- 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:
The
Increased
Demand
for
Labour
Power
that
Accompanies
Accumulation,
the
Composition
of
Capital
Remaining
the
Same
In
this
chapter
we
consider
the
influence
of
the
growth
of
capital
on
the
lot
of
the
labouring
class.
The
most
important
factor
in
this
inquiry
is
the
composition
of
capital
and
the
changes
it
undergoes
in
the
course
of
the
process
of
accumulation.
The
composition
of
capital
is
to
be
understood
in
a
two-fold
sense.
On
the
side
of
value,
it
is
determined
by
the
proportion
in
which
it
is
divided
into
constant
capital
or
value
of
the
means
of
production,
and
variable
capital
or
value
of
labour
power,
the
sum
total
of
wages.
On
the
side
of
material,
as
it
functions
in
the
process
of
production,
all
capital
is
divided
into
means
of
production
and
living
labour
power.
This
latter
composition
is
determined
by
the
relation
between
the
mass
of
the
means
of
production
employed,
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
mass
of
labour
necessary
for
their
employment
on
the
other.
I
call
the
former
the
valuecomposition,
the
latter
the
technical
composition
ofcapital.
Between
the
two
there
is
a
strict
correlation.
To
express
this,
I
call
the
value
composition
of
capital,
in
so
far
as
it
is
determined
by
its
technical
composition
and
mirrors
the
changes
of
the
latter,
the
organiccomposition
of
capital.
Wherever
I
refer
to
the
composition
of
capital,
without
further
qualification,its
organic
composition
is
always
understood.
The
many
individual
capitals
invested
in
a
particular
branch
of
production
have,
one
with
another,
more
or
less
different
compositions.
The
average
of
their
individual
compositions
gives
us
the
composition
of
the
total
capital
in
this
branch
of
production.
Lastly,the
average
of
these
averages,
in
all
branches
of
production,
gives
us
the
composition
of
the
total
social
capital
of
a
country,
and
with
this
alone
are
we,
in
the
last
resort,
concerned
in
the
following
investigation.
Growth
of
capital
involves
growth
of
its
variable
constituent
or
of
the
part
invested
in
labour
power.
A
part
of
the
surplus-value
turned
into
additional
capital
must
always
be
re-transformed
into
variable
capital,or
additional
labour
fund.
If
we
suppose
that,
all
other
circumstances
remaining
the
same,
the
composition
of
capital
also
remains
constant
(i.e.,
that
a
definite
mass
of
means
of
production
constantly
needs
the
same
mass
of
labour
power
to
set
it
in
motion),
then
the
demand
for
labour
and
the
subsistence-fund
of
the
labourers
clearly
increase
in
the
same
proportion
as
the
capital,
and
the
more
rapidly,
the
more
rapidly
the
capital
increases.
Since
the
capital
produces
yearly
a
surplus-value,
of
which
one
part
is
yearly
added
to
the
original
capital;
since
this
increment
itself
grows
yearly
along
with
the
augmentation
of
the
capital
already
functioning;
since
lastly,
under
special
stimulus
to
enrichment,
such
as
the
opening
of
new
markets,
or
of
new
spheres
for
the
outlay
of
capital
in
consequence
of
newly
developed
social
wants,
&c.,the
scale
of
accumulation
may
be
suddenly
extended,merely
by
a
change
in
the
division
of
the
surplus
value
or
surplus-product
into
capital
and
revenue,
the
requirements
of
accumulating
capital
may
exceed
the
increase
of
labour
power
or
of
the
number
of
labourers;the
demand
for
labourers
may
exceed
the
supply,and,
therefore,
wages
may
rise.
This
must,
indeed,ultimately
be
the
case
if
the
conditions
supposed
above
continue.
For
since
in
each
year
more
labourers
are
employed
than
in
its
predecessor,
sooner
or
later
a
point
must
be
reached,
at
which
the
requirements
of
accumulation
begin
to
surpass
the
customary
supply
of
labour,
and,
therefore,
a
rise
of
wages
takes
place.A
lamentation
on
this
score
was
heard
in
England
during
the
whole
of
the
fifteenth,
and
the
first
half
of
the
eighteenth
centuries.
The
more
or
less
favourable
circumstances
in
which
the
wage
working
class
supports
and
multiplies
itself,
in
no
way
alter
the
fundamental
character
of
capitalist
production.
As
simple
reproduction
constantly
reproduces
the
capital
relation
itself,
i.e.,
the
relation
of
capitalists
on
the
one
hand,
and
wage
workers
on
the
other,
so
reproduction
on
a
progressive
scale,
i.e.,
accumulation,
reproduces
the
capital
relation
on
a
progressive
scale,
more
capitalists
or
larger
capitalists
at
this
pole,
more
wage
workers
at
that.
The
reproduction
of
a
mass
of
labour
power,
which
must
incessantly
re-incorporate
itself
with
capital
for
that
capital's
self-expansion;
which
cannot
get
free
from
capital,
and
whose
enslavement
to
capital
is
only
concealed
by
the
variety
of
individual
capitalists
to
whom
it
sells
itself,
this
reproduction
of
labour
power
forms,
in
fact,
an
essential
of
the
reproduction
of
capital
itself.
Accumulation
of
capital
is,
therefore,
increase
of
the
proletariat.1
Classical
economy
grasped
this
fact
so
thoroughly
that
Adam
Smith,
Ricardo,
&c.,
as
mentioned
earlier,
inaccurately
identified
accumulation
with
the
consumption,
by
the
productive
labourers,
of
all
the
capitalised
part
of
the
surplus-product,
or
with
its
transformation
into
additional
wage
labourers.
As
early
as
1696
John
Bellers
says:
\"For
if
one
had
a
hundred
thousand
acres
of
land
and
as
many
pounds
in
money,
and
as
many
cattle,without
a
labourer,
what
would
the
rich
man
be,but
a
labourer
And
as
the
labourers
make
men
rich,
so
the
more
labourers
there
will
be,
the
more
rich
men
...
the
labour
of
the
poor
being
the
mines
of
the
rich.\"2
So
also
Bernard
de
Mandeville
at
the
beginning
of
the
eighteenth
century:
\"It
would
be
easier,
where
property
is
well
secured,
to
live
without
money
than
without
poor;for
who
would
do
the
work
...
As
they
[the
poor]ought
to
be
kept
from
starving,
so
they
should
receive
nothing
worth
saving.
If
here
and
there
one
of
the
lowest
class
by
uncommon
industry,
and
pinching
his
belly,
lifts
himself
above
the
condition
he
was
brought
up
in,
nobody
ought
to
hinder
him;
nay,
it
is
undeniably
the
wisest
course
for
every
person
in
the
society,
and
for
every
private
family
to
be
frugal;
but
it
is
the
interest
of
all
rich
nations,
that
the
greatest
part
of
the
poor
should
almost
never
be
idle,
and
yet
continually
spend
what
they
get....
Those
that
get
their
living
by
their
daily
labour
...
have
nothing
to
stir
them
up
to
be
serviceable
but
their
wants
which
it
is
prudence
to
relieve,
but
folly
to
cure.
The
only
thing
then
that
can
render
the
labouring
man
industrious,is
a
moderate
quantity
of
money,
for
as
too
little
will,
according
as
his
temper
is,
either
dispirit
or
make
him
desperate,
so
too
much
will
make
him
insolent
and
lazy....
From
what
has
been
said,
it
is
manifest,
that,
in
a
free
nation,
where
slaves
are
not
allowed
of,
the
surest
wealth
consists
in
a
multitude
of
laborious
poor;
for
besides,
that
they
are
the
never-failing
nursery
of
fleets
and
armies,without
them
there
could
be
no
enjoyment,
and
no
product
of
any
country
could
be
valuable.
\"To
make
the
society\"
[which
of
course
consists
of
non-workers]
\"happy
and
people
easier
under
the
meanest
circumstances,
it
is
requisite
that
great
numbers
of
them
should
be
ignorant
as
well
as
poor;
knowledge
both
enlarges
and
multiplies
our
desires,
and
the
fewer
things
a
man
wishes
for,
the
more
easily
his
necessities
may
be
supplied.\"3
What
Mandeville,
an
honest,
clear-headed
man,
had
not
yet
seen,
is
that
the
mechanism
of
the
process
of
accumulation
itself
increases,
along
with
the
capital,the
mass
of
\"labouring
poor,\"
i.e.,
the
wage
labourers,who
turn
their
labour
power
into
an
increasing
power
of
self-expansion
of
the
growing
capital,
and
even
by
doing
so
must
eternise
their
dependent
relation
on
their
own
product,
as
personified
in
the
capitalists.In
reference
to
this
relation
of
dependence,
Sir
F.
M.Eden
in
his
\"The
State
of
the
Poor,
an
History
of
the
Labouring
Classes
in
England,\"
says,
\"the
natural
produce
of
our
soil
is
certainly
not
fully
adequate
to
our
subsistence;
we
can
neither
be
clothed,
lodged
nor
fed
but
in
consequence
of
some
previous
labour.
A
portion
at
least
of
the
society
must
be
indefatigably
employed
....
There
are
others
who,
though
they
'neither
toil
nor
spin,'
can
yet
command
the
produce
of
industry,
but
who
owe
their
exemption
from
labour
solely
to
civilisation
and
order
....
They
are
peculiarly
the
creatures
of
civil
institutions,4which
have
recognised
that
individuals
may
acquire
property
by
various
other
means
besides
the
exertion
of
labour....
Persons
of
independent
fortune
...
owe
their
superior
advantages
by
no
means
to
any
superior
abilities
of
their
own,
but
almost
entirely...
to
the
industry
of
others.
It
is
not
the
possession
of
land,
or
of
money,
but
the
command
of
labour
which
distinguishes
the
opulent
from
the
labouring
part
of
the
community
....
This
[scheme
approved
by
Eden]
would
give
the
people
of
property
sufficient
(but
by
no
means
too
much)
influence
and
authority
over
those
who
...
work
for
them;
and
it
would
place
such
labourers,
not
in
an
abject
or
servile
condition,
but
in
such
a
state
of
easy
and
liberal
dependence
as
all
who
know
human
nature,
and
its
history,
will
allow
to
be
necessary
for
their
own
comfort.\"5
Sir
F.
M.
Eden,
it
may
be
remarked
in
passing,
is
the
only
disciple
of
Adam
Smith
during
the
eighteenth
century
that
produced
any
work
of
importance.6
Under
the
conditions
of
accumulation
supposed
thus
far,
which
conditions
are
those
most
favourable
to
the
labourers,
their
relation
of
dependence
upon
capital
takes
on
a
form
endurable
or,
as
Eden
says:
\"easy
and
liberal.\"
Instead
of
becoming
more
intensive
with
the
growth
of
capital,
this
relation
of
dependence
only
becomes
more
extensive,
i.e.,
the
sphere
of
capital's
exploitation
and
rule
merely
extends
with
its
own
dimensions
and
the
number
of
its
subjects.
A
larger
part
of
their
own
surplus-product,
always
increasing
and
continually
transformed
into
additional
capital,comes
back
to
them
in
the
shape
of
means
of
payment,so
that
they
can
extend
the
circle
of
their
enjoyments;can
make
some
additions
to
their
consumption-fund
of
clothes,
furniture,
&c.,
and
can
lay
by
small
reserve
funds
of
money.
But
just
as
little
as
better
clothing,food,
and
treatment,
and
a
larger
peculium,
do
away
with
the
exploitation
of
the
slave,
so
little
do
they
set
aside
that
of
the
wage
worker.
A
rise
in
the
price
of
labour,
as
a
consequence
of
accumulation
of
capital,only
means,
in
fact,
that
the
length
and
weight
of
the
golden
chain
the
wage
worker
has
already
forged
for
himself,
allow
of
a
relaxation
of
the
tension
of
it.
In
the
controversies
on
this
subject
the
chief
fact
has
generally
been
overlooked,
viz.,
the
differentiaspecifica
[defining
characteristic]
of
capitalistic
production.
Labour
power
is
sold
today,
not
with
a
view
of
satisfying,
by
its
service
or
by
its
product,
the
personal
needs
of
the
buyer.
His
aim
is
augmentation
of
his
capital,
production
of
commodities
containing
more
labour
than
he
pays
for,
containing
therefore
a
portion
of
value
that
costs
him
nothing,
and
that
is
nevertheless
realised
when
the
commodities
are
sold.Production
of
surplus-value
is
the
absolute
law
of
this
mode
of
production.
Labour-power
is
only
saleable
so
far
as
it
preserves
the
means
of
production
in
their
capacity
of
capital,
reproduces
its
own
value
as
capital,and
yields
in
unpaid
labour
a
source
of
additional
capital.7The
conditions
of
its
sale,
whether
more
or
less
favourable
to
the
labourer,
include
therefore
the
necessity
of
its
constant
re-selling,
and
the
constantly
extended
reproduction
of
all
wealth
in
the
shape
of
capital.
Wages,
as
we
have
seen,
by
their
very
nature,always
imply
the
performance
of
a
certain
quantity
of
unpaid
labour
on
the
part
of
the
labourer.
Altogether,irrespective
of
the
case
of
a
rise
of
wages
with
a
falling
price
of
labour,
&c.,
such
an
increase
only
means
at
best
a
quantitative
diminution
of
the
unpaid
labour
that
the
worker
has
to
supply.
This
diminution
can
never
reach
the
point
at
which
it
would
threaten
the
system
itself.
Apart
from
violent
conflicts
as
to
the
rate
of
wages
(and
Adam
Smith
has
already
shown
that
in
such
a
conflict,
taken
on
the
whole,
the
master
is
always
master),
a
rise
in
the
price
of
labour
resulting
from
accumulation
of
capital
implies
the
following
alternative:
Either
the
price
of
labour
keeps
on
rising,
because
its
rise
does
not
interfere
with
the
progress
of
accumulation.
In
this
there
is
nothing
wonderful,for,
says
Adam
Smith,
\"after
these
(profits)
are
diminished,
stock
may
not
only
continue
to
increase,but
to
increase
much
faster
than
before....
A
great
stock,
though
with
small
profits,
generally
increases
faster
than
a
small
stock
with
great
profits.\"
(l.
c.,
ii,
p.189.)
In
this
case
it
is
evident
that
a
diminution
in
the
unpaid
labour
in
no
way
interferes
with
the
extension
of
the
domain
of
capital.
–
Or,
on
the
other
hand,accumulation
slackens
in
consequence
of
the
rise
in
the
price
of
labour,
because
the
stimulus
of
gain
is
blunted.
The
rate
of
accumulation
lessens;
but
with
its
lessening,
the
primary
cause
of
that
lessening
vanishes,i.e.,
the
disproportion
between
capital
and
exploitable
labour
power.
The
mechanism
of
the
process
of
capitalist
production
removes
the
very
obstacles
that
it
temporarily
creates.
The
price
of
labour
falls
again
to
a
level
corresponding
with
the
needs
of
the
self
expansion
of
capital,
whether
the
level
be
below,
the
same
as,
or
above
the
one
which
was
normal
before
the
rise
of
wages
took
place.
We
see
thus:
In
the
first
case,
it
is
not
the
diminished
rate
either
of
the
absolute,or
of
the
proportional,
increase
in
labour
power,
or
labouring
population,
which
causes
capital
to
be
in
excess,
but
conversely
the
excess
of
capital
that
makes
exploitable
labour
power
insufficient.
In
the
second
case,
it
is
not
the
increased
rate
either
of
the
absolute,or
of
the
proportional,
increase
in
labour
power,
or
labouring
population,
that
makes
capital
insufficient;but,
conversely,
the
relative
diminution
of
capital
that
causes
the
exploitable
labour
power,
or
rather
its
price,
to
be
in
excess.
It
is
these
absolute
movements
of
the
accumulation
of
capital
which
are
reflected
as
relative
movements
of
the
mass
of
exploitable
labour
power,
and
therefore
seem
produced
by
the
latter's
own
independent
movement.
To
put
it
mathematically:the
rate
of
accumulation
is
the
independent,
not
the
dependent,
variable;
the
rate
of
wages,
the
dependent,not
the
independent,
variable.
Thus,
when
the
industrial
cycle
is
in
the
phase
of
crisis,
a
general
fall
in
the
price
of
commodities
is
expressed
as
a
rise
in
the
value
of
money,
and,
in
the
phase
of
prosperity,
a
general
rise
in
the
price
of
commodities,
as
a
fall
in
the
value
of
money.
The
so-called
currency
school
concludes
from
this
that
with
high
prices
too
much,with
low
prices
too
little8money
is
in
circulation.Their
ignorance
and
complete
misunderstanding
of
facts9are
worthily
paralleled
by
the
economists,
whointerpret
the
above
phenomena
of
accumulation
by
saying
that
there
are
now
too
few,
now
too
many
wage
labourers.
The
law
of
capitalist
production,
that
is
at
the
bottom
of
the
pretended
\"natural
law
of
population,\"reduces
itself
simply
to
this:
The
correlation
between
accumulation
of
capital
and
rate
of
wages
is
nothing
else
than
the
correlation
between
the
unpaid
labour
transformed
into
capital,
and
the
additional
paid
labour
necessary
for
the
setting
in
motion
of
this
additional
capital.
It
is
therefore
in
no
way
a
relation
between
two
magnitudes,
independent
one
of
the
other:
on
the
one
hand,
the
magnitude
of
the
capital;
on
the
other,the
number
of
the
labouring
population;
it
is
rather,at
bottom,
only
the
relation
between
the
unpaid
and
the
paid
labour
of
the
same
labouring
population.If
the
quantity
of
unpaid
labour
supplied
by
the
working
class,
and
accumulated
by
the
capitalist
class,increases
so
rapidly
that
its
conversion
into
capital
requires
an
extraordinary
addition
of
paid
labour,
then
wages
rise,
and,
all
other
circumstances
remaining
equal,
the
unpaid
labour
diminishes
in
proportion.But
as
soon
as
this
diminution
touches
the
point
at
which
the
surplus
labour
that
nourishes
capital
is
no
longer
supplied
in
normal
quantity,
a
reaction
sets
in:a
smaller
part
of
revenue
is
capitalised,
accumulation
lags,
and
the
movement
of
rise
in
wages
receives
a
check.
The
rise
of
wages
therefore
is
confined
within
limits
that
not
only
leave
intact
the
foundations
of
the
capitalistic
system,
but
also
secure
its
reproduction
on
a
progressive
scale.
The
law
of
capitalistic
accumulation,
metamorphosed
by
economists
into
pretended
law
of
Nature,
in
reality
merely
states
that
the
very
nature
of
accumulation
excludes
every
diminution
in
the
degree
of
exploitation
of
labour,
and
every
rise
in
the
price
of
labour,
which
could
seriously
imperil
the
continual
reproduction,
on
an
ever
enlarging
scale,
of
the
capitalistic
relation.
It
cannot
be
otherwise
in
a
mode
of
production
in
which
the
labourer
exists
to
satisfy
the
needs
of
self-expansion
of
existing
values,
instead
of,
on
the
contrary,
material
wealth
existing
to
satisfy
the
needs
of
development
on
the
part
of
the
labourer.
As,
in
religion,
man
is
governed
by
the
products
of
his
own
brain,
so
in
capitalistic
production,
he
is
governed
by
the
products
of
his
own
hand.10
Section
2:
Relative
Diminution
of
the
Variable
Part
of
Capital
Simultaneously
with
the
Progress
of
Accumulation
and
of
the
Concentration
that
Accompanies
it
According
to
the
economists
themselves,
it
is
neither
the
actual
extent
of
social
wealth,
nor
the
magnitude
of
the
capital
already
functioning,
that
lead
to
a
rise
of
wages,
but
only
the
constant
growth
of
accumulation
and
the
degree
of
rapidity
of
that
growth.
(Adam
Smith,
Book
I.,
chapter
8.)
So
far,
we
have
only
considered
one
special
phase
of
this
process,
that
in
which
the
increase
of
capital
occurs
along
with
a
constant
technical
composition
of
capital.
But
the
process
goes
beyond
this
phase.
Once
given
the
general
basis
of
the
capitalistic
system,
then,
in
the
course
of
accumulation,
a
point
is
reached
at
which
the
development
of
the
productivity
of
social
labour
becomes
the
most
powerful
lever
of
accumulation.
\"The
same
cause,\"
says
Adam
Smith,
\"which
raises
the
wages
of
labour,
the
increase
of
stock,tends
to
increase
its
productive
powers,
and
to
make
a
smaller
quantity
of
labour
produce
a
greater
quantity
of
work.\"
11
Apart
from
natural
conditions,
such
as
fertility
of
the
soil,
&c.,
and
from
the
skill
of
independent
and
isolated
producers
(shown
rather
qualitatively
in
the
goodness
than
quantitatively
in
the
mass
of
their
products),
the
degree
of
productivity
of
labour,
in
a
given
society,
is
expressed
in
the
relative
extent
of
the
means
of
production
that
one
labourer,
during
a
given
time,
with
the
same
tension
of
labour
power,
turns
into
products.
The
mass
of
the
means
of
production
which
he
thus
transforms,
increases
with
the
productiveness
of
his
labour.
But
those
means
of
production
play
a
double
part.
The
increase
of
some
is
a
consequence,that
of
the
others
a
condition
of
the
increasing
productivity
of
labour.
E.g.,
with
the
division
of
labour
in
manufacture,
and
with
the
use
of
machinery,
more
raw
material
is
worked
up
in
the
same
time,
and,therefore,
a
greater
mass
of
raw
material
and
auxiliary
substances
enter
into
the
labour
process.
That
is
the
consequence
of
the
increasing
productivity
of
labour.On
the
other
hand,
the
mass
of
machinery,
beasts
of
burden,
mineral
manures,
drain-pipes,
&c.,
is
a
condition
of
the
increasing
productivity
of
labour.
So
also
is
it
with
the
means
of
production
concentrated
in
buildings,
furnaces,
means
of
transport,
&c.
But
whether
condition
or
consequence,
the
growing
extent
of
the
means
of
production,
as
compared
with
the
labour
power
incorporated
with
them,
is
an
expression
of
the
growing
productiveness
of
labour.
The
increase
of
the
latter
appears,
therefore,
in
the
diminution
of
the
mass
of
labour
in
proportion
to
the
mass
of
means
of
production
moved
by
it,
or
in
the
diminution
of
the
subjective
factor
of
the
labour
process
as
compared
with
the
objective
factor.
This
change
in
the
technical
composition
of
capital,this
growth
in
the
mass
of
means
of
production,
as
compared
with
the
mass
of
the
labour
power
that
vivifies
them,
is
reflected
again
in
its
value
composition,by
the
increase
of
the
constant
constituent
of
capital
at
the
expense
of
its
variable
constituent.
There
may
be,
e.g.,
originally
50
per
cent.
of
a
capital
laid
out
in
means
of
production,
and
50
per
cent.
in
labour
power;
later
on,
with
the
development
of
the
productivity
of
labour,
80
per
cent.
in
means
of
production,
20
per
cent.
in
labour
power,
and
so
on.
This
law
of
the
progressive
increase
in
constant
capital,
in
proportion
to
the
variable,
is
confirmed
at
every
step
(as
already
shown)
by
the
comparative
analysis
of
the
prices
of
commodities,
whether
we
compare
different
economic
epochs
or
different
nations
in
the
same
epoch.
The
relative
magnitude
of
the
element
of
price,
which
represents
the
value
of
the
means
of
production
only,or
the
constant
part
of
capital
consumed,
is
in
direct,the
relative
magnitude
of
the
other
element
of
price
that
pays
labour
(the
variable
part
of
capital)
is
in
inverse
proportion
to
the
advance
of
accumulation.
This
diminution
in
the
variable
part
of
capital
as
compared
with
the
constant,
or
the
altered
value
composition
of
the
capital,
however,
only
shows
approximately
the
change
in
the
composition
of
its
material
constituents.
If,
e.g.,
the
capital-value
employed
today
in
spinning
is
7\/8
constant
and
1\/8
variable,
whilst
at
the
beginning
of
the
18th
century
it
was
constant
and
variable,
on
the
other
hand,the
mass
of
raw
material,
instruments
of
labour,
&c.,that
a
certain
quantity
of
spinning
labour
consumes
productively
today,
is
many
hundred
times
greater
than
at
the
beginning
of
the
18th
century.
The
reason
is
simply
that,
with
the
increasing
productivity
of
labour,
not
only
does
the
mass
of
the
means
of
production
consumed
by
it
increase,
but
their
value
compared
with
their
mass
diminishes.
Their
value
therefore
rises
absolutely,
but
not
in
proportion
to
their
mass.
The
increase
of
the
difference
between
constant
and
variable
capital,
is,
therefore,
much
less
than
that
of
the
difference
between
the
mass
of
the
means
of
production
into
which
the
constant,
and
the
mass
of
the
labour
power
into
which
the
variable,
capital
is
converted.
The
former
difference
increases
with
the
latter,
but
in
a
smaller
degree.
But,
if
the
progress
of
accumulation
lessens
the
relative
magnitude
of
the
variable
part
of
capital,
it
by
no
means,
in
doing
this,
excludes
the
possibility
of
a
rise
in
its
absolute
magnitude.
Suppose
that
a
capital
value
at
first
is
divided
into
50
per
cent.
of
constant
and
50
per
cent.
of
variable
capital;
later
into
80
per
cent.
of
constant
and
20
per
cent.
of
variable.
If
in
the
meantime
the
original
capital,
say
￡6,000,
has
increased
to
￡18,000,
its
variable
constituent
has
also
increased.
It
was
￡3,000,
it
is
now
￡3,600.
But
where
as
formerly
an
increase
of
capital
by
20
per
cent.would
have
sufficed
to
raise
the
demand
for
labour
20
per
cent.,
now
this
latter
rise
requires
a
tripling
of
the
original
capital.
In
Part
IV,
it
was
shown,
how
the
development
of
the
productiveness
of
social
labour
presupposes
co
operation
on
a
large
scale;
how
it
is
only
upon
this
supposition
that
division
and
combination
of
labour
can
be
organised,
and
the
means
of
production
economised
by
concentration
on
a
vast
scale;
how
instruments
of
labour
which,
from
their
very
nature,are
only
fit
for
use
in
common,
such
as
a
system
of
machinery,
can
be
called
into
being;
how
huge
natural
forces
can
be
pressed
into
the
service
of
production;and
how
the
transformation
can
be
effected
of
the
process
of
production
into
a
technological
application
of
science.
On
the
basis
of
the
production
of
commodities,
where
the
means
of
production
are
the
property
of
private
persons,
and
where
the
artisan
therefore
either
produces
commodities,isolated
from
and
independent
of
others,
or
sells
his
labour
power
as
a
commodity,
because
he
lacks
the
means
for
independent
industry,
co-operation
on
a
large
scale
can
realise
itself
only
in
the
increase
of
individual
capitals,
only
in
proportion
as
the
means
of
social
production
and
the
means
of
subsistence
are
transformed
into
the
private
property
of
capitalists.The
basis
of
the
production
of
commodities
can
admit
of
production
on
a
large
scale
in
the
capitalistic
form
alone.
A
certain
accumulation
of
capital,
in
the
hands
of
individual
producers
of
commodities,
forms
therefore
the
necessary
preliminary
of
the
specifically
capitalistic
mode
of
production.
We
had,
therefore,to
assume
that
this
occurs
during
the
transition
from
handicraft
to
capitalistic
industry.
It
may
be
called
primitive
accumulation,
because
it
is
the
historic
basis,instead
of
the
historic
result
of
specifically
capitalist
production.
How
it
itself
originates,
we
need
not
here
inquire
as
yet.
It
is
enough
that
it
forms
the
starting
point.
But
all
methods
for
raising
the
social
productive
power
of
labour
that
are
developed
on
this
basis,
are
at
the
same
time
methods
for
the
increased
production
of
surplus-value
or
surplus-product,
which
in
its
turn
is
the
formative
element
of
accumulation.
They
are,therefore,
at
the
same
time
methods
of
the
production
of
capital
by
capital,
or
methods
of
its
accelerated
accumulation.
The
continual
re-transformation
of
surplus-value
into
capital
now
appears
in
the
shape
of
the
increasing
magnitude
of
the
capital
that
enters
into
the
process
of
production.
This
in
turn
is
the
basis
of
an
extended
scale
of
production,
of
the
methods
for
raising
the
productive
power
of
labour
that
accompany
it,
and
of
accelerated
production
of
surplus-value.
If,therefore,
a
certain
degree
of
accumulation
of
capital
appears
as
a
condition
of
the
specifically
capitalist
mode
of
production,
the
latter
causes
conversely
an
accelerated
accumulation
of
capital.
With
the
accumulation
of
capital,
therefore,
the
specifically
capitalistic
mode
of
production
develops,
and
with
the
capitalist
mode
of
production
the
accumulation
of
capital.
Both
these
economic
factors
bring
about,
in
the
compound
ratio
of
the
impulses
they
reciprocally
give
one
another,
that
change
in
the
technical
composition
of
capital
by
which
the
variable
constituent
becomes
always
smaller
and
smaller
as
compared
with
the
constant.
Every
individual
capital
is
a
larger
or
smaller
concentration
of
means
of
production,
with
a
corresponding
command
over
a
larger
or
smaller
labour-army.
Every
accumulation
becomes
the
means
of
new
accumulation.
With
the
increasing
mass
of
wealth
which
functions
as
capital,
accumulation
increases
the
concentration
of
that
wealth
in
the
hands
of
individual
capitalists,
and
thereby
widens
the
basis
of
production
on
a
large
scale
and
of
the
specific
methods
of
capitalist
production.
The
growth
of
social
capital
is
effected
by
the
growth
of
many
individual
capitals.
All
other
circumstances
remaining
the
same,individual
capitals,
and
with
them
the
concentration
of
the
means
of
production,
increase
in
such
proportion
as
they
form
aliquot
parts
of
the
total
social
capital.At
the
same
time
portions
of
the
original
capitals
disengage
themselves
and
function
as
new
independent
capitals.
Besides
other
causes,
the
division
of
property,within
capitalist
families,
plays
a
great
part
in
this.With
the
accumulation
of
capital,
therefore,
the
number
of
capitalists
grows
to
a
greater
or
less
extent.Two
points
characterise
this
kind
of
concentration
which
grows
directly
out
of,
or
rather
is
identical
with,accumulation.
First:
The
increasing
concentration
of
the
social
means
of
production
in
the
hands
of
individual
capitalists
is,
other
things
remaining
equal,limited
by
the
degree
of
increase
of
social
wealth.Second:
The
part
of
social
capital
domiciled
in
each
particular
sphere
of
production
is
divided
among
many
capitalists
who
face
one
another
as
independent
commodity-producers
competing
with
each
other.Accumulation
and
the
concentration
accompanying
it
are,
therefore,
not
only
scattered
over
many
points,but
the
increase
of
each
functioning
capital
is
thwarted
by
the
formation
of
new
and
the
sub-division
of
old
capitals.
Accumulation,
therefore,
presents
itself
on
the
one
hand
as
increasing
concentration
of
the
means
of
production,
and
of
the
command
over
labour;
on
the
other,
as
repulsion
of
many
individual
capitals
one
from
another.
This
splitting-up
of
the
total
social
capital
into
many
individual
capitals
or
the
repulsion
of
its
fractions
one
from
another,
is
counteracted
by
their
attraction.This
last
does
not
mean
that
simple
concentration
of
the
means
of
production
and
of
the
command
over
labour,
which
is
identical
with
accumulation.
It
is
concentration
of
capitals
already
formed,
destruction
of
their
individual
independence,
expropriation
of
capitalist
by
capitalist,
transformation
of
many
small
into
few
large
capitals.
This
process
differs
from
the
former
in
this,
that
it
only
presupposes
a
change
in
the
distribution
of
capital
already
to
hand,
and
functioning;its
field
of
action
is
therefore
not
limited
by
the
absolute
growth
of
social
wealth,
by
the
absolute
limits
of
accumulation.
Capital
grows
in
one
place
to
a
huge
mass
in
a
single
hand,
because
it
has
in
another
place
been
lost
by
many.
This
is
centralisation
proper,as
distinct
from
accumulation
and
concentration.
The
laws
of
this
centralisation
of
capitals,
or
of
the
attraction
of
capital
by
capital,
cannot
be
developed
here.
A
brief
hint
at
a
few
facts
must
suffice.
The
battle
of
competition
is
fought
by
cheapening
of
commodities.
The
cheapness
of
commodities
demands,
caeteris
paribus,
on
the
productiveness
of
labour,
and
this
again
on
the
scale
of
production.Therefore,
the
larger
capitals
beat
the
smaller.
It
will
further
be
remembered
that,
with
the
development
of
the
capitalist
mode
of
production,
there
is
an
increase
in
the
minimum
amount
of
individual
capital
necessary
to
carry
on
a
business
under
its
normal
conditions.
The
smaller
capitals,
therefore,
crowd
into
spheres
of
production
which
Modern
Industry
has
only
sporadically
or
incompletely
got
hold
of.
Here
competition
rages
in
direct
proportion
to
the
number,and
in
inverse
proportion
to
the
magnitudes,
of
the
antagonistic
capitals.
It
always
ends
in
the
ruin
of
many
small
capitalists,
whose
capitals
partly
pass
into
the
hands
of
their
conquerors,
partly
vanish.
Apart
from
this,
with
capitalist
production
an
altogether
new
force
comes
into
play
–
the
credit
system,
which
in
its
first
stages
furtively
creeps
in
as
the
humble
assistant
of
accumulation,
drawing
into
the
hands
of
individual
or
associated
capitalists,
by
invisible
threads,
the
money
resources
which
lie
scattered,
over
the
surface
of
society,
in
larger
or
smaller
amounts;but
it
soon
becomes
a
new
and
terrible
weapon
in
the
battle
of
competition
and
is
finally
transformed
into
an
enormous
social
mechanism
for
the
centralisation
of
capitals.
Commensurately
with
the
development
of
capitalist
production
and
accumulation
there
develop
the
two
most
powerful
levers
of
centralisation
–
competition
and
credit.
At
the
same
time
the
progress
of
accumulation
increases
the
material
amenable
to
centralisation,
i.e.,
the
individual
capitals,
whilst
the
expansion
of
capitalist
production
creates,
on
the
one
hand,
the
social
want,
and,
on
the
other,
the
technical
means
necessary
for
those
immense
industrial
undertakings
which
require
a
previous
centralisation
of
capital
for
their
accomplishment.
Today,
therefore,the
force
of
attraction,
drawing
together
individual
capitals,
and
the
tendency
to
centralisation
are
stronger
than
ever
before.
But
if
the
relative
extension
and
energy
of
the
movement
towards
centralisation
is
determined,
in
a
certain
degree,
by
the
magnitude
of
capitalist
wealth
and
superiority
of
economic
mechanism
already
attained,
progress
in
centralisation
does
not
in
any
way
depend
upon
a
positive
growth
in
the
magnitude
of
social
capital.
And
this
is
the
specific
difference
between
centralisation
and
concentration,the
latter
being
only
another
name
for
reproduction
on
an
extended
scale.
Centralisation
may
result
from
a
mere
change
in
the
distribution
of
capitals
already
existing,
from
a
simple
alteration
in
the
quantitative
grouping
of
the
component
parts
of
social
capital.Here
capital
can
grow
into
powerful
masses
in
a
single
hand
because
there
it
has
been
withdrawn
from
many
individual
hands.
In
any
given
branch
of
industry
centralisation
would
reach
its
extreme
limit
if
all
the
individual
capitals
invested
in
it
were
fused
into
a
single
capital.12In
a
given
society
the
limit
would
be
reached
only
when
the
entire
social
capital
was
united
in
the
hands
of
either
a
single
capitalist
or
a
single
capitalist
company.
Centralisation
completes
the
work
of
accumulation
by
enabling
industrial
capitalists
to
extend
the
scale
of
their
operations.
Whether
this
latter
result
is
the
consequence
of
accumulation
or
centralisation,whether
centralisation
is
accomplished
by
the
violent
method
of
annexation
–
when
certain
capitals
become
such
preponderant
centres
of
attraction
for
others
that
they
shatter
the
individual
cohesion
of
the
latter
and
then
draw
the
separate
fragments
to
themselves
–
or
whether
the
fusion
of
a
number
of
capitals
already
formed
or
in
process
of
formation
takes
place
by
the
smoother
process
of
organising
joint-stock
companies–
the
economic
effect
remains
the
same.
Everywhere
the
increased
scale
of
industrial
establishments
is
the
starting
point
for
a
more
comprehensive
organisation
of
the
collective
work
of
many,
for
a
wider
development
of
their
material
motive
forces
–
in
other
words,
for
the
progressive
transformation
of
isolated
processes
of
production,
carried
on
by
customary
methods,
into
processes
of
production
socially
combined
and
scientifically
arranged.
But
accumulation,
the
gradual
increase
of
capital
by
reproduction
as
it
passes
from
the
circular
to
the
spiral
form,
is
clearly
a
very
slow
procedure
compared
with
centralisation,
which
has
only
to
change
the
quantitative
groupings
of
the
constituent
parts
of
social
capital.
The
world
would
still
be
without
railways
if
it
had
had
to
wait
until
accumulation
had
got
a
few
individual
capitals
far
enough
to
be
adequate
for
the
construction
of
a
railway.
Centralisation,
on
the
contrary,
accomplished
this
in
the
twinkling
of
an
eye,
by
means
of
joint-stock
companies.
And
whilst
centralisation
thus
intensifies
and
accelerates
the
effects
of
accumulation,
it
simultaneously
extends
and
speeds
those
revolutions
in
the
technical
composition
of
capital
which
raise
its
constant
portion
at
the
expense
of
its
variable
portion,
thus
diminishing
the
relative
demand
for
labour.
The
masses
of
capital
fused
together
overnight
by
centralisation
reproduce
and
multiply
as
the
others
do,
only
more
rapidly,
thereby
becoming
new
and
powerful
levers
in
social
accumulation.Therefore,
when
we
speak
of
the
progress
of
social
accumulation
we
tacitly
include
–
today
–
the
effects
of
centralisation.
精選分類
