資本論 CHAPTER 30:

REACTION

OF

THE

AGRICULTURAL

REVOLUTION

ON

INDUSTRY.

CREATION

OF

THE

HOME-MARKET

FOR

INDUSTRIAL

CAPITAL

The

expropriation

and

expulsion

of

the

agricultural

population,

intermittent

but

renewed

again

and

again,

supplied,

as

we

saw,

the

town

industries

with

a

mass

of

proletarians

entirely

unconnected

with

the

corporate

guilds

and

unfettered

by

them;

a

fortunate

circumstance

that

makes

old

A.

Anderson

(not

to

be

confounded

with

James

Anderson),

in

his

\"History

of

Commerce,\"

believe

in

the

direct

intervention

of

Providence.

We

must

still

pause

a

moment

on

this

element

of

primitive

accumulation.

The

thinning-out

of

the

independent,

self-supporting

peasants

not

only

brought

about

the

crowding

together

of

the

industrial

proletariat,

in

the

way

that

Geoffrey

Saint

Hilaire

explained

the

condensation

of

cosmical

matter

at

one

place,

by

its

rarefaction

at

another.1In

spite

of

the

smaller

number

of

its

cultivators,

the

soil

brought

forth

as

much

or

more

produce,

after

as

before,because

the

revolution

in

the

conditions

of

landed

property

was

accompanied

by

improved

methods

of

culture,

greater

co-operation,

concentration

of

the

means

of

production,

&c.,

and

because

not

only

were

the

agricultural

wage

labourers

put

on

the

strain

more

intensely2,

but

the

field

of

production

on

which

they

worked

for

themselves

became

more

and

more

contracted.

With

the

setting

free

of

a

part

of

the

agricultural

population,

therefore,

their

former

means

of

nourishment

were

also

set

free.

They

were

now

transformed

into

material

elements

of

variable

capital.The

peasant,

expropriated

and

cast

adrift,

must

buy

their

value

in

the

form

of

wages,

from

his

new

master,the

industrial

capitalist.

That

which

holds

good

of

the

means

of

subsistence

holds

with

the

raw

materials

of

industry

dependent

upon

home

agriculture.

They

were

transformed

into

an

element

of

constant

capital.Suppose,

e.g.,

a

part

of

the

Westphalian

peasants,who,

at

the

time

of

Frederick

II,

all

span

flax,

forcibly

expropriated

and

hunted

from

the

soil;

and

the

other

part

that

remained,

turned

into

day

labourers

of

large

farmers.

At

the

same

time

arise

large

establishments

for

flax-spinning

and

weaving,

in

which

the

men

\"set

free\"

now

work

for

wages.

The

flax

looks

exactly

as

before.

Not

a

fibre

of

it

is

changed,

but

a

new

social

soul

has

popped

into

its

body.

It

forms

now

a

part

of

the

constant

capital

of

the

master

manufacturer.Formerly

divided

among

a

number

of

small

producers,who

cultivated

it

themselves

and

with

their

families

spun

it

in

retail

fashion,

it

is

now

concentrated

in

the

hand

of

one

capitalist,

who

sets

others

to

spin

and

weave

it

for

him.

The

extra

labour

expended

in

flax

spinning

realised

itself

formerly

in

extra

income

to

numerous

peasant

families,

or

maybe,

in

Frederick

II's

time,

in

taxes

pour

le

roi

de

Prusse.

It

realises

itself

now

in

profit

for

a

few

capitalists.

The

spindles

and

looms,

formerly

scattered

over

the

face

of

the

country,

are

now

crowded

together

in

a

few

great

labour-barracks,

together

with

the

labourers

and

the

raw

material.

And

spindles,

looms,

raw

material,are

now

transformed

from

means

of

independent

existence

for

the

spinners

and

weavers,

into

means

for

commanding

them

and

sucking

out

of

them

unpaid

labour.3One

does

not

perceive,

when

looking

at

the

large

manufactories

and

the

large

farms,

that

they

have

originated

from

the

throwing

into

one

of

many

small

centres

of

production,

and

have

been

built

up

by

the

expropriation

of

many

small

independent

producers.Nevertheless,

the

popular

intuition

was

not

at

fault.In

the

time

of

Mirabeau,

the

lion

of

the

Revolution,the

great

manufactories

were

still

called

manufactures

réunies,

workshops

thrown

into

one,

as

we

speak

of

fields

thrown

into

one.

Says

Mirabeau:

\"We

are

only

paying

attention

to

the

grand

manufactories,

in

which

hundreds

of

men

work

under

a

director

and

which

are

commonly

called

manufactures

réunies.

Those

where

a

very

large

number

of

labourers

work,

each

separately

and

on

his

own

account,

are

hardly

considered;

they

are

placed

at

an

infinite

distance

from

the

others.

This

is

a

great

error,

as

the

latter

alone

make

a

really

important

object

of

national

prosperity....

The

large

workshop

(manufacture

réunie)

will

enrich

prodigiously

one

or

two

entrepreneurs,

but

the

labourers

will

only

be

journeymen,

paid

more

or

less,

and

will

not

have

any

share

in

the

success

of

the

undertaking.

In

the

discrete

workshop

(manufacture

separée),

on

the

contrary,

no

one

will

become

rich,

but

many

labourers

will

be

comfortable;

the

saving

and

the

industrious

will

be

able

to

amass

a

little

capital,

to

put

by

a

little

for

a

birth

of

a

child,

for

an

illness,

for

themselves

or

their

belongings.

The

number

of

saving

and

industrious

labourers

will

increase,

because

they

will

see

in

good

conduct,

in

activity,

a

means

of

essentially

bettering

their

condition,

and

not

of

obtaining

a

small

rise

in

wages

that

can

never

be

of

any

importance

of

the

future,

and

whose

sole

result

is

to

place

men

in

the

position

to

live

a

little

better,

but

only

from

day

to

day....

The

large

workshops,

undertakings

of

certain

private

persons

who

pay

labourers

from

day

to

day

to

work

for

their

gain,

may

be

able

to

put

these

private

individuals

at

their

ease,

but

they

will

never

be

an

object

worth

the

attention

of

governments.

Discrete

workshops,

for

the

most

part

combined

with

cultivation

of

small

holdings,

are

the

only

free

ones.\"4The

expropriation

and

eviction

of

a

part

of

the

agricultural

population

not

only

set

free

for

industrial

capital,

the

labourers,

their

means

of

subsistence,

and

material

for

labour;

it

also

created

the

home-market.

In

fact,

the

events

that

transformed

the

small

peasants

into

wage

labourers,

and

their

means

of

subsistence

and

of

labour

into

material

elements

of

capital,

created,

at

the

same

time,

a

home-market

for

the

latter.

Formerly,

the

peasant

family

produced

the

means

of

subsistence

and

the

raw

materials,

which

they

themselves,

for

the

most

part,

consumed.

These

raw

materials

and

means

of

subsistence

have

now

become

commodities;

the

large

farmer

sells

them,

he

finds

his

market

in

manufactures.

Yarn,

linen,

coarse

woollen

stuffs

–

things

whose

raw

materials

had

been

within

the

reach

of

every

peasant

family,

had

been

spun

and

woven

by

it

for

its

own

use

–

were

now

transformed

into

articles

of

manufacture,

to

which

the

country

districts

at

once

served

for

markets.

The

many

scattered

customers,

whom

stray

artisans

until

now

had

found

in

the

numerous

small

producers

working

on

their

own

account,

concentrate

themselves

now

into

one

great

market

provided

for

by

industrial

capital.5Thus,

hand

in

hand

with

the

expropriation

of

the

self

supporting

peasants,

with

their

separation

from

their

means

of

production,

goes

the

destruction

of

rural

domestic

industry,

the

process

of

separation

between

manufacture

and

agriculture.

And

only

the

destruction

of

rural

domestic

industry

can

give

the

internal

market

of

a

country

that

extension

and

consistence

which

the

capitalist

mode

of

production

requires.Still

the

manufacturing

period,

properly

so

called,does

not

succeed

in

carrying

out

this

transformation

radically

and

completely.

It

will

be

remembered

that

manufacture,

properly

so

called,

conquers

but

partially

the

domain

of

national

production,

and

always

rests

on

the

handicrafts

of

the

town

and

the

domestic

industry

of

the

rural

districts

as

its

ultimate

basis.

If

it

destroys

these

in

one

form,

in

particular

branches,

at

certain

points,

it

calls

them

up

again

elsewhere,

because

it

needs

them

for

the

preparation

of

raw

material

up

to

a

certain

point.

It

produces,

therefore,

a

new

class

of

small

villagers

who,

while

following

the

cultivation

of

the

soil

as

an

accessory

calling,

find

their

chief

occupation

in

industrial

labour,

the

products

of

which

they

sell

to

the

manufacturers

directly,

or

through

the

medium

of

merchants.

This

is

one,

though

not

the

chief,

cause

of

a

phenomenon

which,

at

first,

puzzles

the

student

of

English

history.6From

the

last

third

of

the

15th

century

he

finds

continually

complaints,

only

interrupted

at

certain

intervals,

about

the

encroachment

of

capitalist

farming

in

the

country

districts,

and

the

progressive

destruction

of

the

peasantry.

On

the

other

hand,

he

always

finds

this

peasantry

turning

up

again,although

in

diminished

number,

and

always

under

worse

conditions.

The

chief

reason

is:

England

is

at

one

time

chiefly

a

cultivator

of

corn,

at

another

chiefly

a

breeder

of

cattle,

in

alternate

periods,

and

with

these

the

extent

of

peasant

cultivation

fluctuates.

Modern

Industry

alone,

and

finally,

supplies,

in

machinery,

the

lasting

basis

of

capitalistic

agriculture,

expropriates

radically

the

enormous

majority

of

the

agricultural

population,

and

completes

the

separation

between

agriculture

and

rural

domestic

industry,

whose

roots

–spinning

and

weaving

–

it

tears

up.7It

therefore

also,for

the

first

time,

conquers

for

industrial

capital

the

entire

home

market.8

NOTES:

1In

his

\"Notions

de

Philosophie

Naturelle.\"

Paris,

1838.

2A

point

that

Sir

James

Steuart

emphasises.

3\"Je

permettrai,\"

says

the

capitalist,

\"que

vous

ayez

l'honneur

de

me

servir,

à

condition

que

vous

me

donnez

le

peu

qui

vous

reste

pour

la

peine

que

je

prends

de

vous

commander.\"[I

will

allow

you

...

to

have

the

honour

of

serving

me,

on

condition

that,

in

return

for

the

pains

I

take

in

commanding

you,

you

give

me

the

little

that

remains

to

you]

(J.

J.

Rousseau:\"Discours

sur

l'Economie

Politique.\")

4Mirabeau,

l.c.,

t.III,

pp.20-109

passim.

That

Mirabeau

considers

the

separate

workshops

more

economical

and

productive

than

the

\"combined,\"

and

sees

in

the

latter

merely

artificial

exotics

under

government

cultivation,

is

explained

by

the

position

at

that

time

of

a

great

part

of

the

continental

manufactures.

5\"Twenty

pounds

of

wool

converted

unobtrusively

into

yearly

clothing

of

a

labourer's

family

by

its

own

industry

in

the

intervals

of

other

works

—

this

makes

no

show;

but

bring

it

to

market,

send

it

to

the

factory,

thence

to

the

broker,

thence

to

the

dealer,

and

you

will

have

great

commercial

operations,and

nominal

capital

engaged

to

the

amount

of

twenty

times

its

value....

The

working-class

is

thus

emersed

to

support

a

wretched

factory

population,

a

parastical

shop-keeping

class,and

a

fictitious

commercial,

monetary,

and

financial

system.\"(David

Urquhart,

l.c.,

p.120.)

6Cromwell's

time

forms

an

exception.

So

long

as

the

Republic

lasted,

the

mass

of

the

English

people

of

all

grades

rose

from

the

degradation

into

which

they

had

sunk

under

the

Tudors.

7Tuckett

is

aware

that

the

modern

woollen

industry

has

sprung,

with

the

introduction

of

machinery,

from

manufacture

proper

and

from

the

destruction

of

rural

and

domestic

industries.

\"The

plough,

the

yoke,

were

'the

invention

of

gods,

and

the

occupation

of

heroes';

are

the

loom,

the

spindle,

the

distaff,of

less

noble

parentage.

You

sever

the

distaff

and

the

plough,the

spindle

and

the

yoke,

and

you

get

factories

and

poor

houses,

credit

and

panics,

two

hostile

nations,

agriculture

and

commercial.\"

(David

Urquhart,

l.c.,

p.122.)

But

now

comes

Carey,

and

cries

out

upon

England,

surely

not

with

unreason,

that

it

is

trying

to

turn

every

other

country

into

a

mere

agricultural

nation,

whose

manufacturer

is

to

be

England.

He

pretends

that

in

this

way

Turkey

has

been

ruined,

because

\"the

owners

and

occupants

of

land

have

never

been

permitted

by

England

to

strengthen

themselves

by

the

formation

of

that

natural

alliance

between

the

plough

and

the

loom,

the

hammer

and

the

harrow.\"

(\"The

Slave

Trade,\"p.125.)

According

to

him,

Urquhart

himself

is

one

of

the

chief

agents

in

the

ruin

of

Turkey,

where

he

had

made

Free-trade

propaganda

in

the

English

interest.

The

best

of

it

is

that

Carey,a

great

Russophile

by

the

way,

wants

to

prevent

the

process

of

separation

by

that

very

system

of

protection

which

accelerates

it.

8Philanthropic

English

economists,

like

Mill,

Rogers,Goldwin

Smith,

Fawcett,

&c.,

and

liberal

manufacturers

like

John

Bright

&

Co.,

ask

the

English

landed

proprietors,

as

God

asked

Cain

after

Abel,

Where

are

our

thousands

of

freeholders

gone

But

where

do

you

come

from,

then

From

the

destruction

of

those

freeholders.

Why

don't

you

ask

further,

where

are

the

independent

weavers,

spinners,

and

artisans

gone