- 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
\"to
keep
separate
the
passion
for
expenditure
and
the
passion
for
accumulation.\"25
The
capitalists
having
long
been
good
livers
and
men
of
the
world,
uttered
loud
cries.
What,
exclaimed
one
of
their
spokesmen,
a
disciple
of
Ricardo,
Mr.Malthus
preaches
high
rents,
heavy
taxes,
&c.,
so
that
the
pressure
of
the
spur
may
constantly
be
kept
on
the
industrious
by
unproductive
consumers!
By
all
means,production,
production
on
a
constantly
increasing
scale,
runs
the
shibboleth;
but
\"production
will,
by
such
a
process,
be
far
more
curbed
in
than
spurred
on.
Nor
is
it
quite
fair
thus
to
maintain
in
idleness
a
number
of
persons,only
to
pinch
others,
who
are
likely,
from
their
characters,
if
you
can
force
them
to
work,
to
work
with
success.\"26
Unfair
as
he
finds
it
to
spur
on
the
industrial
capitalist,by
depriving
his
bread
of
its
butter,
yet
he
thinks
it
necessary
to
reduce
the
labourer's
wages
to
a
minimum
\"to
keep
him
industrious.\"
Nor
does
he
for
a
moment
conceal
the
fact,
that
the
appropriation
of
unpaid
labour
is
the
secret
of
surplus-value.
\"Increased
demand
on
the
part
of
the
labourers
means
nothing
more
than
their
willingness
to
take
less
of
their
own
product
for
themselves,
and
leave
a
greater
part
of
it
to
their
employers;
and
if
it
be
said,
that
this
begets
glut,
by
lessening
consumption\"
(on
the
part
of
the
labourers),
\"I
can
only
reply
that
glut
is
synonymous
with
large
profits.\"27
The
learned
disputation,
how
the
booty
pumped
out
of
the
labourer
may
be
divided,
with
most
advantage
to
accumulation,
between
the
industrial
capitalist
and
the
rich
idler,
was
hushed
in
face
of
the
revolution
of
July.
Shortly
afterwards,
the
town
proletariat
at
Lyons
sounded
the
tocsin
of
revolution,
and
the
country
proletariat
in
England
began
to
set
fire
to
farm-yards
and
corn-stacks.
On
this
side
of
the
Channel
Owenism
began
to
spread;
on
the
other
side,
St.
Simonism
and
Fourierism.
The
hour
of
vulgar
economy
had
struck.Exactly
a
year
before
Nassau
W.
Senior
discovered
at
Manchester,
that
the
profit
(including
interest)
of
capital
is
the
product
of
the
last
hour
of
the
twelve,
he
had
announced
to
the
world
another
discovery.
\"I
substitute,\"
he
proudly
says,
\"for
the
word
capital,
considered
as
an
instrument
of
production,the
word
abstinence.\"
An
unparalleled
sample
this,
of
the
discoveries
of
vulgar
economy!
It
substitutes
for
an
economic
category,
a
sycophantic
phrase
–
voilà
tout.
[that's
all]
\"When
the
savage,\"
says
Senior,
\"makes
bows,
he
exercises
an
industry,
but
he
does
not
practise
abstinence.\"28
This
explains
how
and
why,
in
the
earlier
states
of
society,
the
implements
of
labour
were
fabricated
without
abstinence
on
the
part
of
the
capitalist.
is
demanded,\"29
\"The
more
society
progresses,
the
more
abstinence
Namely,
from
those
who
ply
the
industry
of
appropriating
the
fruits
of
others'
industry.
All
the
conditions
for
carrying
on
the
labour
process
are
suddenly
converted
into
so
many
acts
of
abstinence
on
the
part
of
the
capitalist.
If
the
corn
is
not
all
eaten,but
part
of
it
also
sown
–
abstinence
of
the
capitalist.If
the
wine
gets
time
to
mature
–
abstinence
of
the
capitalist30The
capitalist
robs
his
own
self,
whenever
he
\"lends
(!)
the
instruments
of
production
to
the
labourer,\"
that
is,
whenever
by
incorporating
labour
power
with
them,
he
uses
them
to
extract
surplus
value
out
of
that
labour-power,
instead
of
eating
them
up,
steam-engines,
cotton,
railways,
manure,
horses,and
all;
or
as
the
vulgar
economist
childishly
puts
it,instead
of
dissipating
\"their
value\"
in
luxuries
and
other
articles
of
consumption.31How
the
capitalists
as
a
class
are
to
perform
that
feat,
is
a
secret
that
vulgar
economy
has
hitherto
obstinately
refused
to
divulge.Enough,
that
the
world
still
jogs
on,
solely
through
the
self-chastisement
of
this
modern
penitent
of
Vishnu,
the
capitalist.
Not
only
accumulation,
but
the
simple
\"conservation
of
a
capital
requires
a
constant
effort
to
resist
the
temptation
of
consuming
it.\"32The
simple
dictates
of
humanity
therefore
plainly
enjoin
the
release
of
the
capitalist
from
this
martyrdom
and
temptation,
in
the
same
way
that
the
Georgian
slave
owner
was
lately
delivered,
by
the
abolition
of
slavery,from
the
painful
dilemma,
whether
to
squander
the
surplus-product,
lashed
out
of
his
niggers,
entirely
in
champagne,
or
whether
to
reconvert
a
part
of
it
into
more
niggers
and
more
land.
In
economic
forms
of
society
of
the
most
different
kinds,
there
occurs,
not
only
simple
reproduction,
but,in
varying
degrees,
reproduction
on
a
progressively
increasing
scale.
By
degrees
more
is
produced
and
more
consumed,
and
consequently
more
products
have
to
be
converted
into
means
of
production.
This
process,however,
does
not
present
itself
as
accumulation
of
capital,
nor
as
the
function
of
a
capitalist,
so
long
as
the
labourer's
means
of
production,
and
with
them,his
product
and
means
of
subsistence,
do
not
confront
him
in
the
shape
of
capital.33Richard
Jones,
who
died
a
few
years
ago,
and
was
the
successor
of
Malthus
in
the
chair
of
Political
Economy
at
Haileybury
College,discusses
this
point
well
in
the
light
of
two
important
facts.
Since
the
great
mass
of
the
Hindu
population
are
peasants
cultivating
their
land
themselves,
their
products,
their
instruments
of
labour
and
means
of
subsistence
never
take
\"the
shape
of
a
fund
saved
from
revenue,
which
fund
has,
therefore,
gone
through
a
previous
process
of
accumulation.\"34On
the
other
hand,
the
non-agricultural
labourers
in
those
provinces
where
the
English
rule
has
least
disturbed
the
old
system,
are
directly
employed
by
the
magnates,
to
whom
a
portion
of
the
agricultural
surplus-product
is
rendered
in
the
shape
of
tribute
or
rent.
One
portion
of
this
product
is
consumed
by
the
magnates
in
kind,another
is
converted,
for
their
use,
by
the
labourers,into
articles
of
luxury
and
such
like
things,
while
the
rest
forms
the
wages
of
the
labourers,
who
own
their
implements
of
labour.
Here,
production
and
reproduction
on
a
progressively
increasing
scale,go
on
their
way
without
any
intervention
from
that
queer
saint,
that
knight
of
the
woeful
countenance,
the
capitalist
\"abstainer.\"
Section
4:
Circumstances
that,
Independently
of
the
Proportional
Division
of
Surplus-Value
into
Capital
and
Revenue,
Determine
the
Amount
of
Accumulation.
Degree
of
Exploitation
of
Labour-Power.
Productivity
of
Labour.
Growing
Difference
in
Amount
Between
Capital
Employed
and
Capital
Consumed.
Magnitude
of
Capital
Advanced
The
proportion
in
which
surplus-value
breaks
up
into
capital
and
revenue
being
given,
the
magnitude
of
the
capital
accumulated
clearly
depends
on
the
absolute
magnitude
of
the
surplus-value.
Suppose
that
80
per
cent.
were
capitalised
and
20
per
cent.
eaten
up,
the
accumulated
capital
will
be
￡2,400
or
￡200,
according
as
the
total
surplus-value
has
amounted
to
￡3,000
or
￡500.
Hence
all
the
circumstances
that
determine
the
mass
of
surplus-value
operate
to
determine
the
magnitude
of
the
accumulation.
We
sum
them
up
once
again,
but
only
in
so
far
as
they
afford
new
points
of
view
in
regard
to
accumulation.
It
will
be
remembered
that
the
rate
of
surplus
value
depends,
in
the
first
place,
on
the
degree
of
exploitation
of
labour-power.
Political
Economy
values
this
fact
so
highly,
that
it
occasionally
identifies
the
acceleration
of
accumulation
due
to
increased
productiveness
of
labour,
with
its
acceleration
due
to
increased
exploitation
of
the
labourer.35In
the
chapters
on
the
production
of
surplus-value
it
was
constantly
presupposed
that
wages
are
at
least
equal
to
the
value
of
labour-power.
Forcible
reduction
of
wages
below
this
value
plays,
however,
in
practice
too
important
a
part,
for
us
not
to
pause
upon
it
for
a
moment.
It,
in
fact,
transforms,
within
certain
limits,
the
labourer's
necessary
consumption
fund
into
a
fund
for
the
accumulation
of
capital.
\"Wages,\"
says
John
Stuart
Mill,
\"have
no
productive
power;
they
are
the
price
of
a
productive
power.
Wages
do
not
contribute,
along
with
labour,
to
the
production
of
commodities,no
more
than
the
price
of
tools
contributes
along
with
the
tools
themselves.
If
labour
could
be
had
without
purchase,
wages
might
be
dispensed
with.\"36
But
if
the
labourers
could
live
on
air
they
could
not
be
bought
at
any
price.
The
zero
of
their
cost
is
therefore
a
limit
in
a
mathematical
sense,
always
beyond
reach,
although
we
can
always
approximate
more
and
more
nearly
to
it.
The
constant
tendency
of
capital
is
to
force
the
cost
of
labour
back
towards
this
zero.
A
writer
of
the
18th
century,
often
quoted
already,
the
author
of
the
\"Essay
on
Trade
and
Commerce,\"
only
betrays
the
innermost
secret
soul
of
English
capitalism,
when
he
declares
the
historic
mission
of
England
to
be
the
forcing
down
of
English
wages
to
the
level
of
the
French
and
the
Dutch.37With
other
things
he
says
naively:
\"But
if
our
poor\"
(technical
term
for
labourers)\"will
live
luxuriously
...
then
labour
must,
of
course,
be
dear
...
When
it
is
considered
what
luxuries
the
manufacturing
populace
consume,such
as
brandy,
gin,
tea,
sugar,
foreign
fruit,
strong
beer,
printed
linens,
snuff,
tobacco,
&c.\"38
He
quotes
the
work
of
a
Northamptonshire
manufacturer,who,
with
eyes
squinting
heavenward
moans:
\"Labour
is
one-third
cheaper
in
France
than
in
England;
for
their
poor
work
hard,
and
fare
hard,as
to
their
food
and
clothing.
Their
chief
diet
is
bread,
fruit,
herbs,
roots,
and
dried
fish;
for
they
very
seldom
eat
flesh;
and
when
wheat
is
dear,they
eat
very
little
bread.\"39\"To
which
may
be
added,\"
our
essayist
goes
on,
\"that
their
drink
is
either
water
or
other
small
liquors,
so
that
they
spend
very
little
money....
These
things
are
very
difficult
to
be
brought
about;
but
they
are
not
impracticable,
since
they
have
been
effected
both
in
France
and
in
Holland.\"40
Twenty
years
later,
an
American
humbug,
the
baronised
Yankee,
Benjamin
Thompson
(alias
Count
Rumford)
followed
the
same
line
of
philanthropy
to
the
great
satisfaction
of
God
and
man.
His
\"Essays\"
are
a
cookery
book
with
receipts
of
all
kinds
for
replacing
by
some
succedaneum
the
ordinary
dear
food
of
the
labourer.
The
following
is
a
particularly
successful
receipt
of
this
wonderful
philosopher:
\"5
lbs.
of
barleymeal,
7d.;
5
lbs.
of
Indian
corn,
6d.;
3d.
worth
of
red
herring,
1d.
salt,
1d.
vinegar,
2d.
pepper
and
sweet
herbs,
in
all
20.;
make
a
soup
for
64
men,
and
at
the
medium
price
of
barley
and
of
Indian
corn
...
this
soup
may
be
provided
at
d.,
the
portion
of
20
ounces.\"41
With
the
advance
of
capitalistic
production,
the
adulteration
of
food
rendered
Thompson's
ideal
superfluous.42At
the
end
of
the
18th
and
during
the
first
ten
years
of
the
19th
century,
the
English
farmers
and
landlords
enforced
the
absolute
minimum
of
wage,
by
paying
the
agricultural
labourers
less
than
the
minimum
in
the
form
of
wages,
and
the
remainder
in
the
shape
of
parochial
relief.
An
example
of
the
waggish
way
in
which
the
English
Dogberries
acted
in
their
\"legal\"
fixing
of
a
wages
tariff:
\"The
squires
of
Norfolk
had
dined,
says
Mr.Burke,
when
they
fixed
the
rate
of
wages;
the
squires
of
Berks
evidently
thought
the
labourers
ought
not
to
do
so,
when
they
fixed
the
rate
of
wages
at
Speenhamland,
1795....
There
they
decide
that
'income
(weekly)
should
be
3s.
for
a
man,'
when
the
gallon
or
half-peck
loaf
of
8
lbs.
11
oz.
is
at
1s.,
and
increase
regularly
till
bread
is
1s.5d.;
when
it
is
above
that
sum
decrease
regularly
till
it
be
at
2s.,
and
then
his
food
should
be
1\/5
th
less.\"
43
Before
the
Committee
of
Inquiry
of
the
House
of
Lords,
1814,
a
certain
A.
Bennett,
a
large
farmer,magistrate,
poor-law
guardian,
and
wage-regulator,was
asked:
\"Has
any
proportion
of
the
value
of
daily
labour
been
made
up
to
the
labourers
out
of
the
poors'rate\"
Answer:
\"Yes,
it
has;
the
weekly
income
of
every
family
is
made
up
to
the
gallon
loaf
(8
lbs.
11
oz.),
and
3d.
per
head!...
The
gallon
loaf
per
week
is
what
we
suppose
sufficient
for
the
maintenance
of
every
person
in
the
family
for
the
week;
and
the
3d.
is
for
clothes,
and
if
the
parish
think
proper
to
find
clothes;
the
3d.
is
deducted.
This
practice
goes
through
all
the
western
part
of
Wiltshire,
and,
I
believe,
throughout
the
country.\"44\"For
years,\"
exclaims
a
bourgeois
author
of
that
time,
\"they
(the
farmers)
have
degraded
a
respectable
class
of
their
countrymen,
by
forcing
them
to
have
recourse
to
the
workhouse
...
the
farmer,
while
increasing
his
own
gains,
has
prevented
any
accumulation
on
the
part
of
his
labouring
dependents.\"45
The
part
played
in
our
days
by
the
direct
robbery
from
the
labourer's
necessary
consumption
fund
in
the
formation
of
surplus-value,
and,
therefore,
of
the
accumulation
fund
of
capital,
the
so-called
domestic
industry
has
served
to
show.
(Ch.
xv.,
sect.
8,
c.)
Further
facts
on
this
subject
will
be
given
later.
Although
in
all
branches
of
industry
that
part
of
the
constant
capital
consisting
of
instruments
of
labour
must
be
sufficient
for
a
certain
number
of
labourers(determined
by
the
magnitude
of
the
undertaking),
it
by
no
means
always
necessarily
increases
in
the
same
proportion
as
the
quantity
of
labour
employed.
In
a
factory,
suppose
that
100
labourers
working
8
hours
a
day
yield
800
working-hours.
If
the
capitalist
wishes
to
raise
this
sum
by
one
half,
he
can
employ
50
more
workers;
but
then
he
must
also
advance
more
capital,
not
merely
for
wages,
but
for
instruments
of
labour.But
he
might
also
let
the
100
labourers
work
12
hours
instead
of
8,
and
then
the
instruments
of
labour
already
to
hand
would
be
enough.
These
would
then
simply
be
more
rapidly
consumed.
Thus
additional
labour,
begotten
of
the
greater
tension
of
labour
power,
can
augment
surplus-product
and
surplus-value(i.e.,
the
subject-matter
of
accumulation),
without
corresponding
augmentation
in
the
constant
part
of
capital.
In
the
extractive
industries,
mines,
&c.,
the
raw
materials
form
no
part
of
the
capital
advanced.
The
subject
of
labour
is
in
this
case
not
a
product
of
previous
labour,
but
is
furnished
by
Nature
gratis,
as
in
the
case
of
metals,
minerals,
coal,
stone,
&c.
In
these
cases
the
constant
capital
consists
almost
exclusively
of
instruments
of
labour,
which
can
very
well
absorb
an
increased
quantity
of
labour
(day
and
night
shifts
of
labourers,
e.g.).
All
other
things
being
equal,
the
mass
and
value
of
the
product
will
rise
in
direct
proportion
to
the
labour
expended.
As
on
the
first
day
of
production,
the
original
produce-formers,
now
turned
into
the
creators
of
the
material
elements
of
capital
–man
and
Nature
–
still
work
together.
Thanks
to
the
elasticity
of
labour-power,
the
domain
of
accumulation
has
extended
without
any
previous
enlargement
of
constant
capital.
In
agriculture
the
land
under
cultivation
cannot
be
increased
without
the
advance
of
more
seed
and
manure.
But
this
advance
once
made,
the
purely
mechanical
working
of
the
soil
itself
produces
a
marvellous
effect
on
the
amount
of
the
product.
A
greater
quantity
of
labour,
done
by
the
same
number
of
labourers
as
before,
thus
increases
the
fertility,without
requiring
any
new
advance
in
the
instruments
of
labour.
It
is
once
again
the
direct
action
of
man
on
Nature
which
becomes
an
immediate
source
of
greater
accumulation,
without
the
intervention
of
any
new
capital.
Finally,
in
what
is
called
manufacturing
industry,every
additional
expenditure
of
labour
presupposes
a
corresponding
additional
expenditure
of
raw
materials,
but
not
necessarily
of
instruments
of
labour.
And
as
extractive
industry
and
agriculture
supply
manufacturing
industry
with
its
raw
materials
and
those
of
its
instruments
of
labour,
the
additional
product
the
former
have
created
without
additional
advance
of
capital,
tells
also
in
favour
of
the
latter.
General
result:
by
incorporating
with
itself
the
two
primary
creators
of
wealth,
labour-power
and
the
land,capital
acquires
a
power
of
expansion
that
permits
it
to
augment
the
elements
of
its
accumulation
beyond
the
limits
apparently
fixed
by
its
own
magnitude,
or
by
the
value
and
the
mass
of
the
means
of
production,already
produced,
in
which
it
has
its
being.
Another
important
factor
in
the
accumulation
of
capital
is
the
degree
of
productivity
of
social
labour.
With
the
productive
power
of
labour
increases
the
mass
of
the
products,
in
which
a
certain
value,
and,therefore,
a
surplus-value
of
a
given
magnitude,
is
embodied.
The
rate
of
surplus-value
remaining
the
same
or
even
falling,
so
long
as
it
only
falls
more
slowly,
than
the
productive
power
of
labour
rises,
the
mass
of
the
surplus-product
increases.
The
division
of
this
product
into
revenue
and
additional
capital
remaining
the
same,
the
consumption
of
the
capitalist
may,
therefore,
increase
without
any
decrease
in
the
fund
of
accumulation.
The
relative
magnitude
of
the
accumulation
fund
may
even
increase
at
the
expense
of
the
consumption
fund,
whilst
the
cheapening
of
commodities
places
at
the
disposal
of
the
capitalist
as
many
means
of
enjoyment
as
formerly,
or
even
more
than
formerly.
But
hand-in-hand
with
the
increasing
productivity
of
labour,
goes,
as
we
have
seen,
the
cheapening
of
the
labourer,
therefore
a
higher
rate
of
surplus-value,
even
when
the
real
wages
are
rising.
The
latter
never
rise
proportionally
to
the
productive
power
of
labour.
The
same
value
in
variable
capital
therefore
sets
in
movement
more
labour-power,
and,therefore,
more
labour.
The
same
value
in
constant
capital
is
embodied
in
more
means
of
production,
i.e.,in
more
instruments
of
labour,
materials
of
labour
and
auxiliary
materials;
it
therefore
also
supplies
more
elements
for
the
production
both
of
use
value
and
of
value,
and
with
these
more
absorbers
of
labour.
The
value
of
the
additional
capital,
therefore,remaining
the
same
or
even
diminishing,
accelerated
accumulation
still
takes
place.
Not
only
does
the
scale
of
reproduction
materially
extend,
but
the
production
of
surplus-value
increases
more
rapidly
than
the
value
of
the
additional
capital.
The
development
of
the
productive
power
of
labour
reacts
also
on
the
original
capital
already
engaged
in
the
process
of
production.
A
part
of
the
functioning
constant
capital
consists
of
instruments
of
labour,such
as
machinery,
&c.,
which
are
not
consumed,and
therefore
not
reproduced,
or
replaced
by
new
ones
of
the
same
kind,
until
after
long
periods
of
time.
But
every
year
a
part
of
these
instruments
of
labour
perishes
or
reaches
the
limit
of
its
productive
function.
It
reaches,
therefore,
in
that
year,
the
time
for
its
periodical
reproduction,
for
its
replacement
by
new
ones
of
the
same
kind.
If
the
productiveness
of
labour
has,
during
the
using
up
of
these
instruments
of
labour,
increased
(and
it
develops
continually
with
the
uninterrupted
advance
of
science
and
technology),more
efficient
and
(considering
their
increased
efficiency),
cheaper
machines,
tools,
apparatus,
&c.,replace
the
old.
The
old
capital
is
reproduced
in
a
more
productive
form,
apart
from
the
constant
detail
improvements
in
the
instruments
of
labour
already
in
use.
The
other
part
of
the
constant
capital,
raw
material
and
auxiliary
substances,
is
constantly
reproduced
in
less
than
a
year;
those
produced
by
agriculture,
for
the
most
part
annually.
Every
introduction
of
improved
methods,
therefore,
works
almost
simultaneously
on
the
new
capital
and
on
that
already
in
action.
Every
advance
in
Chemistry
not
only
multiplies
the
number
of
useful
materials
and
the
useful
applications
of
those
already
known,
thus
extending
with
the
growth
of
capital
its
sphere
of
investment.
It
teaches
at
the
same
time
how
to
throw
the
excrements
of
the
processes
of
production
and
consumption
back
again
into
the
circle
of
the
process
of
reproduction,
and
thus,
without
any
previous
outlay
of
capital,
creates
new
matter
for
capital.
Like
the
increased
exploitation
of
natural
wealth
by
the
mere
increase
in
the
tension
of
labour
power,
science
and
technology
give
capital
a
power
of
expansion
independent
of
the
given
magnitude
of
the
capital
actually
functioning.
They
react
at
the
same
time
on
that
part
of
the
original
capital
which
has
entered
upon
its
stage
of
renewal.
This,
in
passing
into
its
new
shape,
incorporates
gratis
the
social
advance
made
while
its
old
shape
was
being
used
up.Of
course,
this
development
of
productive
power
is
accompanied
by
a
partial
depreciation
of
functioning
capital.
So
far
as
this
depreciation
makes
itself
acutely
felt
in
competition,
the
burden
falls
on
the
labourer,
in
the
increased
exploitation
of
whom
the
capitalist
looks
for
his
indemnification.
Labour
transmits
to
its
product
the
value
of
the
means
of
production
consumed
by
it.
On
the
other
hand,
the
value
and
mass
of
the
means
of
production
set
in
motion
by
a
given
quantity
of
labour
increase
as
the
labour
becomes
more
productive.
Though
the
same
quantity
of
labour
adds
always
to
its
products
only
the
same
sum
of
new
value,
still
the
old
capital
value,transmitted
by
the
labour
to
the
products,
increases
with
the
growing
productivity
of
labour.
An
English
and
a
Chinese
spinner,
e.g.,
may
work
the
same
number
of
hours
with
the
same
intensity;then
they
will
both
in
a
week
create
equal
values.
But
in
spite
of
this
equality,
an
immense
difference
will
obtain
between
the
value
of
the
week's
product
of
the
Englishman,
who
works
with
a
mighty
automaton,
and
that
of
the
Chinaman,
who
has
but
a
spinning-wheel.In
the
same
time
as
the
Chinaman
spins
one
pound
of
cotton,
the
Englishman
spins
several
hundreds
of
pounds.
A
sum,
many
hundred
times
as
great,
of
old
values
swells
the
value
of
his
product,
in
which
those
re-appear
in
a
new,
useful
form,
and
can
thus
function
anew
as
capital.
\"In
1782,\"
as
Frederick
Engels
teaches
us,
\"all
the
wool
crop
in
England
of
the
three
preceding
years,
lay
untouched
for
want
of
labourers,
and
so
it
must
have
lain,
if
newly
invented
machinery
had
not
come
to
its
aid
and
spun
it.\"46
Labour
embodied
in
the
form
of
machinery
of
course
did
not
directly
force
into
life
a
single
man,
but
it
made
it
possible
for
a
smaller
number
of
labourers,with
the
addition
of
relatively
less
living
labour,
not
only
to
consume
the
wool
productively,
and
put
into
it
new
value,
but
to
preserve
in
the
form
of
yarn,&c.,
its
old
value.
At
the
same
time,
it
caused
and
stimulated
increased
reproduction
of
wool.
It
is
the
natural
property
of
living
labour,
to
transmit
old
value,whilst
it
creates
new.
Hence,
with
the
increase
in
efficacy,
extent
and
value
of
its
means
of
production,consequently
with
the
accumulation
that
accompanies
the
development
of
its
productive
power,
labour
keeps
up
and
eternises
an
always
increasing
capital
value
in
a
form
ever
new.\"47This
natural
power
of
labour
takes
the
appearance
of
an
intrinsic
property
of
capital,
in
which
it
is
incorporated,
just
as
the
productive
forces
of
social
labour
take
the
appearance
of
inherent
properties
of
capital,
and
as
the
constant
appropriation
of
surplus
labour
by
the
capitalists,
takes
that
of
a
constant
self-expansion
of
capital.
With
the
increase
of
capital,
the
difference
between
the
capital
employed
and
the
capital
consumed
increases.
In
other
words,
there
is
increase
in
the
value
and
the
material
mass
of
the
instruments
of
labour,such
as
buildings,
machinery,
drain-pipes,
working
cattle,
apparatus
of
every
kind
that
function
for
a
longer
or
shorter
time
in
processes
of
production
constantly
repeated,
or
that
serve
for
the
attainment
of
particular
useful
effects,
whilst
they
themselves
only
gradually
wear
out,
therefore
only
lose
their
value
piecemeal,
therefore
transfer
that
value
to
the
product
only
bit
by
bit.
In
the
same
proportion
as
these
instruments
of
labour
serve
as
product-formers
without
adding
value
to
the
product,
i.e.,
in
the
same
proportion
as
they
are
wholly
employed
but
only
partly
consumed,
they
perform,
as
we
saw
earlier,
the
same
gratuitous
service
as
the
natural
forces,
water,steam,
air,
electricity,
etc.
This
gratuitous
service
of
past
labour,
when
seized
and
filled
with
a
soul
by
living
labour,
increases
with
the
advancing
stages
of
accumulation.
Since
past
labour
always
disguises
itself
as
capital,i.e.,
since
the
passive
of
the
labour
of
A,
B,
C,
etc.,takes
the
form
of
the
active
of
the
non-labourer
X,bourgeois
and
political
economists
are
full
of
praises
of
the
services
of
dead
and
gone
labour,
which,according
to
the
Scotch
genius
MacCulloch,
ought
to
receive
a
special
remuneration
in
the
shape
of
interest,
profit,
etc.48The
powerful
and
ever-increasing
assistance
given
by
past
labour
to
the
living
labour
process
under
the
form
of
means
of
production
is,therefore,
attributed
to
that
form
of
past
labour
in
which
it
is
alienated,
as
unpaid
labour,
from
the
worker
himself,
i.e.,
to
its
capitalistic
form.
The
practical
agents
of
capitalistic
production
and
their
pettifogging
ideologists
are
as
unable
to
think
of
the
means
of
production
as
separate
from
the
antagonistic
social
mask
they
wear
today,
as
a
slave-owner
to
think
of
the
worker
himself
as
distinct
from
his
character
as
a
slave.
With
a
given
degree
of
exploitation
of
labour-power,the
mass
of
the
surplus-value
produced
is
determined
by
the
number
of
workers
simultaneously
exploited;and
this
corresponds,
although
in
varying
proportions,with
the
magnitude
of
the
capital.
The
more,therefore,
capital
increases
by
means
of
successive
accumulations,
the
more
does
the
sum
of
the
value
increase
that
is
divided
into
consumption
fund
and
accumulation
fund.
The
capitalist
can,
therefore,
live
a
more
jolly
life,
and
at
the
same
time
show
more\"abstinence.\"
And,
finally,
all
the
springs
of
production
act
with
greater
elasticity,
the
more
its
scale
extends
with
the
mass
of
the
capital
advanced.
Section
5:
The
So-Called
Labour
Fund
It
has
been
shown
in
the
course
of
this
inquiry
that
capital
is
not
a
fixed
magnitude,
but
is
a
part
of
social
wealth,
elastic
and
constantly
fluctuating
with
the
division
of
fresh
surplus-value
into
revenue
and
additional
capital.
It
has
been
seen
further
that,
even
with
a
given
magnitude
of
functioning
capital,
the
labour-power,
the
science,
and
the
land
(by
which
are
to
be
understood,
economically,
all
conditions
of
labour
furnished
by
Nature
independently
of
man),
embodied
in
it,
form
elastic
powers
of
capital,allowing
it,
within
certain
limits,
a
field
of
action
independent
of
its
own
magnitude.
In
this
inquiry
we
have
neglected
all
effects
of
the
process
of
circulation,effects
which
may
produce
very
different
degrees
of
efficiency
in
the
same
mass
of
capital.
And
as
we
presupposed
the
limits
set
by
capitalist
production,that
is
to
say,
presupposed
the
process
of
social
production
in
a
form
developed
by
purely
spontaneous
growth,
we
neglected
any
more
rational
combination,directly
and
systematically
practicable
with
the
means
of
production,
and
the
mass
of
labour-power
at
present
disposable.
Classical
economy
always
loved
to
conceive
social
capital
as
a
fixed
magnitude
of
a
fixed
degree
of
efficiency.
But
this
prejudice
was
first
established
as
a
dogma
by
the
arch-Philistine,
Jeremy
Bentham,
that
insipid,
pedantic,
leather-tongued
oracle
of
the
ordinary
bourgeois
intelligence
of
the
19th
century.49Bentham
is
among
philosophers
what
Martin
Tupper
is
among
poets.
Both
could
only
have
been
manufactured
in
England.50In
the
light
of
his
dogma
the
commonest
phenomena
of
the
process
of
production,
as,
e.g.,
its
sudden
expansions
and
contractions,
nay,
even
accumulation
itself,
become
perfectly
inconceivable.
51The
dogma
was
used
by
Bentham
himself,
as
well
as
by
Malthus,
James
Mill,MacCulloch,
etc.,
for
an
apologetic
purpose,
and
especially
in
order
to
represent
one
part
of
capital,namely,
variable
capital,
or
that
part
convertible
into
labour-power,
as
a
fixed
magnitude.
The
material
of
variable
capital,
i.e.,
the
mass
of
the
means
of
subsistence
it
represents
for
the
labourer,
or
the
so
called
labour
fund,
was
fabled
as
a
separate
part
of
social
wealth,
fixed
by
natural
laws
and
unchangeable.To
set
in
motion
the
part
of
social
wealth
which
is
to
function
as
constant
capital,
or,
to
express
it
in
a
material
form,
as
means
of
production,
a
definite
mass
of
living
labour
is
required.
This
mass
is
given
technologically.
But
neither
is
the
number
of
labourers
required
to
render
fluid
this
mass
of
labour-power
given
(it
changes
with
the
degree
of
exploitation
of
the
individual
labour-power),
nor
is
the
price
of
this
labour-power
given,
but
only
its
minimum
limit,which
is
moreover
very
variable.
The
facts
that
lie
at
the
bottom
of
this
dogma
are
these:
on
the
one
hand,the
labourer
has
no
right
to
interfere
in
the
division
of
social
wealth
into
means
of
enjoyment
for
the
non
labourer
and
means
of
production.52On
the
other
hand,
only
in
favourable
and
exceptional
cases,
has
he
the
power
to
enlarge
the
so-called
labour
fund
at
the
expense
of
the
\"revenue\"
of
the
wealthy.
What
silly
tautology
results
from
the
attempt
to
represent
the
capitalistic
limits
of
the
labour
fund
as
its
natural
and
social
limits
may
be
seen,
e.g.,
in
Professor
Fawcett.53
\"The
circulating
capital
of
a
country,\"
he
says,\"is
its
wage-fund.
Hence,
if
we
desire
to
calculate
the
average
money
wages
received
by
each
labourer,
we
have
simply
to
divide
the
amount
of
this
capital
by
the
number
of
the
labouring
population.\"
54
That
is
to
say,
we
first
add
together
the
individual
wages
actually
paid,
and
then
we
affirm
that
the
sum
thus
obtained,
forms
the
total
value
of
the
\"labour
fund\"
determined
and
vouchsafed
to
us
by
God
and
Nature.
Lastly,
we
divide
the
sum
thus
obtained
by
the
number
of
labourers
to
find
out
again
how
much
may
come
to
each
on
the
average.
An
uncommonly
knowing
dodge
this.
It
did
not
prevent
Mr.
Fawcett
saying
in
the
same
breath:
\"The
aggregate
wealth
which
is
annually
saved
in
England,
is
divided
into
two
portions;
one
portion
is
employed
as
capital
to
maintain
our
industry,
and
the
other
portion
is
exported
to
foreign
countries...
Only
a
portion,
and
perhaps,
not
a
large
portion
of
the
wealth
which
is
annually
saved
in
this
country,
is
invested
in
our
own
industry.55
The
greater
part
of
the
yearly
accruing
surplus
product,
embezzled,
because
abstracted
without
return
of
an
equivalent,
from
the
English
labourer,is
thus
used
as
capital,
not
in
England,
but
in
foreign
countries.
But
with
the
additional
capital
thus
exported,
a
part
of
the
\"labour
fund\"
invented
by
God
and
Bentham
is
also
exported.56
NOTES:
1\"Accumulation
of
capital;
the
employment
of
a
portion
of
revenue
as
capital.\"
(Malthus:
\"Definitions,
&c.,\"
ed.
Cazenove,p.
11.)
\"Conversion
of
revenue
into
capital,\"
(Malthus:
\"Princ.of
Pol.
Econ
\"
2nd
Ed.,
Lond..
1836,
p.
320.)
2We
here
take
no
account
of
export
trade,
by
means
of
which
a
nation
can
change
articles
of
luxury
either
into
means
of
production
or
means
of
subsistence,
and
vice
versà.
In
order
to
examine
the
object
of
our
investigation
in
its
integrity,
free
from
all
disturbing
subsidiary
circumstances,
we
must
treat
the
whole
world
as
one
nation,
and
assume
that
capitalist
production
is
everywhere
established
and
has
possessed
itself
of
every
branch
of
industry.
3Sismondi's
analysis
of
accumulation
suffers
from
the
great
defect,
that
he
contents
himself,
to
too
great
an
extent,
with
the
phrase
\"conversion
of
revenue
into
capital,\"
without
fathoming
the
material
conditions
of
this
operation.
4\"Le
travail
primitif
auquel
son
capital
a
d
sa
naissance.\"[the
original
labour,
to
which
his
capital
owed
its
origin]Sismondi,
l.
c.,
ed.
Paris,
t.
I.,
p.
109.
5\"Labour
creates
capital
before
capital
employs
labour.\"
E.G.
Wakefield,
\"England
and
America,\"
Lond.,
1833,
Vol.
II,
p.110.
6The
property
of
the
capitalist
in
the
product
of
the
labour
of
others
\"is
a
strict
consequence
of
the
law
of
appropriation,the
fundamental
principle
of
which
was,
on
the
contrary,
the
exclusive
title
of
every
labourer
to
the
product
of
his
own
labour.\"
(Cherbuliez,
\"Richesse
ou
Pauvreté,\"
Paris,
1841,
p.58,
where,
however,
the
dialectical
reversal
is
not
properly
developed.)
7The
following
passage
(to
p.
551
\"laws
of
capitalist
appropriation.\")
has
been
added
to
the
English
text
in
conformity
with
the
4th
German
edition.
8We
may
well,
therefore,
feel
astonished
at
the
cleverness
of
Proudhon,
who
would
abolish
capitalistic
property
by
enforcing
the
eternal
laws
of
property
that
are
based
on
commodity
production!
9\"Capital,
viz.,
accumulated
wealth
employed
with
a
view
to
profit.\"
(Malthus,
l.
c.)
\"Capital
...
consists
of
wealth
saved
from
revenue,
and
used
with
a
view
to
profit.\"
(R.
Jones:
\"An
Introductory
Lecture
on
Polit.
Econ.,\"
Lond.,
1833,
p.
16.)
10\"The
possessors
of
surplus-produce
or
capital.\"
(\"The
Source
and
Remedy
of
the
National
Difficulties.
A
Letter
to
Lord
John
Russell.\"
Lond.,
1821.)
11\"Capital,
with
compound
interest
on
every
portion
of
capital
saved,
is
so
all
engrossing
that
all
the
wealth
in
the
world
from
which
income
is
derived,
has
long
ago
become
the
interest
on
capital.\"
(London,
Economist,
19th
July,
1851.)
12\"No
political
economist
of
the
present
day
can
by
saving
mean
mere
hoarding:
and
beyond
this
contracted
and
insufficient
proceeding,
no
use
of
the
term
in
reference
to
the
national
wealth
can
well
be
imagined,
but
that
which
must
arise
from
a
different
application
of
what
is
saved,
founded
upon
a
real
distinction
between
the
different
kinds
of
labour
maintained
by
it.\"
(Malthus,
l.
c.,
pp.
38,
39.)
13Thus
for
instance,
Balzac,
who
so
thoroughly
studied
every
shade
of
avarice,
represents
the
old
usurer
Gobseck
as
in
his
second
childhood
when
he
begins
to
heap
up
a
hoard
of
commodities.
14\"Accumulation
of
stocks
...
non-exchange
...
over
production.\"
(Th.
Corbet.
l.
c.,
p.
104.)
15In
this
sense
Necker
speaks
of
the
\"objets
de
faste
et
de
somptuosité,\"
[things
of
pomp
and
luxury]
of
which
\"le
temps
a
grossi
l'accummulation,\"
[accumulation
has
grown
with
time]and
which
\"les
lois
de
propriété
ont
rassemblés
dans
une
seule
classe
de
la
société.\"
[the
laws
of
property
have
brought
into
the
hands
of
one
class
of
society
alone]
(Oeuvres
de
M.
Necker,Paris
and
Lausanne,
1789,
t.
ii.,
p.
291.)
16Ricardo,
l.c.,
p.
163,
note.
17In
spite
of
his
\"Logic,\"
John
St.
Mill
never
detects
even
such
faulty
analysis
as
this
when
made
by
his
predecessors,an
analysis
which,
even
from
the
bourgeois
standpoint
of
the
science,
cries
out
for
rectification.
In
every
case
he
registers
with
the
dogmatism
of
a
disciple,
the
confusion
of
his
master's
thoughts.
So
here:
\"The
capital
itself
in
the
long
run
becomes
entirely
wages,
and
when
replaced
by
the
sale
of
produce
becomes
wages
again.\"
18In
his
description
of
the
process
of
reproduction,
and
of
accumulation,
Adam
Smith,
in
many
ways,
not
only
made
no
advance,
but
even
lost
considerable
ground,
compared
with
his
predecessors,
especially
by
the
Physiocrats.
Connected
with
the
illusion
mentioned
in
the
text,
is
the
really
wonderful
dogma,left
by
him
as
an
inheritance
to
Political
Economy,
the
dogma,that
the
price
of
commodities
is
made
up
of
wages,
profit(interest)
and
rent,
i.e.,
of
wages
and
surplus-value.
Starting
from
this
basis,
Storch
naively
confesses,
\"Il
est
impossible
de
résoudre
le
prix
nécessaire
dans
ses
éléments
les
plus
simples.\"[...
it
is
impossible
to
resolve
the
necessary
price
into
its
simplest
elements]
(Storch,
l.
c.,
Petersb.
Edit.,
1815,
t.
ii.,
p.141,
note.)
A
fine
science
of
economy
this,
which
declares
it
impossible
to
resolve
the
price
of
a
commodity
into
its
simplest
elements!
This
point
will
be
further
investigated
in
the
seventh
part
of
Book
iii.
精選分類
