- 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
Whatever
the
form
of
the
process
of
production
in
a
society,
it
must
be
a
continuous
process,
must
continue
to
go
periodically
through
the
same
phases.
A
society
can
no
more
cease
to
produce
than
it
can
cease
to
consume.
When
viewed,
therefore,
as
a
connected
whole,
and
as
flowing
on
with
incessant
renewal,
every
social
process
of
production
is,
at
the
same
time,
a
process
of
reproduction.
The
conditions
of
production
are
also
those
of
reproduction.
No
society
can
go
on
producing,
in
other
words,
no
society
can
reproduce,
unless
it
constantly
reconverts
a
part
of
its
products
into
means
of
production,
or
elements
of
fresh
products.
All
other
circumstances
remaining
the
same,
the
only
mode
by
which
it
can
reproduce
its
wealth,
and
maintain
it
at
one
level,
is
by
replacing
the
means
of
production
–i.e.,
the
instruments
of
labour,
the
raw
material,
and
the
auxiliary
substances
consumed
in
the
course
of
the
year
–
by
an
equal
quantity
of
the
same
kind
of
articles;
these
must
be
separated
from
the
mass
of
the
yearly
products,
and
thrown
afresh
into
the
process
of
production.
Hence,
a
definite
portion
of
each
year's
product
belongs
to
the
domain
of
production.
Destined
for
productive
consumption
from
the
very
first,
this
portion
exists,
for
the
most
part,
in
the
shape
of
articles
totally
unfitted
for
individual
consumption.
If
production
be
capitalistic
in
form,
so,
too,
will
be
reproduction.
Just
as
in
the
former
the
labour
process
figures
but
as
a
means
towards
the
self-expansion
of
capital,
so
in
the
latter
it
figures
but
as
a
means
of
reproducing
as
capital
–
i.e.,
as
self-expanding
value–
the
value
advanced.
It
is
only
because
his
money
constantly
functions
as
capital
that
the
economic
guise
of
a
capitalist
attaches
to
a
man.
If,
for
instance,
a
sum
of
￡100
has
this
year
been
converted
into
capital,and
produced
a
surplus-value
of
￡20,
it
must
continue
during
next
year,
and
subsequent
years,
to
repeat
the
same
operation.
As
a
periodic
increment
of
the
capital
advanced,
or
periodic
fruit
of
capital
in
process,surplus-value
acquires
the
form
of
a
revenue
flowing
out
of
capital.1
If
this
revenue
serve
the
capitalist
only
as
a
fund
to
provide
for
his
consumption,
and
be
spent
as
periodically
as
it
is
gained,
then,
caeteris
paribus,simple
reproduction
will
take
place.
And
although
this
reproduction
is
a
mere
repetition
of
the
process
of
production
on
the
old
scale,
yet
this
mere
repetition,or
continuity,
gives
a
new
character
to
the
process,or,
rather,
causes
the
disappearance
of
some
apparent
characteristics
which
it
possessed
as
an
isolated
discontinuous
process.
The
purchase
of
labour-power
for
a
fixed
period
is
the
prelude
to
the
process
of
production;
and
this
prelude
is
constantly
repeated
when
the
stipulated
term
comes
to
an
end,
when
a
definite
period
of
production,such
as
a
week
or
a
month,
has
elapsed.
But
the
labourer
is
not
paid
until
after
he
has
expended
his
labour-power,
and
realised
in
commodities
not
only
its
value,
but
surplus-value.
He
has,
therefore,
produced
not
only
surplus-value,
which
we
for
the
present
regard
as
a
fund
to
meet
the
private
consumption
of
the
capitalist,
but
he
has
also
produced,
before
it
flows
back
to
him
in
the
shape
of
wages,
the
fund
out
of
which
he
himself
is
paid,
the
variable
capital;
and
his
employment
lasts
only
so
long
as
he
continues
to
reproduce
this
fund.
Hence,
that
formula
of
the
economists,
referred
to
in
Chapter
XVIII,
which
represents
wages
as
a
share
in
the
product
itself.2What
flows
back
to
the
labourer
in
the
shape
of
wages
is
a
portion
of
the
product
that
is
continuously
reproduced
by
him.
The
capitalist,
it
is
true,
pays
him
in
money,but
this
money
is
merely
the
transmuted
form
of
the
product
of
his
labour.
While
he
is
converting
a
portion
of
the
means
of
production
into
products,
a
portion
of
his
former
product
is
being
turned
into
money.
It
is
his
labour
of
last
week,
or
of
last
year,
that
pays
for
his
labour-power
this
week
or
this
year.
The
illusion
begotten
by
the
intervention
of
money
vanishes
immediately,
if,
instead
of
taking
a
single
capitalist
and
a
single
labourer,
we
take
the
class
of
capitalists
and
the
class
of
labourers
as
a
whole.
The
capitalist
class
is
constantly
giving
to
the
labouring
class
order
notes,
in
the
form
of
money,
on
a
portion
of
the
commodities
produced
by
the
latter
and
appropriated
by
the
former.
The
labourers
give
these
order-notes
back
just
as
constantly
to
the
capitalist
class,
and
in
this
way
get
their
share
of
their
own
product.
The
transaction
is
veiled
by
the
commodity
form
of
the
product
and
the
money
form
of
the
commodity.
Variable
capital
is
therefore
only
a
particular
historical
form
of
appearance
of
the
fund
for
providing
the
necessaries
of
life,
or
the
labour-fund
which
the
labourer
requires
for
the
maintenance
of
himself
and
family,
and
which,
whatever
be
the
system
of
social
production,
he
must
himself
produce
and
reproduce.If
the
labour-fund
constantly
flows
to
him
in
the
form
of
money
that
pays
for
his
labour,
it
is
because
the
product
he
has
created
moves
constantly
away
from
him
in
the
form
of
capital.
But
all
this
does
not
alter
the
fact,
that
it
is
the
labourer's
own
labour,
realised
in
a
product,
which
is
advanced
to
him
by
the
capitalist.3Let
us
take
a
peasant
liable
to
do
compulsory
service
for
his
lord.
He
works
on
his
own
land,
with
his
own
means
of
production,
for,
say,
3
days
a
week.
The
3
other
days
he
does
forced
work
on
the
lord's
domain.He
constantly
reproduces
his
own
labour-fund,
which
never,
in
his
case,
takes
the
form
of
a
money
payment
for
his
labour,
advanced
by
another
person.
But
in
return,
his
unpaid
forced
labour
for
the
lord,
on
its
side,
never
acquires
the
character
of
voluntary
paid
labour.
If
one
fine
morning
the
lord
appropriates
to
himself
the
land,
the
cattle,
the
seed,
in
a
word,
the,means
of
production
of
this
peasant,
the
latter
will
thenceforth
be
obliged
to
sell
his
labour-power
to
the
lord.
He
will,
ceteris
paribus,
labour
6
days
a
week
as
before,
3
for
himself,
3
for
his
lord,
who
thenceforth
becomes
a
wages-paying
capitalist.
As
before,
he
will
use
up
the
means
of
production
as
means
of
production,
and
transfer
their
value
to
the
product.As
before,
a
definite
portion
of
the
product
will
be
devoted
to
reproduction.
But
from
the
moment
that
the
forced
labour
is
changed
into
wage
labour,
from
that
moment
the
labour-fund,
which
the
peasant
himself
continues
as
before
to
produce
and
reproduce,
takes
the
form
of
a
capital
advanced
in
the
form
of
wages
by
the
lord.
The
bourgeois
economist
whose
narrow
mind
is
unable
to
separate
the
form
of
appearance
from
the
thing
that
appears,
shuts
his
eyes
to
the
fact,
that
it
is
but
here
and
there
on
the
face
of
the
earth,
that
even
nowadays
the
labour
fund
crops
up
in
the
form
of
capital.4
Variable
capital,
it
is
true,
only
then
loses
its
character
of
a
value
advanced
out
of
the
capitalist's
funds,
5when
we
view
the
process
of
capitalist
production
in
the
flow
of
its
constant
renewal.
But
that
process
must
have
had
a
beginning
of
some
kind.From
our
present
standpoint
it
therefore
seems
likely
that
the
capitalist,
once
upon
a
time,
became
possessed
of
money,
by
some
accumulation
that
took
place
independently
of
the
unpaid
labour
of
others,
and
that
this
was,
therefore,
how
he
was
enabled
to
frequent
the
market
as
a
buyer
of
labour-power.
However
this
may
be,
the
mere
continuity
of
the
process,
the
simple
reproduction,
brings
about
some
other
wonderful
changes,
which
affect
not
only
the
variable,
but
the
total
capital.
If
a
capital
of
￡1,000
beget
yearly
a
surplus-value
of
￡200,
and
if
this
surplus-value
be
consumed
every
year,
it
is
clear
that
at
the
end
of
5
years
the
surplus
value
consumed
will
amount
to
5
×
￡200
or
the
￡1,000
originally
advanced.
If
only
a
part,
say
one
half,
were
consumed,
the
same
result
would
follow
at
the
end
of
10
years,
since
10
×
￡100=
￡1,000.
General
Rule:
The
value
of
the
capital
advanced
divided
by
the
surplus
value
annually
consumed,
gives
the
number
of
years,or
reproduction
periods,
at
the
expiration
of
which
the
capital
originally
advanced
has
been
consumed
by
the
capitalist
and
has
disappeared.
The
capitalist
thinks,that
he
is
consuming
the
produce
of
the
unpaid
labour
of
others,
i.e.,
the
surplus-value,
and
is
keeping
intact
his
original
capital;
but
what
he
thinks
cannot
alter
facts.
After
the
lapse
of
a
certain
number
of
years,
the
capital
value
he
then
possesses
is
equal
to
the
sum
total
of
the
surplus-value
appropriated
by
him
during
those
years,
and
the
total
value
he
has
consumed
is
equal
to
that
of
his
original
capital.
It
is
true,
he
has
in
hand
a
capital
whose
amount
has
not
changed,
and
of
which
a
part,
viz.,
the
buildings,
machinery,
&c.,
were
already
there
when
the
work
of
his
business
began.But
what
we
have
to
do
with
here,
is
not
the
material
elements,
but
the
value,
of
that
capital.
When
a
person
gets
through
all
his
property,
by
taking
upon
himself
debts
equal
to
the
value
of
that
property,
it
is
clear
that
his
property
represents
nothing
but
the
sum
total
of
his
debts.
And
so
it
is
with
the
capitalist;
when
he
has
consumed
the
equivalent
of
his
original
capital,
the
value
of
his
present
capital
represents
nothing
but
the
total
amount
of
the
surplus-value
appropriated
by
him
without
payment.
Not
a
single
atom
of
the
value
of
his
old
capital
continues
to
exist.
Apart
then
from
all
accumulation,
the
mere
continuity
of
the
process
of
production,
in
other
words
simple
reproduction,
sooner
or
later,
and
of
necessity,
converts
every
capital
into
accumulated
capital,
or
capitalised
surplus-value.
Even
if
that
capital
was
originally
acquired
by
the
personal
labour
of
its
employer,
it
sooner
or
later
becomes
value
appropriated
without
an
equivalent,
the
unpaid
labour
of
others
materialised
either
in
money
or
in
some
other
object.
We
saw
in
Chapt.
IV.-VI.
that
in
order
to
convert
money
into
capital
something
more
is
required
than
the
production
and
circulation
of
commodities.We
saw
that
on
the
one
side
the
possessor
of
value
or
money,
on
the
other,
the
possessor
of
the
value
creating
substance;
on
the
one
side,
the
possessor
of
the
means
of
production
and
subsistence,
on
the
other,
the
possessor
of
nothing
but
labour-power,must
confront
one
another
as
buyer
and
seller.
The
separation
of
labour
from
its
product,
of
subjective
labour-power
from
the
objective
conditions
of
labour,was
therefore
the
real
foundation
in
fact,
and
the
starting-point
of
capitalist
production.
But
that
which
at
first
was
but
a
starting-point,becomes,
by
the
mere
continuity
of
the
process,
by
simple
reproduction,
the
peculiar
result,
constantly
renewed
and
perpetuated,
of
capitalist
production.
On
the
one
hand,
the
process
of
production
incessantly
converts
material
wealth
into
capital,
into
means
of
creating
more
wealth
and
means
of
enjoyment
for
the
capitalist.
On
the
other
hand,
the
labourer,
on
quitting
the
process,
is
what
he
was
on
entering
it,
a
source
of
wealth,
but
devoid
of
all
means
of
making
that
wealth
his
own.
Since,
before
entering
on
the
process,
his
own
labour
has
already
been
alienated
from
himself
by
the
sale
of
his
labour-power,
has
been
appropriated
by
the
capitalist
and
incorporated
with
capital,
it
must,
during
the
process,
be
realised
in
a
product
that
does
not
belong
to
him.
Since
the
process
of
production
is
also
the
process
by
which
the
capitalist
consumes
labour-power,
the
product
of
the
labourer
is
incessantly
converted,
not
only
into
commodities,but
into
capital,
into
value
that
sucks
up
the
value
creating
power,
into
means
of
subsistence
that
buy
the
person
of
the
labourer,
into
means
of
production
that
command
the
producers.6The
labourer
therefore
constantly
produces
material,
objective
wealth,
but
in
the
form
of
capital,
of
an
alien
power
that
dominates
and
exploits
him;
and
the
capitalist
as
constantly
produces
labour-power,
but
in
the
form
of
a
subjective
source
of
wealth,
separated
from
the
objects
in
and
by
which
it
can
alone
be
realised;
in
short
he
produces
the
labourer,
but
as
a
wage
labourer.7This
incessant
reproduction,
this
perpetuation
of
the
labourer,
is
the
sine
qua
non
of
capitalist
production.
The
labourer
consumes
in
a
two-fold
way.
While
producing
he
consumes
by
his
labour
the
means
of
production,
and
converts
them
into
products
with
a
higher
value
than
that
of
the
capital
advanced.
This
is
his
productive
consumption.
It
is
at
the
same
time
consumption
of
his
labour-power
by
the
capitalist
who
bought
it.
On
the
other
hand,
the
labourer
turns
the
money
paid
to
him
for
his
labour-power,
into
means
of
subsistence:
this
is
his
individual
consumption.
The
labourer's
productive
consumption,
and
his
individual
consumption,
are
therefore
totally
distinct.
In
the
former,
he
acts
as
the
motive
power
of
capital,
and
belongs
to
the
capitalist.
In
the
latter,
he
belongs
to
himself,
and
performs
his
necessary
vital
functions
outside
the
process
of
production.
The
result
of
the
one
is,
that
the
capitalist
lives;
of
the
other,
that
the
labourer
lives.
When
treating
of
the
working
day,
we
saw
that
the
labourer
is
often
compelled
to
make
his
individual
consumption
a
mere
incident
of
production.
In
such
a
case,
he
supplies
himself
with
necessaries
in
order
to
maintain
his
labour-power,
just
as
coal
and
water
are
supplied
to
the
steam-engine
and
oil
to
the
wheel.His
means
of
consumption,
in
that
case,
are
the
mere
means
of
consumption
required
by
a
means
of
production;
his
individual
consumption
is
directly
productive
consumption.
This,
however,
appears
to
be
an
abuse
not
essentially
appertaining
to
capitalist
production.8
The
matter
takes
quite
another
aspect,
when
we
contemplate,
not
the
single
capitalist,
and
the
single
labourer,
but
the
capitalist
class
and
the
labouring
class,
not
an
isolated
process
of
production,
but
capitalist
production
in
full
swing,
and
on
its
actual
social
scale.
By
converting
part
of
his
capital
into
labour-power,
the
capitalist
augments
the
value
of
his
entire
capital.
He
kills
two
birds
with
one
stone.
He
profits,
not
only
by
what
he
receives
from,
but
by
what
he
gives
to,
the
labourer.
The
capital
given
in
exchange
for
labour-power
is
converted
into
necessaries,
by
the
consumption
of
which
the
muscles,
nerves,
bones,and
brains
of
existing
labourers
are
reproduced,
and
new
labourers
are
begotten.
Within
the
limits
of
what
is
strictly
necessary,
the
individual
consumption
of
the
working
class
is,
therefore,
the
reconversion
of
the
means
of
subsistence
given
by
capital
in
exchange
for
labour-power,
into
fresh
labour-power
at
the
disposal
of
capital
for
exploitation.
It
is
the
production
and
reproduction
of
that
means
of
production
so
indispensable
to
the
capitalist:
the
labourer
himself.The
individual
consumption
of
the
labourer,
whether
it
proceed
within
the
workshop
or
outside
it,
whether
it
be
part
of
the
process
of
production
or
not,
forms
therefore
a
factor
of
the
production
and
reproduction
of
capital;
just
as
cleaning
machinery
does,
whether
it
be
done
while
the
machinery
is
working
or
while
it
is
standing.
The
fact
that
the
labourer
consumes
his
means
of
subsistence
for
his
own
purposes,
and
not
to
please
the
capitalist,
has
no
bearing
on
the
matter.
The
consumption
of
food
by
a
beast
of
burden
is
none
the
less
a
necessary
factor
in
the
process
of
production,
because
the
beast
enjoys
what
it
eats.
The
maintenance
and
reproduction
of
the
working
class
is,
and
must
ever
be,
a
necessary
condition
to
the
reproduction
of
capital.
But
the
capitalist
may
safely
leave
its
fulfilment
to
the
labourer's
instincts
of
self
preservation
and
of
propagation.
All
the
capitalist
cares
for,
is
to
reduce
the
labourer's
individual
consumption
as
far
as
possible
to
what
is
strictly
necessary,
and
he
is
far
away
from
imitating
those
brutal
South
Americans,
who
force
their
labourers
to
take
the
more
substantial,
rather
than
the
less
substantial,
kind
of
food.9
Hence
both
the
capitalist
and
his
ideological
representative,
the
political
economist,
consider
that
part
alone
of
the
labourer's
individual
consumption
to
be
productive,
which
is
requisite
for
the
perpetuation
of
the
class,
and
which
therefore
must
take
place
in
order
that
the
capitalist
may
have
labour-power
to
consume;
what
the
labourer
consumes
for
his
own
pleasure
beyond
that
part,
is
unproductive
consumption.10If
the
accumulation
of
capital
were
to
cause
a
rise
of
wages
and
an
increase
in
the
labourer's
consumption,
unaccompanied
by
increase
in
the
consumption
of
labour-power
by
capital,
the
additional
capital
would
be
consumed
unproductively.11In
reality,
the
individual
consumption
of
the
labourer
is
unproductive
as
regards
himself,
for
it
reproduces
nothing
but
the
needy
individual;
it
is
productive
to
the
capitalist
and
to
the
State,
since
it
is
the
production
of
the
power
that
creates
their
wealth.12
From
a
social
point
of
view,
therefore,
the
working
class,
even
when
not
directly
engaged
in
the
labour
process,
is
just
as
much
an
appendage
of
capital
as
the
ordinary
instruments
of
labour.
Even
its
individual
consumption
is,
within
certain
limits,
a
mere
factor
in
the
process
of
production.
That
process,
however,
takes
good
care
to
prevent
these
self-conscious
instruments
from
leaving
it
in
the
lurch,
for
it
removes
their
product,
as
fast
as
it
is
made,
from
their
pole
to
the
opposite
pole
of
capital.
Individual
consumption
provides,
on
the
one
hand,
the
means
for
their
maintenance
and
reproduction:
on
the
other
hand,
it
secures
by
the
annihilation
of
the
necessaries
of
life,the
continued
re-appearance
of
the
workman
in
the
labour-market.
The
Roman
slave
was
held
by
fetters:the
wage
labourer
is
bound
to
his
owner
by
invisible
threads.
The
appearance
of
independence
is
kept
up
by
means
of
a
constant
change
of
employers,
and
by
the
fictio
juris
of
a
contract.
In
former
times,
capital
resorted
to
legislation,whenever
necessary,
to
enforce
its
proprietary
rights
over
the
free
labourer.
For
instance,
down
to
1815,
the
emigration
of
mechanics
employed
in
machine
making
was,
in
England,
forbidden,
under
grievous
pains
and
penalties.
The
reproduction
of
the
working
class
carries
with
it
the
accumulation
of
skill,
that
is
handed
down
from
one
generation
to
another.13To
what
extent
the
capitalist
reckons
the
existence
of
such
a
skilled
class
among
the
factors
of
production
that
belong
to
him
by
right,
and
to
what
extent
he
actually
regards
it
as
the
reality
of
his
variable
capital,
is
seen
so
soon
as
a
crisis
threatens
him
with
its
loss.
In
consequence
of
the
civil
war
in
the
United
States
and
of
the
accompanying
cotton
famine,
the
majority
of
the
cotton
operatives
in
Lancashire
were,
as
is
well
known,
thrown
out
of
work.
Both
from
the
working
class
itself,
and
from
other
ranks
of
society,
there
arose
a
cry
for
State
aid,
or
for
voluntary
national
subscriptions,
in
order
to
enable
the
\"superfluous\"
hands
to
emigrate
to
the
colonies
or
to
the
United
States.
Thereupon,
The
Times
published
on
the
24th
March,
1863,
a
letter
from
Edmund
Potter,a
former
president
of
the
Manchester
Chamber
of
Commerce.
This
letter
was
rightly
called
in
the
House
of
Commons,
the
manufacturers'
manifesto.14We
cull
here
a
few
characteristic
passages,
in
which
the
proprietary
rights
of
capital
over
labour-power
are
unblushingly
asserted.
\"He\"
(the
man
out
of
work)
\"may
be
told
the
supply
of
cotton-workers
is
too
large
...
and
...
must
...
in
fact
be
reduced
by
a
third,
perhaps,
and
that
then
there
will
be
a
healthy
demand
for
the
remaining
two-thirds....
Public
opinion...
urges
emigration....
The
master
cannot
willingly
see
his
labour
supply
being
removed;
he
may
think,
and
perhaps
justly,
that
it
is
both
wrong
and
unsound....
But
if
the
public
funds
are
to
be
devoted
to
assist
emigration,
he
bas
a
right
to
be
heard,
and
perhaps
to
protest.\"
Mr.
Potter
then
shows
how
useful
the
cotton
trade
is,
how
the
\"trade
has
undoubtedly
drawn
the
surplus
population
from
Ireland
and
from
the
agricultural
districts,\"
how
immense
is
its
extent,
how
in
the
year
1860
it
yielded
5\/13
ths
of
the
total
English
exports,how,
after
a
few
years,
it
will
again
expand
by
the
extension
of
the
market,
particularly
of
the
Indian
market,
and
by
calling
forth
a
plentiful
supply
of
cotton
at
6d.
per
lb.
He
then
continues:
\"Some
time
...,one,
two,
or
three
years,
it
may
be,
will
produce
the
quantity....
The
question
I
would
put
then
is
this
–
Is
the
trade
worth
retaining
Is
it
worth
while
to
keep
the
machinery(he
means
the
living
labour
machines)
in
order,and
is
it
not
the
greatest
folly
to
think
of
parting
with
that
I
think
it
is.
I
allow
that
the
workers
are
not
a
property,
not
the
property
of
Lancashire
and
the
masters;
but
they
are
the
strength
of
both;
they
are
the
mental
and
trained
power
which
cannot
be.
replaced
for
a
generation;
the
mere
machinery
which
they
work
might
much
of
it
be
beneficially
replaced,
nay
improved,
in
a
twelvemonth
15Encourage
or
allow
(!)
the
working-power
to
emigrate,
and
what
of
the
capitalist...
Take
away
the
cream
of
the
workers,
and
fixed
capital
will
depreciate
in
a
great
degree,
and
the
floating
will
not
subject
itself
to
a
struggle
with
the
short
supply
of
inferior
labour....
We
are
told
the
workers
wish
it\"
(emigration).
\"Very
natural
it
is
that
they
should
do
so....
Reduce,
compress
the
cotton
trade
by
taking
away
its
working
power
and
reducing
their
wages
expenditure,
say
one
fifth,
or
five
millions,
and
what
then
would
happen
to
the
class
above,
the
small
shopkeepers;
and
what
of
the
rents,
the
cottage
rents....
Trace
out
the
effects
upwards
to
the
small
farmer,
the
better
householder,
and
...
the
landowner,
and
say
if
there
could
be
any
suggestion
more
suicidal
to
all
classes
of
the
country
than
by
enfeebling
a
nation
by
exporting
the
best
of
its
manufacturing
population,
and
destroying
the
value
of
some
of
its
most
productive
capital
and
enrichment
....I
advise
a
loan
(of
five
or
six
millions
sterling),...
extending
it
may
be
over
two
or
three
years,administered
by
special
commissioners
added
to
the
Boards
of
Guardians
in
the
cotton
districts,under
special
legislative
regulations,
enforcing
some
occupation
or
labour,
as
a
means
of
keeping
up
at
least
the
moral
standard
of
the
recipients
of
the
loan...
can
anything
be
worse
for
landowners
or
masters
than
parting
with
the
best
of
the
workers,and
demoralising
and
disappointing
the
rest
by
an
extended
depletive
emigration,
a
depletion
of
capital
and
value
in
an
entire
province\"
Potter,
the
chosen
mouthpiece
of
the
manufacturers,distinguishes
two
sorts
of
\"machinery,\"
each
of
which
belongs
to
the
capitalist,
and
of
which
one
stands
in
his
factory,
the
other
at
night-time
and
on
Sundays
is
housed
outside
the
factory,
in
cottages.
The
one
is
inanimate,
the
other
living.
The
inanimate
machinery
not
only
wears
out
and
depreciates
from
day
to
day,
but
a
great
part
of
it
becomes
so
quickly
superannuated,by
constant
technical
progress,
that
it
can
be
replaced
with
advantage
by
new
machinery
after
a
few
months.The
living
machinery,
on
the
contrary
gets
better
the
longer
it
lasts,
and
in
proportion
as
the
skill,
handed
from
one
generation
to
another,
accumulates.
TheTimes
answered
the
cotton
lord
as
follows:
\"Mr.
Edmund
Potter
is
so
impressed
with
the
exceptional
and
supreme
importance
of
the
cotton
masters
that,
in
order
to
preserve
this
class
and
perpetuate
their
profession,
he
would
keep
half
a
million
of
the
labouring
class
confined
in
a
great
moral
workhouse
against
their
will.
'Is
the
trade
worth
retaining'
asks
Mr.
Potter.
'Certainly
by
all
honest
means
it
is,'
we
answer.
'Is
it
worth
while
keeping
the
machinery
in
order'
again
asks
Mr.Potter.
Here
we
hesitate.
By
the
'machinery'
Mr.Potter
means
the
human
machinery,
for
he
goes
on
to
protest
that
he
does
not
mean
to
use
them
as
an
absolute
property.
We
must
confess
that
we
do
not
think
it
'worth
while,'
or
even
possible,
to
keep
the
human
machinery
in
order
–
that
is
to
shut
it
up
and
keep
it
oiled
till
it
is
wanted.
Human
machinery
will
rust
under
inaction,
oil
and
rub
it
as
you
may.
Moreover,
the
human
machinery
will,as
we
have
just
seen,
get
the
steam
up
of
its
own
accord,
and
burst
or
run
amuck
in
our
great
towns.It
might,
as
Mr.
Potter
says,
require
some
time
to
reproduce
the
workers,
but,
having
machinists
and
capitalists
at
hand,
we
could
always
find
thrifty,hard,
industrious
men
wherewith
to
improvise
more
master
manufacturers
than
we
can
ever
want.
Mr.
Potter
talks
of
the
trade
reviving
'in
one,
two,or
three
years,'
and
he
asks
us
not
'to
encourage
or
allow
(!)
the
working
power
to
emigrate.'16He
says
that
it
is
very
natural
the
workers
should
wish
to
emigrate;
but
he
thinks
that
in
spite
of
their
desire,
the
nation
ought
to
keep
this
half
million
of
workers
with
their
700,000
dependents,
shut
up
in
the
cotton
districts;
and
as
a
necessary
consequence,
he
must
of
course
think
that
the
nation
ought
to
keep
down
their
discontent
by
force,
and
sustain
them
by
alms
–
and
upon
the
chance
that
the
cotton
masters
may
some
day
want
them....
The
time
is
come
when
the
great
public
opinion
of
these
islands
must
operate
to
save
this
'working
power'
from
those
who
would
deal
with
it
as
they
would
deal
with
iron,
and
coal,
and
cotton.\"
The
Times'
article
was
only
a
jeu
d'esprit.
The
\"great
public
opinion\"
was,
in
fact,
of
Mr.
Potter's
opinion,that
the
factory
operatives
are
part
of
the
movable
fittings
of
a
factory.
Their
emigration
was
prevented.They
were
locked
up
in
that
\"moral
workhouse,\"the
cotton
districts,
and
they
form,
as
before,
\"the
strength\"
of
the
cotton
manufacturers
of
Lancashire.
Capitalist
production,
therefore,
of
itself
reproduces
the
separation
between
labour-power
and
the
means
of
labour.
It
thereby
reproduces
and
perpetuates
the
condition
for
exploiting
the
labourer.
It
incessantly
forces
him
to
sell
his
labour-power
in
order
to
live,and
enables
the
capitalist
to
purchase
labour-power
in
order
that
he
may
enrich
himself.17It
is
no
longer
a
mere
accident,
that
capitalist
and
labourer
confront
each
other
in
the
market
as
buyer
and
seller.
It
is
the
process
itself
that
incessantly
hurls
back
the
labourer
on
to
the
market
as
a
vendor
of
his
labour-power,
and
that
incessantly
converts
his
own
product
into
a
means
by
which
another
man
can
purchase
him.
In
reality,
the
labourer
belongs
to
capital
before
he
has
sold
himself
to
capital.
His
economic
bondage18is
both
brought
about
and
concealed
by
the
periodic
sale
of
himself,by
his
change
of
masters,
and
by
the
oscillations
in
the
market-price
of
labour-power.19
Capitalist
production,
therefore,
under
its
aspect
of
a
continuous
connected
process,
of
a
process
of
reproduction,
produces
not
only
commodities,
not
only
surplus-value,
but
it
also
produces
and
reproduces
the
capitalist
relation;
on
the
one
side
the
capitalist,
on
the
other
the
wage
labourer.20
NOTES:
1\"Mais
ces
riches,
qui
consomment
les
produits
du
travail
des
autres,
ne
peuvent
les
obtenir
que
par
des
échanges[purchases
of
commodities].
S'ils
donnent
cependant
leur
richesse
acquise
et
accumulée
en
retour
contre
ces
produits
nouveaux
qui
sont
l'objet
de
leur
fantaisie,
ils
semblent
exposés
à
épuiser
bientt
leur
fonds
de
réserve;
ils
ne
travaillent
point,avons-nous
dit,
et
ils
ne
peuvent
même
travailler;
on
croirait
donc
que
chaque
jour
doit
voir
diminuer
leurs
vieilles
richesses,et
que
lorsqu'il
ne
leur
en
restera
plus,
rien
ne
sera
offert
en
échange
aux
ouvriers
qui
travaillent
exclusivement
pour
eux....Mais
dans
l'ordre
social,
la
richesse
a
acquis
la
propriété
de
se
reproduire
par
le
travail
d'autrui,
et
sans
que
son
propriétaire
y
concoure.
La
richesse,
comme
le
travail,
et
par
le
travail,donne
un
fruit
annuel
qui
peut
être
détruit
chaque
année
sans
que
le
riche
en
devienne
plus
pauvre.
Ce
fruit
est
le
revenu
qui
nat
du
capital.\"
[The
rich,
who
consume
the
labour
of
others,can
only
obtain
them
by
making
exchanges
...
By
giving
away
their
acquired
and
accumulated
wealth
in
exchange
for
the
new
products
which
are
the
object
of
their
capricious
wishes,
they
seem
to
be
exposed
to
an
early
exhaustion
of
their
reserve
fund;we
have
already
said
that
they
do
not
work
and
are
unable
to
work;
therefore
it
could
be
assumed
with
full
justification
that
their
former
wealth
would
be
diminishing
with
every
day
and
that,
finally,
a
day
would
come
when
they
would
have
nothing,and
they
would
have
nothing
to
offer
to
the
workers,
who
work
exclusively
for
them.
...
But,
in
the
social
order,
wealth
has
acquired
the
power
of
reproducing
itself
through
the
labour
of
others,
without
the
help
of
its
owners.
Wealth,
like
labour,
and
by
means
of
labour,
bears
fruit
every
year,
but
this
fruit
can
be
destroyed
every
year
without
making
the
rich
man
any
poorer
thereby.
This
fruit
is
the
revenue
which
arises
our
of
capital.
](Sismondi:
\"Nouv.
Princ.
d'Econ.
Pol.\"
Paris,
1819,
t.
I,
pp.
8182.)
2\"Wages
as
well
as
profits
are
to
be
considered,
each
of
them,
as
really
a
portion
of
the
finished
product.\"
(Ramsay,l.
c.,
p.
142.)
\"The
share
of
the
product
which
comes
to
the
labourer
in
the
form
of
wages.\"
(J.
Mill,
\"Eléments,
&c.\"Translated
by
Parissot.
Paris,
1823,
p.
34.)
3\"When
capital
is
employed
in
advancing
to
the
workman
his
wages,
it
adds
nothing
to
the
funds
for
the
maintenance
of
labour.\"
(Cazenove
in
note
to
his
edition
of
Malthus'\"Definitions
in
Pol.
Econ.\"
London,
1853,
p.
22.)
4\"The
wages
of
labour
are
advanced
by
capitalists
in
the
case
of
less
than
one
fourth
of
the
labourers
of
the
earth.\"(Rich.
Jones:
\"Textbook
of
Lectures
on
the
Pol.
Econ.
of
Nations.\"
Hertford,
1852,
p.
36.)
5\"Though
the
manufacturer\"
(i.e.,
the
labourer)
\"has
his
wages
advanced
to
him
by
his
master,
he
in
reality
costs
him
no
expense,
the
value
of
these
wages
being
generally
reserved,together
with
a
profit,
in
the
improved
value
of
the
subject
upon
which
his
labour
is
bestowed.\"
(A.
Smith,
l.
c.,
Book
II.ch.
III,
p.
311.)
6\"This
is
a
remarkably
peculiar
property
of
productive
labour.
Whatever
is
productively
consumed
is
capital
and
it
becomes
capital
by
consumption.\"
(James
Mill,
l.
c.,
p.
242.)
James
Mill,
however,
never
got
on
the
track
of
this
\"remarkably
peculiar
property.\"
7\"It
is
true
indeed,
that
the
first
introducing
a
manufacture
employs
many
poor,
but
they
cease
not
to
be
so,
and
the
continuance
of
it
makes
many.\"
(\"Reasons
for
a
Limited
Exportation
of
Wool.\"
London,
1677,
p.
19.)
\"The
farmer
now
absurdly
asserts,
that
he
keeps
the
poor.
They
are
indeed
kept
in
misery.\"
(\"Reasons
for
the
Late
Increase
of
the
Poor
Rates:
or
a
Comparative
View
of
the
Prices
of
Labour
and
Provisions.\"London,
1777,
p.
31.)
8Rossi
would
not
declaim
so
emphatically
against
this,
had
he
really
penetrated
the
secret
of
\"productive
consumption.\"
9\"The
labourers
in
the
mines
of
S.
America,
whose
daily
task
(the
heaviest
perhaps
in
the
world)
consists
in
bringing
to
the
surface
on
their
shoulders
a
load
of
metal
weighing
from
180
to
200
pounds,
from
a
depth
of
450
feet,
live
on
bread
and
beans
only;
they
themselves
would
prefer
the
bread
alone
for
food,
but
their
masters,
who
have
found
out
that
the
men
cannot
work
so
hard
on
bread,
treat
them
like
horses,
and
compel
them
to
eat
beans;
beans,
however,
are
relatively
much
richer
in
bone-earth
(phosphate
of
lime)
than
is
bread.\"
(Liebig,l.
c.,
vol.
1.,
p.
194,
note.)
10James
Mill,
l.
c.,
p.
238
11\"If
the
price
of
labour
should
rise
so
high
that,notwithstanding
the
increase
of
capital,
no
more
could
be
employed,
I
should
say
that
such
increase
of
capital
would
be
still
unproductively
consumed.\"
(Ricardo,
l.
c.,
p.
163.)
12\"The
only
productive
consumption,
properly
so
called,is
the
consumption
or
destruction
of
wealth\"
(he
alludes
to
the
means
of
production)
\"by
capitalists
with
a
view
to
reproduction....
The
workman
...
is
a
productive
consumer
to
the
person
who
employs
him,
and
to
the
State,
but
not,
strictly
speaking,
to
himself.\"
(Malthus'
\"Definitions,
&c.,\"
p.
30.)
13\"The
only
thing,
of
which
one
can
say,
that
it
is
stored
up
and
prepared
beforehand,
is
the
skill
of
the
labourer....The
accumulation
and
storage
of
skilled
labour,
that
most
important
operation,
is,
as
regards
the
great
mass
of
labourers,accomplished
without
any
capital
whatever.\"
(Th.
Hodgskin:\"Labour
Defended,
&c.,\"
p.
13.)
14\"That
letter
might
be
looked
upon
as
the
manifesto
of
the
manufacturers.\"
(Ferrand:
\"Motion
on
the
Cotton
Famine.\"H.o.C.,
27th
April,
1863.)
15It
will
not
be
forgotten
that
this
same
capital
sings
quite
another
song,
under
ordinary
circumstances,
when
there
is
a
question
of
reducing
wages.
Then
the
masters
exclaim
with
one
voice:
\"The
factory
operatives
should
keep
in
wholesome
remembrance
the
fact
that
theirs
is
really
a
low
species
of
skilled
labour,
and
that
there
is
none
which
is
more
easily
acquired,
or
of
its
quality
more
amply
remunerated,
or
which,by
a
short
training
of
the
least
expert,
can
be
more
quickly,as
well
as
abundantly,
acquired
...
The
master's
machinery\"
(which
we
now
learn
can
be
replaced
with
advantage
in
12
months,)
\"really
plays
a
far
more
important
part
in
the
business
of
production
than
the
labour
and
skill
of
the
operative\"
(who
cannot
now
be
replaced
under
30
years),
\"which
six
months'education
can
reach,
and
a
common
labourer
can
learn.\"
(See
ante,
p.
423.)
16Parliament
did
not
vote
a
single
farthing
in
aid
of
emigration,
but
simply
passed
some
Acts
empowering
the
municipal
corporations
to
keep
the
operatives
in
a
half-starved
state,
i.e.,
to
exploit
them
at
less
than
the
normal
wages.
On
the
other
hand,
when
3
years
later,
the
cattle
disease
broke
out,Parliament
broke
wildly
through
its
usages
and
voted,
straight
off,
millions
for
indemnifying
the
millionaire
landlords,
whose
farmers
in
any
event
came
off
without
loss,
owing
to
the
rise
in
the
price
of
meat.
The
bull-like
bellow
of
the
landed
proprietors
at
the
opening
of
Parliament,
in
1866,
showed
that
a
man
can
worship
the
cow
Sabala
without
being
a
Hindu,
and
can
change
himself
into
an
ox
without
being
a
Jupiter.
17\"L'ouvrier
demandait
de
la
subsistence
pour
vivre,
le
chef
demandait
du
travail
pour
gagner.\"
[The
worker
required
the
means
of
subsistence
to
live,
the
boss
required
labour
to
make
a
profit]
(Sismondi,
l.
c.,
p.
91.)
18A
boorishly
clumsy
form
of
this
bondage
exists
in
the
county
of
Durham.
This
is
one
of
the
few
counties,
in
which
circumstances
do
not
secure
to
the
farmer
undisputed
proprietary
rights
over
the
agricultural
labourer.
The
mining
industry
allows
the
latter
some
choice.
In
this
county,
the
farmer,
contrary
to
the
custom
elsewhere,
rents
only
such
farms
as
have
on
them
labourers'
cottages.
The
rent
of
the
cottage
is
a
part
of
the
wages.
These
cottages
are
known
as
\"hinds'
houses.\"They
are
let
to
the
labourers
in
consideration
of
certain
feudal
services,
under
a
contract
called
\"bondage,\"
which,
amongst
other
things,
binds
the
labourer,
during
the
time
he
is
employed
elsewhere,
to
leave
some
one,
say
his
daughter,
&c.,
to
supply
his
place.
The
labourer
himself
is
called
a
\"bondsman.\"The
relationship
here
set
up
also
shows
how
individual
consumption
by
the
labourer
becomes
consumption
on
behalf
of
capital
-
or
productive
consumption
-
from
quite
a
new
point
of
view:
\"It
is
curious
to
observe
that
the
very
dung
of
the
hind
and
bondsman
is
the
perquisite
of
the
calculating
lord...
and
the
lord
will
allow
no
privy
but
his
own
to
exist
in
the
neighbourhood,
and
will
rather
give
a
bit
of
manure
here
and
there
for
a
garden
than
bate
any
part
of
his
seigneurial
right.\"(\"Public
Health,
Report
VII.,
1864,\"
p.
188.)
19It
will
not
be
forgotten,
that,
with
respect
to
the
labour
of
children,
&c.,
even
the
formality
of
a
voluntary
sale
disappears.
20\"Capital
pre-supposes
wage
labour,
and
wage
labour
pre
supposes
capital.
One
is
a
necessary
condition
to
the
existence
of
the
other;
they
mutually
call
each
other
into
existence.
Does
an
operative
in
a
cotton-factory
produce
nothing
but
cotton
goods
No,
he
produces
capital.
He
produces
values
that
give
fresh
command
over
his
labour,
and
that,
by
means
of
such
command,
create
fresh
values.\"
(Karl
Marx:
\"Lohnarbeit
und
Kapital,\"
in
the
Neue
Rheinische
Zeitung:
No.
266,
7th
April,
1849.)
The
articles
published
under
the
above
title
in
the
N.
Rh.
Z.
are
parts
of
some
lectures
given
by
me
on
that
subject,
in
1847,
in
the
German
\"Arbeiter-Verein\"
at
Brussels,the
publication
of
which
was
interrupted
by
the
revolution
of
February.
精選分類
