資本論 PART 8: PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION

CHAPTER

26:

THE

SECRET

OF

PRIMITIVE

ACCUMULATION

We

have

seen

how

money

is

changed

into

capital;

how

through

capital

surplus-value

is

made,

and

from

surplus-value

more

capital.

But

the

accumulation

of

capital

presupposes

surplus-value;surplus-value

presupposes

capitalistic

production;capitalistic

production

presupposes

the

pre-existence

of

considerable

masses

of

capital

and

of

labour

power

in

the

hands

of

producers

of

commodities.

The

whole

movement,

therefore,

seems

to

turn

in

a

vicious

circle,out

of

which

we

can

only

get

by

supposing

a

primitive

accumulation

(previous

accumulation

of

Adam

Smith)

preceding

capitalistic

accumulation;

an

accumulation

not

the

result

of

the

capitalistic

mode

of

production,but

its

starting

point.

This

primitive

accumulation

plays

in

Political

Economy

about

the

same

part

as

original

sin

in

theology.

Adam

bit

the

apple,

and

thereupon

sin

fell

on

the

human

race.

Its

origin

is

supposed

to

be

explained

when

it

is

told

as

an

anecdote

of

the

past.In

times

long

gone

by

there

were

two

sorts

of

people;one,

the

diligent,

intelligent,

and,

above

all,

frugal

elite;

the

other,

lazy

rascals,

spending

their

substance,and

more,

in

riotous

living.

The

legend

of

theological

original

sin

tells

us

certainly

how

man

came

to

be

condemned

to

eat

his

bread

in

the

sweat

of

his

brow;but

the

history

of

economic

original

sin

reveals

to

us

that

there

are

people

to

whom

this

is

by

no

means

essential.

Never

mind!

Thus

it

came

to

pass

that

the

former

sort

accumulated

wealth,

and

the

latter

sort

had

at

last

nothing

to

sell

except

their

own

skins.

And

from

this

original

sin

dates

the

poverty

of

the

great

majority

that,

despite

all

its

labour,

has

up

to

now

nothing

to

sell

but

itself,

and

the

wealth

of

the

few

that

increases

constantly

although

they

have

long

ceased

to

work.

Such

insipid

childishness

is

every

day

preached

to

us

in

the

defence

of

property.

M.

Thiers,

e.g.,

had

the

assurance

to

repeat

it

with

all

the

solemnity

of

a

statesman

to

the

French

people,

once

so

spirituel.But

as

soon

as

the

question

of

property

crops

up,

it

becomes

a

sacred

duty

to

proclaim

the

intellectual

food

of

the

infant

as

the

one

thing

fit

for

all

ages

and

for

all

stages

of

development.

In

actual

history

it

is

notorious

that

conquest,

enslavement,

robbery,murder,

briefly

force,

play

the

great

part.

In

the

tender

annals

of

Political

Economy,

the

idyllic

reigns

from

time

immemorial.

Right

and

\"labour\"

were

from

all

time

the

sole

means

of

enrichment,

the

present

year

of

course

always

excepted.

As

a

matter

of

fact,

the

methods

of

primitive

accumulation

are

anything

but

idyllic.

In

themselves

money

and

commodities

are

no

more

capital

than

are

the

means

of

production

and

of

subsistence.

They

want

transforming

into

capital.

But

this

transformation

itself

can

only

take

place

under

certain

circumstances

that

centre

in

this,

viz.,

that

two

very

different

kinds

of

commodity-possessors

must

come

face

to

face

and

into

contact;

on

the

one

hand,the

owners

of

money,

means

of

production,

means

of

subsistence,

who

are

eager

to

increase

the

sum

of

values

they

possess,

by

buying

other

people's

labour

power;

on

the

other

hand,

free

labourers,

the

sellers

of

their

own

labour

power,

and

therefore

the

sellers

of

labour.

Free

labourers,

in

the

double

sense

that

neither

they

themselves

form

part

and

parcel

of

the

means

of

production,

as

in

the

case

of

slaves,

bondsmen,

&c.,

nor

do

the

means

of

production

belong

to

them,

as

in

the

case

of

peasant-proprietors;

they

are,

therefore,free

from,

unencumbered

by,

any

means

of

production

of

their

own.

With

this

polarisation

of

the

market

for

commodities,

the

fundamental

conditions

of

capitalist

production

are

given.

The

capitalist

system

presupposes

the

complete

separation

of

the

labourers

from

all

property

in

the

means

by

which

they

can

realize

their

labour.

As

soon

as

capitalist

production

is

once

on

its

own

legs,

it

not

only

maintains

this

separation,

but

reproduces

it

on

a

continually

extending

scale.

The

process,

therefore,

that

clears

the

way

for

the

capitalist

system,

can

be

none

other

than

the

process

which

takes

away

from

the

labourer

the

possession

of

his

means

of

production;

a

process

that

transforms,

on

the

one

hand,

the

social

means

of

subsistence

and

of

production

into

capital,

on

the

other,

the

immediate

producers

into

wage

labourers.The

so-called

primitive

accumulation,

therefore,

is

nothing

else

than

the

historical

process

of

divorcing

the

producer

from

the

means

of

production.

It

appears

as

primitive,

because

it

forms

the

prehistoric

stage

of

capital

and

of

the

mode

of

production

corresponding

with

it.

The

economic

structure

of

capitalist

society

has

grown

out

of

the

economic

structure

of

feudal

society.The

dissolution

of

the

latter

set

free

the

elements

of

the

former.

The

immediate

producer,

the

labourer,

could

only

dispose

of

his

own

person

after

he

had

ceased

to

be

attached

to

the

soil

and

ceased

to

be

the

slave,

serf,or

bondsman

of

another.

To

become

a

free

seller

of

labour

power,

who

carries

his

commodity

wherever

he

finds

a

market,

he

must

further

have

escaped

from

the

regime

of

the

guilds,

their

rules

for

apprentices

and

journeymen,

and

the

impediments

of

their

labour

regulations.

Hence,

the

historical

movement

which

changes

the

producers

into

wage-workers,

appears,

on

the

one

hand,

as

their

emancipation

from

serfdom

and

from

the

fetters

of

the

guilds,

and

this

side

alone

exists

for

our

bourgeois

historians.

But,

on

the

other

hand,these

new

freedmen

became

sellers

of

themselves

only

after

they

had

been

robbed

of

all

their

own

means

of

production,

and

of

all

the

guarantees

of

existence

afforded

by

the

old

feudal

arrangements.

And

the

history

of

this,

their

expropriation,

is

written

in

the

annals

of

mankind

in

letters

of

blood

and

fire.

The

industrial

capitalists,

these

new

potentates,

had

on

their

part

not

only

to

displace

the

guild

masters

of

handicrafts,

but

also

the

feudal

lords,

the

possessors

of

the

sources

of

wealth.

In

this

respect,

their

conquest

of

social

power

appears

as

the

fruit

of

a

victorious

struggle

both

against

feudal

lordship

and

its

revolting

prerogatives,

and

against

the

guilds

and

the

fetters

they

laid

on

the

free

development

of

production

and

the

free

exploitation

of

man

by

man.

The

chevaliers

d'industrie,

however,

only

succeeded

in

supplanting

the

chevaliers

of

the

sword

by

making

use

of

events

of

which

they

themselves

were

wholly

innocent.

They

have

risen

by

means

as

vile

as

those

by

which

the

Roman

freedman

once

on

a

time

made

himself

the

master

of

his

patronus.

The

starting

point

of

the

development

that

gave

rise

to

the

wage

labourer

as

well

as

to

the

capitalist,was

the

servitude

of

the

labourer.

The

advance

consisted

in

a

change

of

form

of

this

servitude,

in

the

transformation

of

feudal

exploitation

into

capitalist

exploitation.

To

understand

its

march,

we

need

not

go

back

very

far.

Although

we

come

across

the

first

beginnings

of

capitalist

production

as

early

as

the

14th

or

15th

century,

sporadically,

in

certain

towns

of

the

Mediterranean,

the

capitalistic

era

dates

from

the

16th

century.

Wherever

it

appears,

the

abolition

of

serfdom

has

been

long

effected,

and

the

highest

development

of

the

middle

ages,

the

existence

of

sovereign

towns,has

been

long

on

the

wane.

In

the

history

of

primitive

accumulation,

all

revolutions

are

epoch-making

that

act

as

levers

for

the

capital

class

in

course

of

formation;

but,

above

all,those

moments

when

great

masses

of

men

are

suddenly

and

forcibly

torn

from

their

means

of

subsistence,

and

hurled

as

free

and

\"unattached\"

proletarians

on

the

labour-market.

The

expropriation

of

the

agricultural

producer,

of

the

peasant,

from

the

soil,

is

the

basis

of

the

whole

process.

The

history

of

this

expropriation,in

different

countries,

assumes

different

aspects,

and

runs

through

its

various

phases

in

different

orders

of

succession,

and

at

different

periods.

In

England

alone,which

we

take

as

our

example,

has

it

the

classic

form.

1

NOTES:

1In

Italy,

where

capitalistic

production

developed

earliest,

the

dissolution

of

serfdom

also

took

place

earlier

than

elsewhere.

The

serf

was

emancipated

in

that

country

before

he

had

acquired

any

prescriptive

right

to

the

soil.

His

emancipation

at

once

transformed

him

into

a

free

proletarian,who,

moreover,

found

his

master

ready

waiting

for

him

in

the

towns,

for

the

most

part

handed

down

as

legacies

from

the

Roman

time.

When

the

revolution

of

the

world-market,about

the

end

of

the

15th

century,

annihilated

Northern

Italy's

commercial

supremacy,

a

movement

in

the

reverse

direction

set

in.

The

labourers

of

the

towns

were

driven

en

masse

into

the

country,

and

gave

an

impulse,

never

before

seen,

to

the

petite

culture,

carried

on

in

the

form

of

gardening.