
Before
he
can
apply
this
leisure
time
productively
for
himself,
a
whole
series
of
historical
events
is
required;
before
he
spends
it
in
surplus
labour
for
strangers,
compulsion
is
necessary.
If
capitalist
production
were
introduced,
the
honest
fellow
would
perhaps
have
to
work
six
days
a
week,
in
order
to
appropriate
to
himself
the
product
of
one
working
day.The
bounty
of
Nature
does
not
explain
why
he
would
then
have
to
work
6
days
a
week,
or
why
he
must
furnish
5
days
of
surplus
labour.
It
explains
only
why
his
necessary
labour-time
would
be
limited
to
one
day
a
week.
But
in
no
case
would
his
surplus-product
arise
from
some
occult
quality
inherent
in
human
labour.
Thus,
not
only
does
the
historically
developed
social
productiveness
of
labour,
but
also
its
natural
productiveness,
appear
to
be
productiveness
of
the
capital
with
which
that
labour
is
incorporated.
Ricardo
never
concerns
himself
about
the
origin
of
surplus-value.
He
treats
it
as
a
thing
inherent
in
the
capitalist
mode
of
production,
which
mode,
in
his
eyes,
is
the
natural
form
of
social
production.Whenever
he
discusses
the
productiveness
of
labour,he
seeks
in
it,
not
the
cause
of
surplus-value,
but
the
cause
that
determines
the
magnitude
of
that
value.On
the
other
hand,
his
school
has
openly
proclaimed
the
productiveness
of
labour
to
be
the
originating
cause
of
profit
(read:
Surplus-value).
This
at
all
events
is
a
progress
as
against
the
mercantilists
who,on
their
side,
derived
the
excess
of
the
price
over
the
cost
of
production
of
the
product,
from
the
act
of
exchange,
from
the
product
being
sold
above
its
value.Nevertheless,
Ricardo's
school
simply
shirked
the
problem,
they
did
not
solve
it.
In
fact
these
bourgeois
economists
instinctively
saw,
and
rightly
so,
that
it
is
very
dangerous
to
stir
too
deeply
the
burning
question
of
the
origin
of
surplus-value.
But
what
are
we
to
think
of
John
Stuart
Mill,
who,
half
a
century
after
Ricardo,solemnly
claims
superiority
over
the
mercantilists,
by
clumsily
repeating
the
wretched
evasions
of
Ricardo's
earliest
vulgarisers
Mill
says:
\"The
cause
of
profit
is
that
labour
produces
more
than
is
required
for
its
support.\"
So
far,
nothing
but
the
old
story;
but
Mill
wishing
to
add
something
of
his
own,
proceeds:
\"To
vary
the
form
of
the
theorem;
the
reason
why
capital
yields
a
profit,
is
because
food,
clothing,
materials
and
tools,
last
longer
than
the
time
which
was
required
to
produce
them.\"
He
here
confounds
the
duration
of
labour-time
with
the
duration
of
its
products.
According
to
this
view,a
baker
whose
product
lasts
only
a
day,
could
never
extract
from
his
workpeople
the
same
profit,
as
a
machine
maker
whose
products
endure
for
20
years
and
more.
Of
course
it
is
very
true,
that
if
a
bird's
nest
did
not
last
longer
than
the
time
it
takes
in
building,birds
would
have
to
do
without
nests.
This
fundamental
truth
once
established,
Mill
establishes
his
own
superiority
over
the
mercantilists.
\"We
thus
see,\"
he
proceeds,
\"that
profit
arises,not
from
the
incident
of
exchange,
but
from
the
productive
power
of
labour;
and
the
general
profit
of
the
country
is
always
what
the
productive
power
of
labour
makes
it,
whether
any
exchange
takes
place
or
not.
If
there
were
no
division
of
employments,
there
would
be
no
buying
or
selling,but
there
would
still
be
profit.\"
For
Mill
then,
exchange,
buying
and
selling,
those
general
conditions
of
capitalist
production,
are
but
an
incident,
and
there
would
always
be
profits
even
without
the
purchase
and
sale
of
labour-power!
\"If,\"
he
continues,
\"the
labourers
of
the
country
collectively
produce
twenty
per
cent
more
than
their
wages,
profits
will
be
twenty
per
cent,whatever
prices
may
or
may
not
be.\"
This
is,
on
the
one
hand,
a
rare
bit
of
tautology;
for
if
labourers
produce
a
surplus-value
of
20%
for
the
capitalist,his
profit
will
be
to
the
total
wages
of
the
labourers
as
20:100.
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
absolutely
false
to
say
that
\"profits
will
be
20%.\"
They
will
always
be
less,
because
they
are
calculated
upon
the
sumtotal
of
the
capital
advanced.
If,
for
example,
the
capitalist
have
advanced
￡500,
of
which
￡4OO
is
laid
out
in
means
of
production
and
￡100
in
wages,
and
if
the
rate
of
surplus-value
be
20%,
the
rate
of
profit
will
be
20:500,
i.e.,
4%
and
not
20%.
Then
follows
a
splendid
example
of
Mill's
method
of
handling
the
different
historical
forms
of
social
production.
\"I
assume,
throughout,
the
state
of
things
which,where
the
labourers
and
capitalists
are
separate
classes,prevails,
with
few
exceptions,
universally;
namely,that
the
capitalist
advances
the
whole
expenses,including
the
entire
remuneration
of
the
labourer.\"
Strange
optical
illusion
to
see
everywhere
a
state
of
things
which
as
yet
exists
only
exceptionally
on
our
earth.11But
let
us
finish
–
Mill
is
willing
to
concede,
\"that
he
should
do
so
is
not
a
matter
of
inherent
necessity.\"
On
the
contrary:
\"the
labourer
might
wait,
until
the
production
is
complete,
for
all
that
part
of
his
wages
which
exceeds
mere
necessaries:
and
even
for
the
whole,
if
he
has
funds
in
hand
sufficient
for
his
temporary
support.
But
in
the
latter
case,
the
labourer
is
to
that
extent
really
a
capitalist
in
the
concern,
by
supplying
a
portion
of
the
funds
necessary
for
carrying
it
on.\"
Mill
might
have
gone
further
and
have
added,
that
the
labourer
who
advances
to
himself
not
only
the
necessaries
of
life
but
also
the
means
of
production,
is
in
reality
nothing
but
his
own
wage-labourer.
He
might
also
have
said
that
the
American
peasant
proprietor
is
but
a
serf
who
does
enforced
labour
for
himself
instead
of
for
his
lord.
After
thus
proving
clearly,
that
even
if
capitalist
production
had
no
existence,
still
it
would
always
exist,
Mill
is
consistent
enough
to
show,
on
the
contrary,
that
it
has
no
existence,
even
when
it
does
exist.
\"And
even
in
the
former
case\"
(when
the
workman
is
a
wage
labourer
to
whom
the
capitalist
advances
all
the
necessaries
of
life,
he
the
labourer),
\"may
be
looked
upon
in
the
same
light,\"
(i.e.,
as
a
capitalist),
\"since,
contributing
his
labour
at
less
than
the
market-price,
(!)
he
may
be
regarded
as
lending
the
difference
()
to
his
employer
and
receiving
it
back
with
interest,
&c.\"
12
In
reality,
the
labourer
advances
his
labour
gratuitously
to
the
capitalist
during,
say
one
week,in
order
to
receive
the
market
price
at
the
end
of
the
week,
&c.,
and
it
is
this
which,
according
to
Mill,transforms
him
into
a
capitalist.
On
the
level
plain,simple
mounds
look
like
hills;
and
the
imbecile
flatness
of
the
present
bourgeoisie
is
to
be
measured
by
the
altitude
of
its
great
intellects.
NOTES:
1\"The
very
existence
of
the
master-capitalists,
as
a
distinct
class,
is
dependent
on
the
productiveness
of
industry.\"(Ramsay,
l.c.,
p.
206.)
\"If
each
man's
labour
were
but
enough
to
produce
his
own
food,
there
could
be
no
property.\"(Ravenstone,
l.c.
p.
14,
15.)
2According
to
a
recent
calculation,
there
are
yet
at
least
4,000,000
cannibals
in
those
parts
of
the
earth
which
have
already
been
explored.
3\"Among
the
wild
Indians
in
America,
almost
everything
is
the
labourer's,
99
parts
of
a
hundred
are
to
be
put
upon
the
account
of
labour.
In
England,
perhaps,
the
labourer
has
not
2\/3.\"
(The
Advantages
of
the
East
India
Trade,
&c.,
p.
73.)
4Diodorus,
l.c.,
l.
I.,
c.
80.
5\"The
first
(natural
wealth)
as
it
is
most
noble
and
advantageous,
so
doth
it
make
the
people
careless,
proud,
and
given
to
all
excesses;
whereas
the
second
enforceth
vigilancy,literature,
arts
and
policy.\"
(England's
Treasure
by
Foreign
Trade.
Or
the
Balance
of
our
Foreign
Trade
is
the
Rule
of
our
Treasure.
Written
by
Thomas
Mun
of
London,
merchant,
and
now
published
for
the
common
good
by
his
son
John
Mun.London,
1669,
p.
181,
182.)
\"Nor
can
I
conceive
a
greater
curse
upon
a
body
of
people,
than
to
be
thrown
upon
a
spot
of
land,where
the
productions
for
subsistence
and
food
were,
in
great
measure,
spontaneous,
and
the
climate
required
or
admitted
little
care
for
raiment
and
covering...
there
may
be
an
extreme
on
the
other
side.
A
soil
incapable
of
produce
by
labour
is
quite
as
bad
as
a
soil
that
produces
plentifully
without
any
labour.\"(An
Inquiry
into
the
Present
High
Price
of
Provisions.
Lond.1767,
p.
10.)
6The
necessity
for
predicting
the
rise
and
fall
of
the
Nile
created
Egyptian
astronomy,
and
with
it
the
dominion
of
the
priests,
as
directors
of
agriculture.
\"Le
solstice
est
le
moment
de
l'année
ou
commence
la
crue
du
Nil,
et
celui
que
les
Egyptiens
ont
du
observer
avec
le
plus
d'attention....
C'était
cette
année
tropique
qu'il
leur
importait
de
marquer
pour
se
diriger
dans
leurs
opérations
agricoles.
Ils
durent
donc
chercher
dans
le
ciel
un
signe
apparent
de
son
retour.\"
[The
solstice
is
the
moment
of
the
year
when
the
Nile
begins
to
rise,
and
it
is
the
moment
the
Egyptians
have
had
to
watch
for
with
the
greatest
attention...
It
was
the
evolution
of
the
tropical
year
which
they
had
to
establish
firmly
so
as
to
conduct
their
agricultural
operations
in
accordance
with
it.
They
therefore
had
to
search
the
heavens
for
a
visible
sign
of
the
solstice's
return.]
(Cuvier:
Discours
sur
les
révolutions
du
globe,
ed.
Hoefer,
Paris,
1863,
p.
141.)
7One
of
the
material
bases
of
the
power
of
the
state
over
the
small
disconnected
producing
organisms
in
India,
was
the
regulation
of
the
water
supply.
The
Mahometan
rulers
of
India
understood
this
better
than
their
English
successors.
It
is
enough
to
recall
to
mind
the
famine
of
1866,
which
cost
the
lives
of
more
than
a
million
Hindus
in
the
district
of
Orissa,
in
the
Bengal
presidency.
8\"There
are
no
two
countries
which
furnish
an
equal
number
of
the
necessaries
of
life
in
equal
plenty,
and
with
the
same
quantity
of
labour.
Men's
wants
increase
or
diminish
with
the
severity
or
temperateness
of
the
climate
they
live
in;consequently,
the
proportion
of
trade
which
the
inhabitants
of
different
countries
are
obliged
to
carry
on
through
necessity
cannot
be
the
same,
nor
is
it
practicable
to
ascertain
the
degree
of
variation
farther
than
by
the
degrees
of
Heat
and
Cold;from
whence
one
may
make
this
general
conclusion,
that
the
quantity
of
labour
required
for
a
certain
number
of
people
is
greatest
in
cold
climates,
and
least
in
hot
ones;
for
in
the
former
men
not
only
want
more
clothes,
but
the
earth
more
cultivating
than
in
the
latter.\"
(An
Essay
on
the
Governing
Causes
of
the
Natural
Rate
of
Interest.
Lond.
1750.
p.
60.)
The
author
of
this
epoch-making
anonymous
work
is
J.
Massy.
Hume
took
his
theory
of
interest
from
it.
9\"Chaque
travail
doit
(this
appears
also
to
be
part
of
the
droits
et
devoirs
du
citoyen
[rights
and
duties
of
the
citizen])
laisser
un
excédent.\"
[All
labour
must
leave
a
surplus]Proudhon.
10F.
Schouw:
\"Die
Erde,
die
Pflanze
und
der
Mensch,\"
2.Ed.
Leipz.
1854,
p.
148.
11In
earlier
editions
of
Capital
the
quotation
from
John
Stuart
Mill,
\"I
assume
throughout...of
the
labourer,\"
had
been
given
incorrectly,
the
words
\"where
the
labourers
and
capitalists
are
separate
classes\"
having
been
left
out.
Marx,
in
a
letter
dated
November
28,
1878,
pointed
this
out
to
Danielson,the
Russian
translator
of
Capital,
adding:
\"The
next
two
sentences,
viz.
'Strange
optical
illusion
to
see
everywhere
a
state
of
things
which
as
yet
exists
only
exceptionally
on
our
earth.
But
let
us
finish'
-
should
be
deleted
and
the
following
sentence
substituted:
\"Mr.
Mill
is
good
enough
to
believe
that
this
state
of
things
is
not
an
absolute
necessity,
even
in
that
economic
system
in
which
'labourers
and
capitalists
are
separate
classes.'\"
The
substance
of
this
note
has
been
taken
from
the
Volksausgabe.
The
quotation
from
Mill
is
from
his
Principles
of
Political
Economy,
Book
II,
Chap
XV,
5.
12J.
St.
Mill.
Principles
of
Pol.
Econ.
Lond.
1868,
p.
252-53
passim.
精選分類
