- 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
Section
1:
Capitalist
Production
on
a
Progressively
Increasing
Scale.Transition
of
the
Laws
of
Property
that
Characterise
Production
of
Commodities
into
Laws
of
Capitalist
Appropriation
Hitherto
we
have
investigated
how
surplus
value
emanates
from
capital;
we
have
now
to
see
how
capital
arises
from
surplus-value.
Employing
surplus-value
as
capital,
reconverting
it
into
capital,
is
called
accumulation
of
capital.1
First
let
us
consider
this
transaction
from
the
standpoint
of
the
individual
capitalist.
Suppose
a
spinner
to
have
advanced
a
capital
of
￡10,000,
of
which
four-fifths
(￡8,000)
are
laid
out
in
cotton,machinery,
&c.,
and
one-fifth
(￡2,000)
in
wages.
Let
him
produce
240,000
lbs.
of
yarn
annually,
having
a
value
of
￡2,000.
The
rate
of
surplus-value
being
100%,
the
surplus-value
lies
in
the
surplus
or
net
product
of
40,000
lbs.
of
yarn,
one-sixth
of
the
gross
product,
with
a
value
of
￡2,000
which
will
be
realised
by
a
sale.
￡2,000
is
￡2,000.
We
can
neither
see
nor
smell
in
this
sum
of
money
a
trace
of
surplus-value.When
we
know
that
a
given
value
is
surplus-value,
we
know
how
its
owner
came
by
it;
but
that
does
not
alter
the
nature
either
of
value
or
of
money.
In
order
to
convert
this
additional
sum
of
￡2,000
into
capital,
the
master-spinner
will,
all
circumstances
remaining
as
before,
advance
four-fifths
of
it
(￡1,600)
in
the
purchase
of
cotton,
&c.,
and
one-fifth
(￡400)
in
the
purchase
of
additional
spinners,
who
will
find
in
the
market
the
necessaries
of
life
whose
value
the
master
has
advanced
to
them.
Then
the
new
capital
of
￡2,000
functions
in
the
spinning
mill,
and
brings
in,
in
its
turn,
a
surplus-value
of
￡400.
The
capital
value
was
originally
advanced
in
the
money
form.
The
surplus-value
on
the
contrary
is,originally,
the
value
of
a
definite
portion
of
the
gross
product.
If
this
gross
product
be
sold,
converted
into
money,
the
capital
value
regains
its
original
form.From
this
moment
the
capital
value
and
the
surplus
value
are
both
of
them
sums
of
money,
and
their
reconversion
into
capital
takes
place
in
precisely
the
same
way.
The
one,
as
well
as
the
other,
is
laid
out
by
the
capitalist
in
the
purchase
of
commodities
that
place
him
in
a
position
to
begin
afresh
the
fabrication
of
his
goods,
and
this
time,
on
an
extended
scale.
But
in
order
to
be
able
to
buy
those
commodities,
he
must
find
them
ready
in
the
market.
His
own
yarns
circulate,
only
because
he
brings
his
annual
product
to
market,
as
all
other
capitalists
likewise
do
with
their
commodities.
But
these
commodities,
before
coming
to
market,
were
part
of
the
general
annual
product,
part
of
the
total
mass
of
objects
of
every
kind,
into
which
the
sum
of
the
individual
capitals,
i.e.,
the
total
capital
of
society,had
been
converted
in
the
course
of
the
year,
and
of
which
each
capitalist
had
in
hand
only
an
aliquot
part.
The
transactions
in
the
market
effectuate
only
the
interchange
of
the
individual
components
of
this
annual
product,
transfer
them
from
one
hand
to
another,
but
can
neither
augment
the
total
annual
production,
nor
alter
the
nature
of
the
objects
produced.
Hence
the
use
that
can
be
made
of
the
total
annual
product,
depends
entirely
upon
its
own
composition,
but
in
no
way
upon
circulation.
The
annual
production
must
in
the
first
place
furnish
all
those
objects
(use
values)
from
which
the
material
components
of
capital,
used
up
in
the
course
of
the
year,
have
to
be
replaced.
Deducting
these
there
remains
the
net
or
surplus-product,
in
which
the
surplus-value
lies.
And
of
what
does
this
surplus
product
consist
Only
of
things
destined
to
satisfy
the
wants
and
desires
of
the
capitalist
class,
things
which,consequently,
enter
into
the
consumption
fund
of
the
capitalists
Were
that
the
case,
the
cup
of
surplus
value
would
be
drained
to
the
very
dregs,
and
nothing
but
simple
reproduction
would
ever
take
place.
To
accumulate
it
is
necessary
to
convert
a
portion
of
the
surplus-product
into
capital.
But
we
cannot,except
by
a
miracle,
convert
into
capital
anything
but
such
articles
as
can
be
employed
in
the
labour
process(i.e.,
means
of
production),
and
such
further
articles
as
are
suitable
for
the
sustenance
of
the
labourer
(i.e.,means
of
subsistence).
Consequently,
a
part
of
the
annual
surplus
labour
must
have
been
applied
to
the
production
of
additional
means
of
production
and
subsistence,
over
and
above
the
quantity
of
these
things
required
to
replace
the
capital
advanced.
In
one
word,
surplus-value
is
convertible
into
capital
solely
because
the
surplus-product,
whose
value
it
is,
already
comprises
the
material
elements
of
new
capital.2
Now
in
order
to
allow
of
these
elements
actually
functioning
as
capital,
the
capitalist
class
requires
additional
labour.
If
the
exploitation
of
the
labourers
already
employed
do
not
increase,
either
extensively
or
intensively,
then
additional
labour-power
must
be
found.
For
this
the
mechanism
of
capitalist
production
provides
beforehand,
by
converting
the
working
class
into
a
class
dependent
on
wages,
a
class
whose
ordinary
wages
suffice,
not
only
for
its
maintenance,
but
for
its
increase.
It
is
only
necessary
for
capital
to
incorporate
this
additional
labour-power,annually
supplied
by
the
working
class
in
the
shape
of
labourers
of
all
ages,
with
the
surplus
means
of
production
comprised
in
the
annual
produce,
and
the
conversion
of
surplus-value
into
capital
is
complete.From
a
concrete
point
of
view,
accumulation
resolves
itself
into
the
reproduction
of
capital
on
a
progressively
increasing
scale.
The
circle
in
which
simple
reproduction
moves,
alters
its
form,
and,
to
use
Sismondi's
expression,
changes
into
a
spiral.3
Let
us
now
return
to
our
illustration.
It
is
the
old
story:
Abraham
begat
Isaac,
Isaac
begat
Jacob,
and
so
on.
The
original
capital
of
￡10,000
brings
in
a
surplus
value
of
￡2,000,
which
is
capitalised.
The
new
capital
of
￡2,000
brings
in
a
surplus-value
of
￡400,
and
this,too,
is
capitalised,
converted
into
a
second
additional
capital,
which,
in
its
turn,
produces
a
further
surplus
value
of
￡80.
And
so
the
ball
rolls
on.
We
here
leave
out
of
consideration
the
portion
of
the
surplus-value
consumed
by
the
capitalist.
Just
as
little
does
it
concern
us,
for
the
moment,
whether
the
additional
capital
is
joined
on
to
the
original
capital,
or
is
separated
from
it
to
function
independently;
whether
the
same
capitalist,
who
accumulated
it
employs
it,or
whether
he
hands
it
over
to
another.
This
only
we
must
not
forget,
that
by
the
side
of
the
newly-formed
capital,
the
original
capital
continues
to
reproduce
itself,
and
to
produce
surplus-value,
and
that
this
is
also
true
of
all
accumulated
capital,
and
the
additional
capital
engendered
by
it.
The
original
capital
was
formed
by
the
advance
of￡10,000.
How
did
the
owner
become
possessed
of
it
\"By
his
own
labour
and
that
of
his
forefathers,\"answer
unanimously
the
spokesmen
of
Political
Economy.4And,
in
fact,
their
supposition
appears
the
only
one
consonant
with
the
laws
of
the
production
of
commodities.
But
it
is
quite
otherwise
with
regard
to
the
additional
capital
of
￡2,000.
How
that
originated
we
know
perfectly
well.
There
is
not
one
single
atom
of
its
value
that
does
not
owe
its
existence
to
unpaid
labour.
The
means
of
production,
with
which
the
additional
labour-power
is
incorporated,
as
well
as
the
necessaries
with
which
the
labourers
are
sustained,
are
nothing
but
component
parts
of
the
surplus-product,
of
the
tribute
annually
exacted
from
the
working
class
by
the
capitalist
class.
Though
the
latter
with
a
portion
of
that
tribute
purchases
the
additional
labour-power
even
at
its
full
price,
so
that
equivalent
is
exchanged
for
equivalent,
yet
the
transaction
is
for
all
that
only
the
old
dodge
of
every
conqueror
who
buys
commodities
from
the
conquered
with
the
money
he
has
robbed
them
of.
If
the
additional
capital
employs
the
person
who
produced
it,
this
producer
must
not
only
continue
to
augment
the
value
of
the
original
capital,
but
must
buy
back
the
fruits
of
his
previous
labour
with
more
labour
than
they
cost.
When
viewed
as
a
transaction
between
the
capitalist
class
and
the
working
class,
it
makes
no
difference
that
additional
labourers
are
employed
by
means
of
the
unpaid
labour
of
the
previously
employed
labourers.
The
capitalist
may
even
convert
the
additional
capital
into
a
machine
that
throws
the
producers
of
that
capital
out
of
work,
and
that
replaces
them
by
a
few
children.
In
every
case
the
working
class
creates
by
the
surplus
labour
of
one
year
the
capital
destined
to
employ
additional
labour
in
the
following
year.5And
this
is
what
is
called:
creating
capital
out
of
capital.
The
accumulation
of
the
first
additional
capital
of￡2,000
presupposes
a
value
of
￡10,000
belonging
to
the
capitalist
by
virtue
of
his
\"primitive
labour,\"
and
advanced
by
him.
The
second
additional
capital
of￡400
presupposes,
on
the
contrary,
only
the
previous
accumulation
of
the
￡2,000,
of
which
the
￡400
is
the
surplus-value
capitalised.
The
ownership
of
past
unpaid
labour
is
thenceforth
the
sole
condition
for
the
appropriation
of
living
unpaid
labour
on
a
constantly
increasing
scale.
The
more
the
capitalist
has
accumulated,
the
more
is
he
able
to
accumulate.
In
so
far
as
the
surplus-value,
of
which
the
additional
capital,
No.
1,
consists,
is
the
result
of
the
purchase
of
labour-power
with
part
of
the
original
capital,
a
purchase
that
conformed
to
the
laws
of
the
exchange
of
commodities,
and
that,
from
a
legal
standpoint,presupposes
nothing
beyond
the
free
disposal,
on
the
part
of
the
labourer,
of
his
own
capacities,
and
on
the
part
of
the
owner
of
money
or
commodities,
of
the
values
that
belong
to
him;
in
so
far
as
the
additional
capital,
No.
2,
&c.,
is
the
mere
result
of
No.
1,
and,therefore,
a
consequence
of
the
above
conditions;
in
so
far
as
each
single
transaction
invariably
conforms
to
the
laws
of
the
exchange
of
commodities,
the
capitalist
buying
labour-power,
the
labourer
selling
it,
and
we
will
assume
at
its
real
value;
in
so
far
as
all
this
is
true,
it
is
evident
that
the
laws
of
appropriation
or
of
private
property,
laws
that
are
based
on
the
production
and
circulation
of
commodities,
become
by
their
own
inner
and
inexorable
dialectic
changed
into
their
very
opposite.
The
exchange
of
equivalents,the
original
operation
with
which
we
started,
has
now
become
turned
round
in
such
a
way
that
there
is
only
an
apparent
exchange.
This
is
owing
to
the
fact,
first,that
the
capital
which
is
exchanged
for
labour-power
is
itself
but
a
portion
of
the
product
of
others'
labour
appropriated
without
an
equivalent;
and,
secondly,
that
this
capital
must
not
only
be
replaced
by
its
producer,but
replaced
together
with
an
added
surplus.
The
relation
of
exchange
subsisting
between
capitalist
and
labourer
becomes
a
mere
semblance
appertaining
to
the
process
of
circulation,
a
mere
form,
foreign
to
the
real
nature
of
the
transaction,
and
only
mystifying
it.
The
ever
repeated
purchase
and
sale
of
labour-power
is
now
the
mere
form;
what
really
takes
place
is
this–
the
capitalist
again
and
again
appropriates,
without
equivalent,
a
portion
of
the
previously
materialised
labour
of
others,
and
exchanges
it
for
a
greater
quantity
of
living
labour.
At
first
the
rights
of
property
seemed
to
us
to
be
based
on
a
man's
own
labour.
At
least,
some
such
assumption
was
necessary
since
only
commodity-owners
with
equal
rights
confronted
each
other,
and
the
sole
means
by
which
a
man
could
become
possessed
of
the
commodities
of
others,
was
by
alienating
his
own
commodities;
and
these
could
be
replaced
by
labour
alone.
Now,
however,
property
turns
out
to
be
the
right,
on
the
part
of
the
capitalist,
to
appropriate
the
unpaid
labour
of
others
or
its
product,and
to
be
the
impossibility,
on
the
part
of
the
labourer,of
appropriating
his
own
product.
The
separation
of
property
from
labour
has
become
the
necessary
consequence
of
a
law
that
apparently
originated
in
their
identity.6
Therefore,7however
much
the
capitalist
mode
of
appropriation
may
seem
to
fly
in
the
face
of
the
original
laws
of
commodity
production,
it
nevertheless
arises,
not
from
a
violation,
but,
on
the
contrary,from
the
application
of
these
laws.
Let
us
make
this
clear
once
more
by
briefly
reviewing
the
consecutive
phases
of
motion
whose
culminating
point
is
capitalist
accumulation.
We
saw,
in
the
first
place,
that
the
original
conversion
of
a
sum
of
values
into
capital
was
achieved
in
complete
accordance
with
the
laws
of
exchange.
One
party
to
the
contract
sells
his
labour
power,
the
other
buys
it.
The
former
receives
the
value
of
his
commodity,
whose
use
value
–
labour
–is
thereby
alienated
to
the
buyer.
Means
of
production
which
already
belong
to
the
latter
are
then
transformed
by
him,
with
the
aid
of
labour
equally
belonging
to
him,
into
a
new
product
which
is
likewise
lawfully
his.
The
value
of
this
product
includes:
first,
the
value
of
the
used-up
means
of
production.
Useful
labour
cannot
consume
these
means
of
production
without
transferring
their
value
to
the
new
product,
but,
to
be
saleable,
labour-power
must
be
capable
of
supplying
useful
labour
in
the
branch
of
industry
in
which
it
is
to
be
employed.
The
value
of
the
new
product
further
includes:
the
equivalent
of
the
value
of
the
labour-power
together
with
a
surplus-value.
This
is
so
because
the
value
of
the
labour-power
–
sold
for
a
definite
length
of
time,
say
a
day,
a
week,
etc.
–
is
less
than
the
value
created
by
its
use
during
that
time.
But
the
worker
has
received
payment
for
the
exchange-value
of
his
labour-power
and
by
so
doing
has
alienated
its
use
value
–
this
being
the
case
in
every
sale
and
purchase.
The
fact
that
this
particular
commodity,
labour
power,
possesses
the
peculiar
use
value
of
supplying
labour,
and
therefore
of
creating
value,
cannot
affect
the
general
law
of
commodity
production.
If,
therefore,the
magnitude
of
value
advanced
in
wages
is
not
merely
found
again
in
the
product,
but
is
found
there
augmented
by
a
surplus-value,
this
is
not
because
the
seller
has
been
defrauded,
for
he
has
really
received
the
value
of
his
commodity;
it
is
due
solely
to
the
fact
that
this
commodity
has
been
used
up
by
the
buyer.
The
law
of
exchange
requires
equality
only
between
the
exchange-values
of
the
commodities
given
in
exchange
for
one
another.
From
the
very
outset
it
presupposes
even
a
difference
between
their
use
values
and
it
has
nothing
whatever
to
do
with
their
consumption,
which
only
begins
after
the
deal
is
closed
and
executed.
Thus
the
original
conversion
of
money
into
capital
is
achieved
in
the
most
exact
accordance
with
the
economic
laws
of
commodity
production
and
with
the
right
of
property
derived
from
them.
Nevertheless,
its
result
is:
(1)
that
the
product
belongs
to
the
capitalist
and
not
to
the
worker;
(2)
that
the
value
of
this
product
includes,
besides
the
value
of
the
capital
advanced,
a
surplus-value
which
costs
the
worker
labour
but
the
capitalist
nothing,
and
which
none
the
less
becomes
the
legitimate
property
of
the
capitalist;
(3)
that
the
worker
has
retained
his
labour-power
and
can
sell
it
anew
if
he
can
find
a
buyer.
Simple
reproduction
is
only
the
periodical
repetition
of
this
first
operation;
each
time
money
is
converted
afresh
into
capital.
Thus
the
law
is
not
broken;
on
the
contrary,
it
is
merely
enabled
to
operate
continuously.\"Several
successive
acts
of
exchange
have
only
made
the
last
represent
the
first\"
(Sismondi,
\"Nouveaux
Principes,
etc.,\"
p.
70).
And
yet
we
have
seen
that
simple
reproduction
suffices
to
stamp
this
first
operation,
in
so
far
as
it
is
conceived
as
an
isolated
process,
with
a
totally
changed
character.
\"Of
those
who
share
the
national
income
among
themselves,
the
one
side
(the
workers)
acquire
every
year
a
fresh
right
to
their
share
by
fresh
work;
the
others
(the
capitalists)
have
already
acquired,
by
work
done
originally,
a
permanent
right
to
their
share\"
(Sismondi,
l.
c.,
pp.
110,
111).
It
is
indeed
notorious
that
the
sphere
of
labour
is
not
the
only
one
in
which
primogeniture
works
miracles.
Nor
does
it
matter
if
simple
reproduction
is
replaced
by
reproduction
on
an
extended
scale,by
accumulation.
In
the
former
case
the
capitalist
squanders
the
whole
surplus-value
in
dissipation,
in
the
latter
he
demonstrates
his
bourgeois
virtue
by
consuming
only
a
portion
of
it
and
converting
the
rest
into
money.
The
surplus-value
is
his
property;
it
has
never
belonged
to
anyone
else.
If
he
advances
it
for
the
purposes
of
production,
the
advances
made
come
from
his
own
funds,
exactly
as
on
the
day
when
he
first
entered
the
market.
The
fact
that
on
this
occasion
the
funds
are
derived
from
the
unpaid
labour
of
his
workers
makes
absolutely
no
difference.
If
worker
B
is
paid
out
of
the
surplus-value
which
worker
A
produced,
then,
in
the
first
place,
A
furnished
that
surplus-value
without
having
the
just
price
of
his
commodity
cut
by
a
half-penny,
and,
in
the
second
place,
the
transaction
is
no
concern
of
B's
whatever.What
B
claims,
and
has
a
right
to
claim,
is
that
the
capitalist
should
pay
him
the
value
of
his
labour
power.
\"Both
were
still
gainers:
the
worker
because
he
was
advanced
the
fruits
of
his
labour\"
(should
read:
of
the
unpaid
labour
of
other
workers)
\"before
the
work
was
done\"
(should
read:
before
his
own
labour
had
borne
fruit);
\"the
employer
(le
matre),
because
the
labour
of
this
worker
was
worth
more
than
his
wages\"(should
read:
produced
more
value
than
the
value
of
his
wages).
(Sismondi,
l.
c.,
p.
135.)
To
be
sure,
the
matter
looks
quite
different
if
we
consider
capitalist
production
in
the
uninterrupted
flow
of
its
renewal,
and
if,
in
place
of
the
individual
capitalist
and
the
individual
worker,
we
view
in
their
totality,
the
capitalist
class
and
the
working
class
confronting
each
other.
But
in
so
doing
we
should
be
applying
standards
entirely
foreign
to
commodity
production.
Only
buyer
and
seller,
mutually
independent,
face
each
other
in
commodity
production.
The
relations
between
them
cease
on
the
day
when
the
term
stipulated
in
the
contract
they
concluded
expires.
If
the
transaction
is
repeated,
it
is
repeated
as
the
result
of
a
new
agreement
which
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
previous
one
and
which
only
by
chance
brings
the
same
seller
together
again
with
the
same
buyer.
If,
therefore,
commodity
production,
or
one
of
its
associated
processes,
is
to
be
judged
according
to
its
own
economic
laws,
we
must
consider
each
act
of
exchange
by
itself,
apart
from
any
connexion
with
the
act
of
exchange
preceding
it
and
that
following
it.And
since
sales
and
purchases
are
negotiated
solely
between
particular
individuals,
it
is
not
admissible
to
seek
here
for
relations
between
whole
social
classes.
However
long
a
series
of
periodical
reproductions
and
preceding
accumulations
the
capital
functioning
today
may
have
passed
through,
it
always
preserves
its
original
virginity.
So
long
as
the
laws
of
exchange
are
observed
in
every
single
act
of
exchange
the
mode
of
appropriation
can
be
completely
revolutionised
without
in
any
way
affecting
the
property
rights
which
correspond
to
commodity
production.
These
same
rights
remain
in
force
both
at
the
outset,
when
the
product
belongs
to
its
producer,
who,
exchanging
equivalent
for
equivalent,
can
enrich
himself
only
by
his
own
labour,
and
also
in
the
period
of
capitalism,when
social
wealth
becomes
to
an
ever-increasing
degree
the
property
of
those
who
are
in
a
position
to
appropriate
continually
and
ever
afresh
the
unpaid
labour
of
others.
This
result
becomes
inevitable
from
the
moment
there
is
a
free
sale,
by
the
labourer
himself,
of
labour
power
as
a
commodity.
But
it
is
also
only
from
then
onwards
that
commodity
production
is
generalised
and
becomes
the
typical
form
of
production;
it
is
only
from
then
onwards
that,
from
the
first,
every
product
is
produced
for
sale
and
all
wealth
produced
goes
through
the
sphere
of
circulation.
Only
when
and
where
wage
labour
is
its
basis
does
commodity
production
impose
itself
upon
society
as
a
whole;
but
only
then
and
there
also
does
it
unfold
all
its
hidden
potentialities.
To
say
that
the
supervention
of
wage
labour
adulterates
commodity
production
is
to
say
that
commodity
production
must
not
develop
if
it
is
to
remain
unadulterated.
To
the
extent
that
commodity
production,
in
accordance
with
its
own
inherent
laws,
develops
further,
into
capitalist
production,
the
property
laws
of
commodity
production
change
into
the
laws
of
capitalist
appropriation.8
We
have
seen
that
even
in
the
case
of
simple
reproduction,
all
capital,
whatever
its
original
source,
becomes
converted
into
accumulated
capital,
capitalised
surplus-value.
But
in
the
flood
of
production
all
the
capital
originally
advanced
becomes
a
vanishing
quantity
(magnitudo
evanescens,
in
the
mathematical
sense),
compared
with
the
directly
accumulated
capital,
i.e.,
with
the
surplus-value
or
surplus-product
that
is
reconverted
into
capital,whether
it
functions
in
the
hands
of
its
accumulator,
or
in
those
of
others.
Hence,
Political
Economy
describes
capital
in
general
as
\"accumulated
wealth\"
(converted
surplus-value
or
revenue),
\"that
is
employed
over
again
in
the
production
of
surplus-value,\"9and
the
capitalist
as
\"the
owner
of
surplus-value.\"10It
is
merely
another
way
of
expressing
the
same
thing
to
say
that
all
existing
capital
is
accumulated
or
capitalised
interest,
for
interest
is
a
mere
fragment
of
surplus-value.11
Section
2:
Erroneous
Conception,
by
Political
Economy,
of
Reproduction
on
a
Progressively
Increasing
Scale
Before
we
further
investigate
accumulation
or
the
reconversion
of
surplus-value
into
capital,
we
must
brush
on
one
side
an
ambiguity
introduced
by
the
classical
economists.
Just
as
little
as
the
commodities
that
the
capitalist
buys
with
a
part
of
the
surplus-value
for
his
own
consumption,
serve
the
purpose
of
production
and
of
creation
of
value,
so
little
is
the
labour
that
he
buys
for
the
satisfaction
of
his
natural
and
social
requirements,
productive
labour.
Instead
of
converting
surplus-value
into
capital,
he,
on
the
contrary,
by
the
purchase
of
those
commodities
and
that
labour,
consumes
or
expends
it
as
revenue.
In
the
face
of
the
habitual
mode
of
life
of
the
old
feudal
nobility,which,
as
Hegel
rightly
says,
\"consists
in
consuming
what
is
in
hand,\"
and
more
especially
displays
itself
in
the
luxury
of
personal
retainers,
it
was
extremely
important
for
bourgeois
economy
to
promulgate
the
doctrine
that
accumulation
of
capital
is
the
first
duty
of
every
citizen,
and
to
preach
without
ceasing,
that
a
man
cannot
accumulate,
if
he
eats
up
all
his
revenue,instead
of
spending
a
good
part
of
it
in
the
acquisition
of
additional
productive
labourers,
who
bring
in
more
than
they
cost.
On
the
other
hand
the
economists
had
to
contend
against
the
popular
prejudice,
that
confuses
capitalist
production
with
hoarding,12and
fancies
that
accumulated
wealth
is
either
wealth
that
is
rescued
from
being
destroyed
in
its
existing
form,
i.e.,
from
being
consumed,
or
wealth
that
is
withdrawn
from
circulation.
Exclusion
of
money
from
circulation
would
also
exclude
absolutely
its
self-expansion
as
capital,
while
accumulation
of
a
hoard
in
the
shape
of
commodities
would
be
sheer
tomfoolery.13The
accumulation
of
commodities
in
great
masses
is
the
result
either
of
over-production
or
of
a
stoppage
of
circulation.14It
is
true
that
the
popular
mind
is
impressed
by
the
sight,
on
the
one
hand,
of
the
mass
of
goods
that
are
stored
up
for
gradual
consumption
by
the
rich,15and
on
the
other
hand,
by
the
formation
of
reserve
stocks;
the
latter,
a
phenomenon
that
is
common
to
all
modes
of
production,
and
on
which
we
shall
dwell
for
a
moment,
when
we
come
to
analyse
circulation.
Classical
economy
is
therefore
quite
right,when
it
maintains
that
the
consumption
of
surplus
products
by
productive,
instead
of
by
unproductive
labourers,
is
a
characteristic
feature
of
the
process
of
accumulation.
But
at
this
point
the
mistakes
also
begin.Adam
Smith
has
made
it
the
fashion,
to
represent
accumulation
as
nothing
more
than
consumption
of
surplus
products
by
productive
labourers,
which
amounts
to
saying,
that
the
capitalising
of
surplus
value
consists
in
merely
turning
surplus-value
into
labour-power.
Let
us
see
what
Ricardo,
e.g.,
says:
\"It
must
be
understood
that
all
the
productions
of
a
country
are
consumed;
but
it
makes
the
greatest
difference
imaginable
whether
they
are
consumed
by
those
who
reproduce,
or
by
those
who
do
not
reproduce
another
value.
When
we
say
that
revenue
is
saved,
and
added
to
capital,
what
we
mean
is,
that
the
portion
of
revenue,
so
said
to
be
added
to
capital,
is
consumed
by
productive
instead
of
unproductive
labourers.
There
can
be
no
greater
error
than
in
supposing
that
capital
is
increased
by
non-consumption.\"
16
There
can
be
no
greater
error
than
that
which
Ricardo
and
all
subsequent
economists
repeat
after
A.Smith,
viz.,
that
\"the
part
of
revenue,
of
which
it
is
said,
it
has
been
added
to
capital,
is
consumed
by
productive
labourers.\"
According
to
this,
all
surplus-value
that
is
changed
into
capital
becomes
variable
capital.
So
far
from
this
being
the
case,
the
surplus-value,
like
the
original
capital,
divides
itself
into
constant
capital
and
variable
capital,
into
means
of
production
and
labour-power.Labour-power
is
the
form
under
which
variable
capital
exists
during
the
process
of
production.
In
this
process
the
labour-power
is
itself
consumed
by
the
capitalist
while
the
means
of
production
are
consumed
by
the
labour-power
in
the
exercise
of
its
function,
labour.At
the
same
time,
the
money
paid
for
the
purchase
of
the
labour-power,
is
converted
into
necessaries,that
are
consumed,
not
by
\"productive
labour,\"
but
by
the
\"productive
labourer.\"
Adam
Smith,
by
a
fundamentally
perverted
analysis,
arrives
at
the
absurd
conclusion,
that
even
though
each
individual
capital
is
divided
into
a
constant
and
a
variable
part,
the
capital
of
society
resolves
itself
only
into
variable
capital,i.e.,
is
laid
out
exclusively
in
payment
of
wages.For
instance,
suppose
a
cloth
manufacturer
converts￡2,000
into
capital.
One
portion
he
lays
out
in
buying
weavers,
the
other
in
woollen
yarn,
machinery,
&c.But
the
people,
from
whom
he
buys
the
yarn
and
the
machinery,
pay
for
labour
with
a
part
of
the
purchase
money,
and
so
on
until
the
whole
￡2,000
are
spent
in
the
payment
of
wages,
i.e.,
until
the
entire
product
represented
by
the
￡2,000
has
been
consumed
by
productive
labourers.
It
is
evident
that
the
whole
gist
of
this
argument
lies
in
the
words
\"and
so
on,\"
which
send
us
from
pillar
to
post.
In
truth,
Adam
Smith
breaks
his
investigation
off,
just
where
its
difficulties
begin.17
The
annual
process
of
reproduction
is
easily
understood,so
long
as
we
keep
in
view
merely
the
sum
total
of
the
year's
production.
But
every
single
component
of
this
product
must
be
brought
into
the
market
as
a
commodity,
and
there
the
difficulty
begins.
The
movements
of
the
individual
capitals,
and
of
the
personal
revenues,
cross
and
intermingle
and
are
lost
in
the
general
change
of
places,
in
the
circulation
of
the
wealth
of
society;
this
dazes
the
sight,
and
propounds
very
complicated
problems
for
solution.
In
the
third
part
of
Book
II.
I
shall
give
the
analysis
of
the
real
bearings
of
the
facts.
It
is
one
of
the
great
merits
of
the
Physiocrats,
that
in
their
Tableau
économique
they
were
the
first
to
attempt
to
depict
the
annual
production
in
the
shape
in
which
it
is
presented
to
us
after
passing
through
the
process
of
circulation.18
For
the
rest,
it
is
a
matter
of
course,
that
Political
Economy,
acting
in
the
interests
of
the
capitalist
class,has
not
failed
to
exploit
the
doctrine
of
Adam
Smith,viz.,
that
the
whole
of
that
part
of
the
surplus-product
which
is
converted
into
capital,
is
consumed
by
the
working
class.
Section
3:
Separation
of
Surplus-Value
into
Capital
and
Revenue.
The
Abstinence
Theory
In
the
last
preceding
chapter,
we
treated
surplus
value
(or
the
surplus-product)
solely
as
a
fund
for
supplying
the
individual
consumption
of
the
capitalist.In
this
chapter
we
have,
so
far,
treated
it
solely
as
a
fund
for
accumulation.
It
is,
however,
neither
the
one
nor
the
other,
but
is
both
together.
One
portion
is
consumed
by
the
capitalist
as
revenue,19the
other
is
employed
as
capital,
is
accumulated.
Given
the
mass
of
surplus-value,
then,
the
larger
the
one
of
these
parts,
the
smaller
is
the
other.
Caeterisparibus,
the
ratio
of
these
parts
determines
the
magnitude
of
the
accumulation.
But
it
is
by
the
owner
of
the
surplus-value,
by
the
capitalist
alone,
that
the
division
is
made.
It
is
his
deliberate
act.
That
part
of
the
tribute
exacted
by
him
which
he
accumulates,
is
said
to
be
saved
by
him,
because
he
does
not
eat
it,i.e.,
because
he
performs
the
function
of
a
capitalist,and
enriches
himself.
Except
as
personified
capital,
the
capitalist
has
no
historical
value,
and
no
right
to
that
historical
existence,
which,
to
use
an
expression
of
the
witty
Lichnowsky,
\"hasn't
got
no
date.\"
And
so
far
only
is
the
necessity
for
his
own
transitory
existence
implied
in
the
transitory
necessity
for
the
capitalist
mode
of
production.
But,
so
far
as
he
is
personified
capital,
it
is
not
values
in
use
and
the
enjoyment
of
them,
but
exchange-value
and
its
augmentation,
that
spur
him
into
action.
Fanatically
bent
on
making
value
expand
itself,
he
ruthlessly
forces
the
human
race
to
produce
for
production's
sake;
he
thus
forces
the
development
of
the
productive
powers
of
society,
and
creates
those
material
conditions,
which
alone
can
form
the
real
basis
of
a
higher
form
of
society,
a
society
in
which
the
full
and
free
development
of
every
individual
forms
the
ruling
principle.
Only
as
personified
capital
is
the
capitalist
respectable.
As
such,
he
shares
with
the
miser
the
passion
for
wealth
as
wealth.
But
that
which
in
the
miser
is
a
mere
idiosyncrasy,
is,
in
the
capitalist,the
effect
of
the
social
mechanism,
of
which
he
is
but
one
of
the
wheels.
Moreover,
the
development
of
capitalist
production
makes
it
constantly
necessary
to
keep
increasing
the
amount
of
the
capital
laid
out
in
a
given
industrial
undertaking,
and
competition
makes
the
immanent
laws
of
capitalist
production
to
be
felt
by
each
individual
capitalist,
as
external
coercive
laws.
It
compels
him
to
keep
constantly
extending
his
capital,
in
order
to
preserve
it,
but
extend
it
he
cannot,except
by
means
of
progressive
accumulation.
So
far,
therefore,
as
his
actions
are
a
mere
function
of
capital
–
endowed
as
capital
is,
in
his
person,with
consciousness
and
a
will
–
his
own
private
consumption
is
a
robbery
perpetrated
on
accumulation,just
as
in
book-keeping
by
double
entry,
the
private
expenditure
of
the
capitalist
is
placed
on
the
debtor
side
of
his
account
against
his
capital.
To
accumulate,is
to
conquer
the
world
of
social
wealth,
to
increase
the
mass
of
human
beings
exploited
by
him,
and
thus
to
extend
both
the
direct
and
the
indirect
sway
of
the
capitalist.20
But
original
sin
is
at
work
everywhere.
As
capitalist
production,
accumulation,
and
wealth,
become
developed,
the
capitalist
ceases
to
be
the
mere
incarnation
of
capital.
He
has
a
fellow-feeling
for
his
own
Adam,
and
his
education
gradually
enables
him
to
smile
at
the
rage
for
asceticism,
as
a
mere
prejudice
of
the
old-fashioned
miser.
While
the
capitalist
of
the
classical
type
brands
individual
consumption
as
a
sin
against
his
function,
and
as
\"abstinence\"
from
accumulating,
the
modernised
capitalist
is
capable
of
looking
upon
accumulation
as
\"abstinence\"
from
pleasure.
\"Two
souls,
alas,
do
dwell
with
in
his
breast;
The
one
is
ever
parting
from
the
other.\"21
At
the
historical
dawn
of
capitalist
production,
–
and
every
capitalist
upstart
has
personally
to
go
through
this
historical
stage
–
avarice,
and
desire
to
get
rich,are
the
ruling
passions.
But
the
progress
of
capitalist
production
not
only
creates
a
world
of
delights;
it
lays
open,
in
speculation
and
the
credit
system,
a
thousand
sources
of
sudden
enrichment.
When
a
certain
stage
of
development
has
been
reached,
a
conventional
degree
of
prodigality,
which
is
also
an
exhibition
of
wealth,
and
consequently
a
source
of
credit,becomes
a
business
necessity
to
the
\"unfortunate\"capitalist.
Luxury
enters
into
capital's
expenses
of
representation.
Moreover,
the
capitalist
gets
rich,
not
like
the
miser,
in
proportion
to
his
personal
labour
and
restricted
consumption,
but
at
the
same
rate
as
he
squeezes
out
the
labour-power
of
others,
and
enforces
on
the
labourer
abstinence
from
all
life's
enjoyments.Although,
therefore,
the
prodigality
of
the
capitalist
never
possesses
the
bona
fide
character
of
the
open
handed
feudal
lord's
prodigality,
but,
on
the
contrary,has
always
lurking
behind
it
the
most
sordid
avarice
and
the
most
anxious
calculation,
yet
his
expenditure
grows
with
his
accumulation,
without
the
one
necessarily
restricting
the
other.
But
along
with
this
growth,
there
is
at
the
same
time
developed
in
his
breast,
a
Faustian
conflict
between
the
passion
for
accumulation,
and
the
desire
for
enjoyment.
Dr.
Aikin
says
in
a
work
published
in
1795:
\"The
trade
of
Manchester
may
be
divided
into
four
periods.
First,
when
manufacturers
were
obliged
to
work
hard
for
their
livelihood.\"
They
enriched
themselves
chiefly
by
robbing
the
parents,
whose
children
were
bound
as
apprentices
to
them;
the
parents
paid
a
high
premium,
while
the
apprentices
were
starved.
On
the
other
hand,
the
average
profits
were
low,
and
to
accumulate,
extreme
parsimony
was
requisite.
They
lived
like
misers
and
were
far
from
consuming
even
the
interest
on
their
capital.
\"The
second
period,
when
they
had
begun
to
acquire
little
fortunes,
but
worked
as
hard
as
before,\"
–
for
direct
exploitation
of
labour
costs
labour,
as
every
slave-driver
knows
–
\"and
lived
in
as
plain
a
manner
as
before....
The
third,
when
luxury
began,
and
the
trade
was
pushed
by
sending
out
riders
for
orders
into
every
market
town
in
the
Kingdom....
It
is
probable
that
few
or
no
capitals
of
￡3,000
to
￡4,000
acquired
by
trade
existed
here
before
1690.
However,
about
that
time,
or
a
little
later,
the
traders
had
got
money
beforehand,
and
began
to
build
modern
brick
houses,
instead
of
those
of
wood
and
plaster.\"
Even
in
the
early
part
of
the
18th
century,
a
Manchester
manufacturer,
who
placed
a
pint
of
foreign
wine
before
his
guests,
exposed
himself
to
the
remarks
and
headshakings
of
all
his
neighbours.
Before
the
rise
of
machinery,
a
manufacturer's
evening
expenditure
at
the
public
house
where
they
all
met,
never
exceeded
sixpence
for
a
glass
of
punch,
and
a
penny
for
a
screw
of
tobacco.
It
was
not
till
1758,
and
this
marks
an
epoch,
that
a
person
actually
engaged
in
business
was
seen
with
an
equipage
of
his
own.
\"The
fourth
period,\"
the
last
30
years
of
the
18th
century,
\"is
that
in
which
expense
and
luxury
have
made
great
progress,
and
was
supported
by
a
trade
extended
by
means
of
riders
and
factors
through
every
part
of
Europe.\"22
What
would
the
good
Dr.
Aikin
say
if
he
could
rise
from
his
grave
and
see
the
Manchester
of
today
Accumulate,
accumulate!
That
is
Moses
and
the
prophets!
\"Industry
furnishes
the
material
which
saving
accumulates.\"23Therefore,
save,
save,
i.e.,reconvert
the
greatest
possible
portion
of
surplus
value,
or
surplus-product
into
capital!
Accumulation
for
accumulation's
sake,
production
for
production's
sake:
by
this
formula
classical
economy
expressed
the
historical
mission
of
the
bourgeoisie,
and
did
not
for
a
single
instant
deceive
itself
over
the
birth
throes
of
wealth.24But
what
avails
lamentation
in
the
face
of
historical
necessity
If
to
classical
economy,the
proletarian
is
but
a
machine
for
the
production
of
surplus-value;
on
the
other
hand,
the
capitalist
is
in
its
eyes
only
a
machine
for
the
conversion
of
this
surplus
value
into
additional
capital.
Political
Economy
takes
the
historical
function
of
the
capitalist
in
bitter
earnest.
In
order
to
charm
out
of
his
bosom
the
awful
conflict
between
the
desire
for
enjoyment
and
the
chase
after
riches,
Malthus,
about
the
year
1820,advocated
a
division
of
labour,
which
assigns
to
the
capitalist
actually
engaged
in
production,
the
business
of
accumulating,
and
to
the
other
sharers
in
surplus
value,
to
the
landlords,
the
place-men,
the
beneficed
clergy,
&c.,
the
business
of
spending.
It
is
of
the
highest
importance,
he
says,
精選分類
