- 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
欣可小說 >
其他 >
資本論 >
CHAPTER 21: PIECE WAGES
Wages
by
the
piece
are
nothing
else
than
a
converted
form
of
wages
by
time,
just
as
wages
by
time
are
a
converted
form
of
the
value
or
price
of
labour-power.
In
piece
wages
it
seems
at
first
sight
as
if
the
use
value
bought
from
the
labourer
was,
not
the
function
of
his
labour-power,
living
labour,
but
labour
already
realized
in
the
product,
and
as
if
the
price
of
this
labour
was
determined,
not
as
with
time-wages,
by
the
fraction
but
by
the
capacity
for
work
of
the
producer.1
The
confidence
that
trusts
in
this
appearance
ought
to
receive
a
first
severe
shock
from
the
fact
that
both
forms
of
wages
exist
side
by
side,
simultaneously,
in
the
same
branches
of
industry;
e.g.,
\"the
compositors
of
London,
as
a
general
rule,
work
by
the
piece,
time-work
being
the
exception,
while
those
in
the
country
work
by
the
day,
the
exception
being
work
by
the
piece.
The
shipwrights
of
the
port
of
London
work
by
the
job
or
piece,
while
those
of
all
other
parts
work
by
the
day.\"2
In
the
same
saddlery
shops
of
London,
often
for
the
same
work,
piece
wages
are
paid
to
the
French,time-wages
to
the
English.
In
the
regular
factories
in
which
throughout
piece
wages
predominate,
particular
kinds
of
work
are
unsuitable
to
this
form
of
wage,
and
are
therefore
paid
by
time.3But
it
is,
moreover,
self
evident
that
the
difference
of
form
in
the
payment
of
wages
alters
in
no
way
their
essential
nature,although
the
one
form
may
be
more
favorable
to
the
development
of
capitalist
production
than
the
other.
Let
the
ordinary
working
day
contain
12
hours
of
which
6
are
paid,
6
unpaid.
Let
its
value-product
be
6
shillings,
that
of
one
hour's
labour
therefore
6d.
Let
us
suppose
that,
as
the
result
of
experience,a
labourer
who
works
with
the
average
amount
of
intensity
and
skill,
who,
therefore,
gives
in
fact
only
the
time
socially
necessary
to
the
production
of
an
article,
supplies
in
12
hours
24
pieces,
either
distinct
products
or
measurable
parts
of
a
continuous
whole.Then
the
value
of
these
24
pieces,
after.
subtraction
of
the
portion
of
constant
capital
contained
in
them,is
6
shillings,
and
the
value
of
a
single
piece
3d.
The
labourer
receives
1
d.
per
piece,
and
thus
earns
in
12
hours
3
shillings.
Just
as,
with
time-wages,
it
does
not
matter
whether
we
assume
that
the
labourer
works
6
hours
for
himself
and
6
hours
for
the
capitalist,
or
half
of
every
hour
for
himself,
and
the
other
half
for
the
capitalist,
so
here
it
does
not
matter
whether
we
say
that
each
individual
piece
is
half
paid,
and
half
unpaid
for,
or
that
the
price
of
12
pieces
is
the
equivalent
only
of
the
value
of
the
labour-power,
whilst
in
the
other
12
pieces
surplus-value
is
incorporated.
The
form
of
piece
wages
is
just
as
irrational
as
that
of
time-wages.
Whilst
in
our
example
two
pieces
of
a
commodity,
after
subtraction
of
the
value
of
the
means
of
production
consumed
in
them,
are
worth
6d.
as
being
the
product
of
one
hour,
the
labourer
receives
for
them
a
price
of
3d.
Piece
wages
do
not,in
fact,
distinctly
express
any
relation
of
value.
It
is
not,
therefore,
a
question
of
measuring
the
value
of
the
piece
by
the
working-time
incorporated
in
it,
but
on
the
contrary,
of
measuring
the
working-time
the
labourer
has
expended
by
the
number
of
pieces
he
has
produced.
In
time-wages,
the
labour
is
measured
by
its
immediate
duration;
in
piece
wages,
by
the
quantity
of
products
in
which
the
labour
has
embodied
itself
during
a
given
time.4The
price
of
labour
time
itself
is
finally
determined
by
the
equation:
value
of
a
day's
labour
=
daily
value
of
labour-power.
Piece-wage
is,therefore,
only
a
modified
form
of
time-wage.
Let
us
now
consider
a
little
more
closely
the
characteristic
peculiarities
of
piece
wages.
The
quality
of
the
labour
is
here
controlled
by
the
work
itself,
which
must
be
of
average
perfection
if
the
piece-price
is
to
be
paid
in
full.
Piece
wages
become,from
this
point
of
view,
the
most
fruitful
source
of
reductions
of
wages
and
capitalistic
cheating.
They
furnish
to
the
capitalist
an
exact
measure
for
the
intensity
of
labour.
Only
the
working-time
which
is
embodied
in
a
quantum
of
commodities
determined
beforehand,
and
experimentally
fixed,counts
as
socially
necessary
working-time,
and
is
paid
as
such.
In
the
larger
workshops
of
the
London
tailors,
therefore,
a
certain
piece
of
work,
a
waistcoat,e.g.,
is
called
an
hour,
or
half
an
hour,
the
hour
at
6d.
By
practice
it
is
known
how
much
is
the
average
product
of
one
hour.
With
new
fashions,
repairs,
&c.,a
contest
arises
between
master
and
labourer
as
to
whether
a
particular
piece
of
work
is
one
hour,
and
so
on,
until
here
also
experience
decides.
Similarly
in
the
London
furniture
workshops,
&c.
If
the
labourer
does
not
possess
the
average
capacity,
if
he
cannot
in
consequence
supply
a
certain
minimum
of
work
per
day,
he
is
dismissed.5
Since
the
quality
and
intensity
of
the
work
are
here
controlled
by
the
form
of
wage
itself,
superintendence
of
labour
becomes
in
great
part
superfluous.
Piece
wages
therefore
lay
the
foundation
of
the
modern\"domestic
labour,\"
described
above,
as
well
as
of
a
hierarchically
organized
system
of
exploitation
and
oppression.
The
latter
has
two
fundamental
forms.
On
the
one
hand,
piece
wages
facilitate
the
interposition
of
parasites
between
the
capitalist
and
the
wage
labourer,
the
\"sub-letting
of
labour.\"
The
gain
of
these
middlemen
comes
entirely
from
the
difference
between
the
labour-price
which
the
capitalist
pays,and
the
part
of
that
price
which
they
actually
allow
to
reach
the
labourer.6In
England
this
system
is
characteristically
called
the
\"sweating
system.\"
On
the
other
hand,
piece-wage
allows
the
capitalist
to
make
a
contract
for
so
much
per
piece
with
the
head
labourer–
in
manufactures
with
the
chief
of
some
group,
in
mines
with
the
extractor
of
the
coal,
in
the
factory
with
the
actual
machine-worker
–
at
a
price
for
which
the
head
labourer
himself
undertakes
the
enlisting
and
payment
of
his
assistant
work
people.
The
exploitation
of
the
labourer
by
capital
is
here
effected
through
the
exploitation
of
the
labourer
by
the
labourer.7
Given
piece-wage,
it
is
naturally
the
personal
interest
of
the
labourer
to
strain
his
labour-power
as
intensely
as
possible;
this
enables
the
capitalist
to
raise
more
easily
the
normal
degree
of
intensity
of
labour.8It
is
moreover
now
the
personal
interest
of
the
labourer
to
lengthen
the
working
day,
since
with
it
his
daily
or
weekly
wages
rise.9This
gradually
brings
on
a
reaction
like
that
already
described
in
time-wages,without
reckoning
that
the
prolongation
of
the
working
day,
even
if
the
piece
wage
remains
constant,
includes
of
necessity
a
fall
in
the
price
of
the
labour.
In
time-wages,
with
few
exceptions,
the
same
wage
holds
for
the
same
kind
of
work,
whilst
in
piece
wages,
though
the
price
of
the
working
time
is
measured
by
a
certain
quantity
of
product,
the
day's
or
week's
wage
will
vary
with
the
individual
differences
of
the
labourers,
of
whom
one
supplies
in
a
given
time
the
minimum
of
product
only,
another
the
average,a
third
more
than
the
average.
With
regard
to
actual
receipts
there
is,
therefore,
great
variety
according
to
the
different
skill,
strength,
energy,
staying-power,&c.,
of
the
individual
labourers.10Of
course
this
does
not
alter
the
general
relations
between
capital
and
wage-labour.
First,
the
individual
differences
balance
one
another
in
the
workshop
as
a
whole,
which
thus
supplies
in
a
given
working-time
the
average
product,and
the
total
wages
paid
will
be
the
average
wages
of
that
particular
branch
of
industry.
Second,
the
proportion
between
wages
and
surplus-value
remains
unaltered,
since
the
mass
of
surplus
labour
supplied
by
each
particular
labourer
corresponds
with
the
wage
received
by
him.
But
the
wider
scope
that
piece-wage
gives
to
individuality
tends
to
develop
on
the
one
hand
that
individuality,
and
with
it
the
sense
of
liberty,independence,
and
self-control
of
the
labourers,
and
on
the
other,
their
competition
one
with
another.Piece-work
has,
therefore,
a
tendency,
while
raising
individual
wages
above
the
average,
to
lower
this
average
itself.
But
where
a
particular
rate
of
piece
wage
has
for
a
long
time
been
fixed
by
tradition,
and
its
lowering,
therefore,
presented
especial
difficulties,the
masters,
in
such
exceptional
cases,
sometimes
had
recourse
to
its
compulsory
transformation
into
time
wages.
Hence,
e.g.,
in
1860
a
great
strike
among
the
ribbon-weavers
of
Coventry.11Piece-wage
is
finally
one
of
the
chief
supports
of
the
hour-system
described
in
the
preceding
chapter.12
From
what
has
been
shown
so
far,
it
follows
that
piece-wage
is
the
form
of
wages
most
in
harmony
with
the
capitalist
mode
of
production.
Although
by
no
means
new
–
it
figures
side
by
side
with
time-wages
officially
in
the
French
and
English
labour
statutes
of
the
14th
century
–
it
only
conquers
a
larger
field
for
action
during
the
period
of
manufacture,
properly
so-called.
In
the
stormy
youth
of
modern
industry,especially
from
1797
to
1815,
it
served
as
a
lever
for
the
lengthening
of
the
working
day,
and
the
lowering
of
wages.
Very
important
materials
for
the
fluctuation
of
wages
during
that
period
are
to
be
found
in
the
Blue
books:
\"Report
and
Evidence
from
the
Select
Committee
on
Petitions
respecting
the
Corn
Laws\"(Parliamentary
Session
of
1813-14),
and
\"Report
from
the
Lords'
Committee,
on
the
State
of
the
Growth,Commerce,
and
Consumption
of
Grain,
and
all
Laws
relating
thereto\"
(Session
of
1814-15).
Here
we
find
documentary
evidence
of
the
constant
lowering
of
the
price
of
labour
from
the
beginning
of
the
anti
Jacobin
War.
In
the
weaving
industry,
e.g.,
piece
wages
had
fallen
so
low
that,
in
spite
of
the
very
great
lengthening
of
the
working
day,
the
daily
wages
were
then
lower
than
before.
\"The
real
earnings
of
the
cotton
weaver
are
now
far
less
than
they
were;
his
superiority
over
the
common
labourer,
which
at
first
was
very
great,has
now
almost
entirely
ceased.
Indeed...
the
difference
in
the
wages
of
skillful
and
common
labour
is
far
less
now
than
at
any
former
period.\"13How
little
the
increased
intensity
and
extension
of
labour
through
piece
wages
benefited
the
agricultural
proletariat,
the
following
passage
borrowed
from
a
work
on
the
side
of
the
landlords
and
farmers
shows:
\"By
far
the
greater
part
of
agricultural
operations
is
done
by
people
who
are
hired
for
the
day
or
on
piece-work.
Their
weekly
wages
are
about
12s.,and
although
it
may
be
assumed
that
a
man
earns
on
piece-work
under
the
greater
stimulus
to
labour,1s.
or
perhaps
2s.
more
than
on
weekly
wages,
yet
it
is
found,
on
calculating
his
total
income,
that
his
loss
of
employment,
during
the
year,
outweighs
this
gain...Further,
it
will
generally
be
found
that
the
wages
of
these
men
bear
a
certain
proportion
to
the
price
of
the
necessary
means
of
subsistence,so
that
a
man
with
two
children
is
able
to
bring
up
his
family
without
recourse
to
parish
relief.\"
14
Malthus
at
that
time
remarked
with
reference
to
the
facts
published
by
Parliament:
\"I
confess
that
I
see,
with
misgiving,
the
great
extension
of
the
practice
of
piece-wage.
Really
hard
work
during
12
or
14
hours
of
the
day,
or
for
any
longer
time,
is
too
much
for
any
human
being.\"
15
In
the
workshops
under
the
Factory
Acts,
piece
wages
become
the
general
rule,
because
capital
can
there
only
increase
the
efficacy
of
the
working
day
by
intensifying
labour.16
With
the
changing
productiveness
of
labour
the
same
quantum
of
product
represents
a
varying
working-time.
Therefore,
piece-wage
also
varies,
for
it
is
the
money
expression
of
a
determined
working
time.
In
our
example
above,
24
pieces
were
produced
in
12
hours,
whilst
the
value
of
the
product
of
the
12
hours
was
6s.,
the
daily
value
of
the
labour-power
3s.,
the
price
of
the
labour-hour
3d.,
and
the
wage
for
one
piece
d.
In
one
piece
half-an-hour's
labour
was
absorbed.
If
the
same
working
day
now
supplies,
in
consequence
of
the
doubled
productiveness
of
labour,48
pieces
instead
of
24,
and
all
other
circumstances
remain
unchanged,
then
the
piece-wage
falls
from
1d.
to
3\/4d.,
as
every
piece
now
only
represents
1\/4,instead
of
of
a
working-hour.
24
by
1d.
=
3s.,and
in
like
manner
48
by
3\/4d.
=
3s.
In
other
words,piece-wage
is
lowered
in
the
same
proportion
as
the
number
of
the
pieces
produced
in
the
same
time
rises,17and,
therefore,
as
the
working
time
spent
on
the
same
piece
falls.
This
change
in
piece-wage,
so
far
purely
nominal,
leads
to
constant
battles
between
capitalist
and
labour.
Either
because
the
capitalist
uses
it
as
a
pretext
for
actually
lowering
the
price
of
labour,or
because
increased
productive
power
of
labour
is
accompanied
by
an
increased
intensity
of
the
same.
Or
because
the
labourer
takes
seriously
the
appearance
of
piece
wages
(viz.,
that
his
product
is
paid
for,
and
not
his
labour-power)
and
therefore
revolts
against
a
lowering
of
wages,
unaccompanied
by
a
lowering
in
the
selling
price
of
the
commodity.
\"The
operatives...carefully
watch
the
price
of
the
raw
material
and
the
price
of
manufactured
goods,and
are
thus
enabled
to
form
an
accurate
estimate
of
their
master's
profits.\"18
The
capitalist
rightly
knocks
on
the
head
such
pretensions
as
gross
errors
as
to
the
nature
of
wage
labour.19He
cries
out
against
this
usurping
attempt
to
lay
taxes
on
the
advance
of
industry,
and
declares
roundly
that
the
productiveness
of
labour
does
not
concern
the
labourer
at
all.20
NOTES:
1\"The
system
of
piece-work
illustrates
an
epoch
in
the
history
of
the
working-man;
it
is
halfway
between
the
position
of
the
mere
day-labourer
depending
upon
the
will
of
the
capitalist
and
the
co-operative
artisan,
who
in
the
not
distant
future
promises
to
combine
the
artisan
and
the
capitalist
in
his
own
person.
Piece-workers
are
in
fact
their
own
masters,
even
whilst
working
upon
the
capital
of
the
employer.\"
(John
Watts:\"Trade
Societies
and
Strikes,
Machinery
and
Co-operative
Societies.\"
Manchester,
1865,
pp.
52,
53.)
I
quote
this
little
work
because
it
is
a
very
sink
of
all
long-ago-rotten,
apologetic
commonplaces.
This
same
Mr.
Watts
earlier
traded
in
Owenism
and
published
in
1842
another
pamphlet:
\"Facts
and
Fictions
of
Political
Economists,\"
in
which
among
other
things
he
declares
that
\"property
is
robbery.\"
That
was
long
ago.
2T.
J.
Dunning:
\"Trades'
Unions
and
Strikes,\"
Lond.,
1860,p.
22.
3How
the
existence,
side
by
side
and
simultaneously,
of
these
two
forms
of
wage
favors
the
masters'
cheating:
\"A
factory
employs
400
people,
the
half
of
which
work
by
the
piece,
and
have
a
direct
interest
in
working
longer
hours.The
other
200
are
paid
by
the
day,
work
equally
long
with
the
others,
and
get
no
more
money
for
their
over-time....
The
work
of
these
200
people
for
half
an
hour
a
day
is
equal
to
one
person's
work
for
50
hours,
or
5\/6's
of
one
person's
labour
in
a
week,
and
is
a
positive
gain
to
the
employer.\"
(\"Reports
of
Insp.
of
Fact.,
31st
Oct.,
1860,\"
p.
9.)
\"Over-working
to
a
very
considerable
extent
still
prevails;
and,
in
most
instances,with
that
security
against
detection
and
punishment
which
the
law
itself
affords.
I
have
in
many
former
reports
shown
...
the
injury
to
workpeople
who
are
not
employed
on
piece-work,
but
receive
weekly
wages.\"
(Leonard
Horner
in
\"Reports
of
Insp.of
Fact.,\"
30th
April,
1859,
pp.
8,
9.)
4\"Wages
can
be
measured
in
two
ways:
either
by
the
duration
of
the
labour,
or
by
its
product.\"
(\"Abrégé
élémentaire
des
principes
de
l'économie
politique.\"
Paris,
1796,
p.
32.)
The
author
of
this
anonymous
work:
G.
Garnier.
5\"So
much
weight
of
cotton
is
delivered
to
him\"
(the
spinner),
\"and
he
has
to
return
by
a
certain
time,
in
lieu
of
it,
a
given
weight
of
twist
or
yarn,
of
a
certain
degree
of
fineness,and
he
is
paid
so
much
per
pound
for
all
that
he
so
returns.If
his
work
is
defective
in
quality,
the
penalty
falls
on
him,
if
less
in
quantity
than
the
minimum
fixed
for
a
given
time,
he
is
dismissed
and
an
abler
operative
procured.\"
(Ure,
l.c.,
p.
317.)
6\"It
is
when
work
passes
through
several
hands,
each
of
which
is
to
take
its
share
of
profits,
while
only
the
last
does
the
work,
that
the
pay
which
reaches
the
workwoman
is
miserably
disproportioned.\"
(\"Child.
Emp.
Comm.
II
Report,\"
p.
1xx.,
n.424.)
7Even
Watts,
the
apologetic,
remarks:
\"It
would
be
a
great
improvement
to
the
system
of
piece-work,
if
all
the
men
employed
on
a
job
were
partners
in
the
contract,
each
according
to
his
abilities,
instead
of
one
man
being
interested
in
over-working
his
fellows
for
his
own
benefit.\"
(l.c.,
p.
53.)
On
the
vileness
of
this
system,
cf.
\"Child.
Emp.
Comm.,
Rep.III.,\"
p.
66,
n.
22,
p.
11,
n.
124,
p.
xi,
n.
13,
53,
59,
&c.
8This
spontaneous
result
is
often
artificially
helped
along,e.g.,
in
the
Engineering
Trade
of
London,
a
customary
trick
is
\"the
selecting
of
a
man
who
possesses
superior
physical
strength
and
quickness,
as
the
principal
of
several
workmen,and
paying
him
an
additional
rate,
by
the
quarter
or
otherwise,with
the
understanding
that
he
is
to
exert
himself
to
the
utmost
to
induce
the
others,
who
are
only
paid
the
ordinary
wages,to
keep
up
to
him
...
without
any
comment
this
will
go
far
to
explain
many
of
the
complaints
of
stinting
the
action,
superior
skill,
and
working-power,
made
by
the
employers
against
the
men\"
(in
Trades-Unions.
Dunning,
l.c.,
pp.
22,
23).
As
the
author
is
himself
a
labourer
and
secretary
of
a
Trades'
Union,this
might
be
taken
for
exaggeration.
But
the
reader
may
compare
the
\"highly
respectable\"
\"Cyclopedia
of
Agriculture\"of
J.
C.
Morton,
Art.,
the
article
\"Labourer,\"
where
this
method
is
recommended
to
the
farmers
as
an
approved
one.
9\"All
those
who
are
paid
by
piece-work
...
profit
by
the
transgression
of
the
legal
limits
of
work.
This
observation
as
to
the
willingness
to
work
over-time
is
especially
applicable
to
the
women
employed
as
weavers
and
reelers.\"
(\"Rept.
of
Insp.
of
Fact.,
30th
April,
1858,\"
p.
9.)
\"This
system\"
(piece-work),
\"so
advantageous
to
the
employer
...
tends
directly
to
encourage
the
young
potter
greatly
to
over-work
himself
during
the
four
or
five
years
during
which
he
is
employed
in
the
piece-work
system,
but
at
low
wages....
This
is
...
another
great
cause
to
which
the
bad
constitutions
of
the
potters
are
to
be
attributed.\"(\"Child.
Empl.
Comm.
1.
Rept.,\"
p.
xiii.)
10\"Where
the
work
in
any
trade
is
paid
for
by
the
piece
at
so
much
per
job
...
wages
may
very
materially
differ
in
amount....But
in
work
by
the
day
there
is
generally
an
uniform
rate
...recognized
by
both
employer
and
employed
as
the
standard
of
wages
for
the
general
run
of
workmen
in
the
trade.\"
(Dunning,l.c.,
p.
17.)
11\"The
work
of
the
journeyman-artisans
will
be
ruled
by
the
day
or
by
the
piece.
These
master-artisans
know
about
how
much
work
a
journeyman-artisan
can
do
per
day
in
each
craft,and
often
pay
them
in
proportion
to
the
work
which
they
do;the
journey
men,
therefore,
work
as
much
as
they
can,
in
their
own
interest,
without
any
further
inspection.\"
(Cantillon,
\"Essai
sur
la
Nature
du
Commerce
en
général,\"
Amst.
Ed.,
1756,
pp.185
and
202.
The
first
edition
appeared
in
1755.)
Cantillon,from
whom
Quesnay,
Sir
James
Steuart
&
A.
Smith
have
largely
drawn,
already
here
represents
piece-wage
as
simply
a
modified
form
of
time-wage.
The
French
edition
of
Cantillon
professes
in
its
title
to
be
a
translation
from
the
English,
but
the
English
edition:
\"The
Analysis
of
Trade,
Commerce,
&c.,\"by
Philip
Cantillon,
late
of
the
city
of
London,
Merchant,
is
not
only
of
later
date
(1759),
but
proves
by
its
contents
that
it
is
a
later
and
revised
edition:
e.g.,
in
the
French
edition,Hume
is
not
yet
mentioned,
whilst
in
the
English,
on
the
other
hand,
Petty
hardly
figures
any
longer.
The
English
edition
is
theoretically
less
important,
but
it
contains
numerous
details
referring
specifically
to
English
commerce,
bullion
trade,
&c.,that
are
wanting
in
the
French
text.
The
words
on
the
title-page
of
the
English
edition,
according
to
which
the
work
is
\"taken
chiefly
from
the
manuscript
of
a
very
ingenious
gentleman,deceased,
and
adapted,
&c.,\"
seem,
therefore,
a
pure
fiction,very
customary
at
that
time.
12\"How
often
have
we
seen,
in
some
workshops,
many
more
workers
recruited
than
the
work
actually
called
forOn
many
occasions,
workers
are
recruited
in
anticipation
of
future
work,
which
may
never
materialize.
Because
they
are
paid
by
piece
wages,
it
is
said
that
no
risk
is
incurred,
since
any
loss
of
time
will
be
charged
against
the
unemployed.\"
(H.Gregoir:
\"Les
Typographes
devant
le
Tribunal
correctionnel
de
Bruxelles,\"
Brusseles,
1865,
p.
9.)
13\"Remarks
on
the
Commercial
Policy
of
Great
Britain,\"London,
1815.
14\"A
Defense
of
the
Landowners
and
Farmers
of
Great
Britain,\"
1814,
pp.
4,
5
15Malthus,
\"Inquiry
into
the
Nature
and
Progress
of
Rent,\"Lond.,
1815.
16\"Those
who
are
paid
by
piece-work
...
constitute
probably
four-fifths
of
the
workers
in
the
factories.\"
\"Report
of
Insp.
of
Fact.,\"
30th
April,
1858.
17\"The
productive
power
of
his
spinning-machine
is
accurately
measured,
and
the
rate
of
pay
for
work
done
with
it
decreases
with,
though
not
as,
the
increase
of
its
productive
power.\"
(Ure,
l.c.,
p.
317.)
This
last
apologetic
phrase
Ure
himself
again
cancels.
The
lengthening
of
the
mule
causes
some
increase
of
labour,
he
admits.
The
labour
does
therefore
not
diminish
in
the
same
ratio
as
its
productivity
increases.
Further:
\"By
this
increase
the
productive
power
of
the
machine
will
be
augmented
one-fifth.
When
this
event
happens
the
spinner
will
not
be
paid
at
the
same
rate
for
work
done
as
he
was
before,
but
as
that
rate
will
not
be
diminished
in
the
ratio
of
one-fifth,
the
improvement
will
augment
his
money
earnings
for
any
given
number
of
hours'
work,\"
but
\"the
foregoing
statement
requires
a
certain
modification....
The
spinner
has
to
pay
something
additional
for
juvenile
aid
out
of
his
additional
sixpence,
accompanied
by
displacing
a
portion
of
adults\"
(l.c.,p.
321),
which
has
in
no
way
a
tendency
to
raise
wages.
18H.
Fawcett:
\"The
Economic
Position
of
the
British
labourer.\"
Cambridge
and
London,
1865,
p.
178.
19In
the
\"London
Standard\"
of
October
26,
1861,
there
is
a
report
of
proceedings
of
the
firm
of
John
Bright
&
Co.,
before
the
Rochdale
magistrates
\"to
prosecute
for
intimidation
the
agents
of
the
Carpet
Weavers
Trades'
Union.
Bright's
partners
had
introduced
new
machinery
which
would
turn
out
240
yards
of
carpet
in
the
time
and
with
the
labour
(!)
previously
required
to
produce
160
yards.
The
workmen
had
no
claim
whatever
to
share
in
the
profits
made
by
the
investment
of
their
employer's
capital
in
mechanical
improvements.
Accordingly,
Messrs.Bright
proposed
to
lower
the
rate
of
pay
from
1d.
per
yard
to
1d.,
leaving
the
earnings
of
the
men
exactly
the
same
as
before
for
the
same
labour.
But
there
was
a
nominal
reduction,of
which
the
operatives,
it
is
asserted,
had
not
fair
warning
beforehand.\"
20\"Trades'
Unions,
in
their
desire
to
maintain
wages,endeavor
to
share
in
the
benefits
of
improved
machinery.\"(Quelle
horreur!)
\"...
the
demanding
higher
wages,
because
labour
is
abbreviated,
is
in
other
words
the
endeavor
to
establish
a
duty
on
mechanical
improvements.\"
(\"On
Combination
ofTrades,\"new
ed.,London,1834,p.42.)
精選分類